Pharmacology

Almost half of adult patients with eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) reported poor adherence to long-term medical and dietary therapy, with age younger than 40 years and low necessity beliefs being the strongest predictors, a new study finds.

Clinicians need to spend more time discussing the need for EoE therapy with their patients, especially if they are younger, according to lead author Maria L. Haasnoot, MD, of Amsterdam University Medical Center (UMC), the Netherlands, and colleagues.

“Chronic treatment is necessary to maintain suppression of the inflammation and prevent negative outcomes in the long-term,” they write.

Until the recent approval of dupilumab (Dupixent) by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, patients with EoE relied upon off-label options, including proton pump inhibitors and swallowed topical steroids, as well as dietary interventions for ongoing suppression of inflammation. But only about 1 in 6 patients achieve complete remission at 5 years, according to Dr. Haasnoot and colleagues.

“It is uncertain to what degree limited adherence to treatment [plays] a role in the limited long-term effects of treatment,” they write.

The findings were published online in American Journal of Gastroenterology.
 

Addressing a knowledge gap

The cross-sectional study involved 177 adult patients with EoE treated at Amsterdam UMC, who were prescribed dietary or medical maintenance therapy. Of note, some patients were treated with budesonide, which is approved for EoE in Europe but not in the United States.

Median participant age was 43 years, with a male-skewed distribution (71% men). Patients had been on EoE treatment for 2-6 years. Most (76%) were on medical treatments. Nearly half were on diets that avoided one to five food groups, with some on both medical treatments and elimination diets.

Using a link sent by mail, participants completed the online Medication Adherence Rating Scale, along with several other questionnaires, such as the Beliefs about Medicine Questionnaire, to measure secondary outcomes, including a patient’s view of how necessary or disruptive maintenance therapy is in their life.

The overall prevalence of poor adherence to therapy was high (41.8%), including a nonsignificant difference in adherence between medical and dietary therapies.

“It might come as a surprise that dietary-treated patients are certainly not less adherent to treatment than medically treated patients,” the authors write, noting that the opposite is usually true.

Multivariate logistic regression showed that patients younger than 40 years were more than twice as likely to be poorly adherent (odds ratio, 2.571; 95% confidence interval, 1.195-5.532). Those with low necessity beliefs were more than four times as likely to be poorly adherent (OR, 4.423; 95% CI, 2.169-9.016). Other factors linked to poor adherence were patients with longer disease duration and more severe symptoms.

“Clinicians should pay more attention to treatment adherence, particularly in younger patients,” the authors conclude. “The necessity of treatment should be actively discussed, and efforts should be done to take doubts away, as this may improve treatment adherence and subsequently may improve treatment effects and long-term outcomes.”
 

More patient education needed

According to Jennifer L. Horsley-Silva, MD, of Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, Ariz., “This study is important, as it is one of the first studies to investigate the rate of treatment adherence in EoE patients and attempts to identify factors associated with adherence both in medically and dietary treated patients.”

Dr. Horsley-Silva commented that the findings align with recent research she and her colleagues conducted at the Mayo Clinic, where few patients successfully completed a six-food elimination diet, even when paired with a dietitian. As with the present study, success trended lower among younger adults. “These findings highlight the need for physicians treating EoE to motivate all patients, but especially younger patients, by discussing disease pathophysiology and explaining the reason for maintenance treatment early on,” Dr. Horsley-Silva said.

Conversations should also address the discordance between symptoms and histologic disease, patient doubts and concerns, and other barriers to adherence, she noted.

“Shared decisionmaking is of utmost importance when deciding upon a maintenance treatment strategy and should be readdressed continually,” she added.

Gary W. Falk, MD, of Penn Medicine, Philadelphia, said that patients with EoE may be poorly adherent because therapies tend to be complicated and people often forget to take their medications, especially when their symptoms improve, even though this is a poor indicator of underlying disease. The discordance between symptoms and histology is “not commonly appreciated by the EoE GI community,” he noted.

Patients may benefit from knowing that untreated or undertreated EoE increases the risk for strictures and stenoses, need for dilation, and frequency of food bolus impactions, Dr. Falk said.

“The other thing we know is that once someone is induced into remission, and they stay on therapy ... long-term remission can be maintained,” he added.
 

The impact of Dupilumab

John Leung, MD, of Boston Food Allergy Center, also cited the complexities of EoE therapies as reason for poor adherence, though he believes this paradigm will shift now that dupilumab has been approved. Dupilumab injections are “just once a week, so it’s much easier in terms of frequency,” Dr. Leung said. “I would expect that the compliance [for dupilumab] will be better” than for older therapies.

Dr. Leung, who helped conduct the dupilumab clinical trials contributing to its approval for EoE and receives speaking honoraria from manufacturer Regeneron/Sanofi, said that dupilumab also overcomes the challenges with elimination diets while offering relief for concomitant conditions, such as “asthma, eczema, food allergies, and seasonal allergies.”

But Dr. Falk, who also worked on the dupilumab clinical trials, said the situation is “not straightforward,” even with FDA approval.

“There are going to be significant costs with [prescribing dupilumab], because it’s a biologic,” Dr. Falk said.

Dr. Falk also pointed out that prior authorization will be required, and until more studies can be conducted, the true impact of once-weekly dosing versus daily dosing remains unknown.

“I would say [dupilumab] has the potential to improve adherence, but we need to see if that’s going to be the case or not,” Dr. Falk said.

The authors disclosed relationships with Dr. Falk Pharma, AstraZeneca, and Sanofi/Regeneron (the manufacturers of Dupixent [dupilumab]), among others. Dr. Horsley-Silva, Dr. Falk, and Dr. Leung conducted clinical trials for dupilumab on behalf of Sanofi/Regeneron, with Dr. Leung also disclosing speaking honoraria from Sanofi/Regeneron. Dr. Horsley-Silva has acted as a clinical trial site principal investigator for Allakos and Celgene/Bristol-Myers Squibb.

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

Almost half of adult patients with eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) reported poor adherence to long-term medical and dietary therapy, with age younger than 40 years and low necessity beliefs being the strongest predictors, a new study finds.

Clinicians need to spend more time discussing the need for EoE therapy with their patients, especially if they are younger, according to lead author Maria L. Haasnoot, MD, of Amsterdam University Medical Center (UMC), the Netherlands, and colleagues.

“Chronic treatment is necessary to maintain suppression of the inflammation and prevent negative outcomes in the long-term,” they write.

Until the recent approval of dupilumab (Dupixent) by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, patients with EoE relied upon off-label options, including proton pump inhibitors and swallowed topical steroids, as well as dietary interventions for ongoing suppression of inflammation. But only about 1 in 6 patients achieve complete remission at 5 years, according to Dr. Haasnoot and colleagues.

“It is uncertain to what degree limited adherence to treatment [plays] a role in the limited long-term effects of treatment,” they write.

The findings were published online in American Journal of Gastroenterology.
 

Addressing a knowledge gap

The cross-sectional study involved 177 adult patients with EoE treated at Amsterdam UMC, who were prescribed dietary or medical maintenance therapy. Of note, some patients were treated with budesonide, which is approved for EoE in Europe but not in the United States.

Median participant age was 43 years, with a male-skewed distribution (71% men). Patients had been on EoE treatment for 2-6 years. Most (76%) were on medical treatments. Nearly half were on diets that avoided one to five food groups, with some on both medical treatments and elimination diets.

Using a link sent by mail, participants completed the online Medication Adherence Rating Scale, along with several other questionnaires, such as the Beliefs about Medicine Questionnaire, to measure secondary outcomes, including a patient’s view of how necessary or disruptive maintenance therapy is in their life.

The overall prevalence of poor adherence to therapy was high (41.8%), including a nonsignificant difference in adherence between medical and dietary therapies.

“It might come as a surprise that dietary-treated patients are certainly not less adherent to treatment than medically treated patients,” the authors write, noting that the opposite is usually true.

Multivariate logistic regression showed that patients younger than 40 years were more than twice as likely to be poorly adherent (odds ratio, 2.571; 95% confidence interval, 1.195-5.532). Those with low necessity beliefs were more than four times as likely to be poorly adherent (OR, 4.423; 95% CI, 2.169-9.016). Other factors linked to poor adherence were patients with longer disease duration and more severe symptoms.

“Clinicians should pay more attention to treatment adherence, particularly in younger patients,” the authors conclude. “The necessity of treatment should be actively discussed, and efforts should be done to take doubts away, as this may improve treatment adherence and subsequently may improve treatment effects and long-term outcomes.”
 

More patient education needed

According to Jennifer L. Horsley-Silva, MD, of Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, Ariz., “This study is important, as it is one of the first studies to investigate the rate of treatment adherence in EoE patients and attempts to identify factors associated with adherence both in medically and dietary treated patients.”

Dr. Horsley-Silva commented that the findings align with recent research she and her colleagues conducted at the Mayo Clinic, where few patients successfully completed a six-food elimination diet, even when paired with a dietitian. As with the present study, success trended lower among younger adults. “These findings highlight the need for physicians treating EoE to motivate all patients, but especially younger patients, by discussing disease pathophysiology and explaining the reason for maintenance treatment early on,” Dr. Horsley-Silva said.

Conversations should also address the discordance between symptoms and histologic disease, patient doubts and concerns, and other barriers to adherence, she noted.

“Shared decisionmaking is of utmost importance when deciding upon a maintenance treatment strategy and should be readdressed continually,” she added.

Gary W. Falk, MD, of Penn Medicine, Philadelphia, said that patients with EoE may be poorly adherent because therapies tend to be complicated and people often forget to take their medications, especially when their symptoms improve, even though this is a poor indicator of underlying disease. The discordance between symptoms and histology is “not commonly appreciated by the EoE GI community,” he noted.

Patients may benefit from knowing that untreated or undertreated EoE increases the risk for strictures and stenoses, need for dilation, and frequency of food bolus impactions, Dr. Falk said.

“The other thing we know is that once someone is induced into remission, and they stay on therapy ... long-term remission can be maintained,” he added.
 

The impact of Dupilumab

John Leung, MD, of Boston Food Allergy Center, also cited the complexities of EoE therapies as reason for poor adherence, though he believes this paradigm will shift now that dupilumab has been approved. Dupilumab injections are “just once a week, so it’s much easier in terms of frequency,” Dr. Leung said. “I would expect that the compliance [for dupilumab] will be better” than for older therapies.

Dr. Leung, who helped conduct the dupilumab clinical trials contributing to its approval for EoE and receives speaking honoraria from manufacturer Regeneron/Sanofi, said that dupilumab also overcomes the challenges with elimination diets while offering relief for concomitant conditions, such as “asthma, eczema, food allergies, and seasonal allergies.”

But Dr. Falk, who also worked on the dupilumab clinical trials, said the situation is “not straightforward,” even with FDA approval.

“There are going to be significant costs with [prescribing dupilumab], because it’s a biologic,” Dr. Falk said.

Dr. Falk also pointed out that prior authorization will be required, and until more studies can be conducted, the true impact of once-weekly dosing versus daily dosing remains unknown.

“I would say [dupilumab] has the potential to improve adherence, but we need to see if that’s going to be the case or not,” Dr. Falk said.

The authors disclosed relationships with Dr. Falk Pharma, AstraZeneca, and Sanofi/Regeneron (the manufacturers of Dupixent [dupilumab]), among others. Dr. Horsley-Silva, Dr. Falk, and Dr. Leung conducted clinical trials for dupilumab on behalf of Sanofi/Regeneron, with Dr. Leung also disclosing speaking honoraria from Sanofi/Regeneron. Dr. Horsley-Silva has acted as a clinical trial site principal investigator for Allakos and Celgene/Bristol-Myers Squibb.

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

Almost half of adult patients with eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) reported poor adherence to long-term medical and dietary therapy, with age younger than 40 years and low necessity beliefs being the strongest predictors, a new study finds.

Clinicians need to spend more time discussing the need for EoE therapy with their patients, especially if they are younger, according to lead author Maria L. Haasnoot, MD, of Amsterdam University Medical Center (UMC), the Netherlands, and colleagues.

“Chronic treatment is necessary to maintain suppression of the inflammation and prevent negative outcomes in the long-term,” they write.

Until the recent approval of dupilumab (Dupixent) by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, patients with EoE relied upon off-label options, including proton pump inhibitors and swallowed topical steroids, as well as dietary interventions for ongoing suppression of inflammation. But only about 1 in 6 patients achieve complete remission at 5 years, according to Dr. Haasnoot and colleagues.

“It is uncertain to what degree limited adherence to treatment [plays] a role in the limited long-term effects of treatment,” they write.

The findings were published online in American Journal of Gastroenterology.
 

Addressing a knowledge gap

The cross-sectional study involved 177 adult patients with EoE treated at Amsterdam UMC, who were prescribed dietary or medical maintenance therapy. Of note, some patients were treated with budesonide, which is approved for EoE in Europe but not in the United States.

Median participant age was 43 years, with a male-skewed distribution (71% men). Patients had been on EoE treatment for 2-6 years. Most (76%) were on medical treatments. Nearly half were on diets that avoided one to five food groups, with some on both medical treatments and elimination diets.

Using a link sent by mail, participants completed the online Medication Adherence Rating Scale, along with several other questionnaires, such as the Beliefs about Medicine Questionnaire, to measure secondary outcomes, including a patient’s view of how necessary or disruptive maintenance therapy is in their life.

The overall prevalence of poor adherence to therapy was high (41.8%), including a nonsignificant difference in adherence between medical and dietary therapies.

“It might come as a surprise that dietary-treated patients are certainly not less adherent to treatment than medically treated patients,” the authors write, noting that the opposite is usually true.

Multivariate logistic regression showed that patients younger than 40 years were more than twice as likely to be poorly adherent (odds ratio, 2.571; 95% confidence interval, 1.195-5.532). Those with low necessity beliefs were more than four times as likely to be poorly adherent (OR, 4.423; 95% CI, 2.169-9.016). Other factors linked to poor adherence were patients with longer disease duration and more severe symptoms.

“Clinicians should pay more attention to treatment adherence, particularly in younger patients,” the authors conclude. “The necessity of treatment should be actively discussed, and efforts should be done to take doubts away, as this may improve treatment adherence and subsequently may improve treatment effects and long-term outcomes.”
 

More patient education needed

According to Jennifer L. Horsley-Silva, MD, of Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, Ariz., “This study is important, as it is one of the first studies to investigate the rate of treatment adherence in EoE patients and attempts to identify factors associated with adherence both in medically and dietary treated patients.”

Dr. Horsley-Silva commented that the findings align with recent research she and her colleagues conducted at the Mayo Clinic, where few patients successfully completed a six-food elimination diet, even when paired with a dietitian. As with the present study, success trended lower among younger adults. “These findings highlight the need for physicians treating EoE to motivate all patients, but especially younger patients, by discussing disease pathophysiology and explaining the reason for maintenance treatment early on,” Dr. Horsley-Silva said.

Conversations should also address the discordance between symptoms and histologic disease, patient doubts and concerns, and other barriers to adherence, she noted.

“Shared decisionmaking is of utmost importance when deciding upon a maintenance treatment strategy and should be readdressed continually,” she added.

Gary W. Falk, MD, of Penn Medicine, Philadelphia, said that patients with EoE may be poorly adherent because therapies tend to be complicated and people often forget to take their medications, especially when their symptoms improve, even though this is a poor indicator of underlying disease. The discordance between symptoms and histology is “not commonly appreciated by the EoE GI community,” he noted.

Patients may benefit from knowing that untreated or undertreated EoE increases the risk for strictures and stenoses, need for dilation, and frequency of food bolus impactions, Dr. Falk said.

“The other thing we know is that once someone is induced into remission, and they stay on therapy ... long-term remission can be maintained,” he added.
 

The impact of Dupilumab

John Leung, MD, of Boston Food Allergy Center, also cited the complexities of EoE therapies as reason for poor adherence, though he believes this paradigm will shift now that dupilumab has been approved. Dupilumab injections are “just once a week, so it’s much easier in terms of frequency,” Dr. Leung said. “I would expect that the compliance [for dupilumab] will be better” than for older therapies.

Dr. Leung, who helped conduct the dupilumab clinical trials contributing to its approval for EoE and receives speaking honoraria from manufacturer Regeneron/Sanofi, said that dupilumab also overcomes the challenges with elimination diets while offering relief for concomitant conditions, such as “asthma, eczema, food allergies, and seasonal allergies.”

But Dr. Falk, who also worked on the dupilumab clinical trials, said the situation is “not straightforward,” even with FDA approval.

“There are going to be significant costs with [prescribing dupilumab], because it’s a biologic,” Dr. Falk said.

Dr. Falk also pointed out that prior authorization will be required, and until more studies can be conducted, the true impact of once-weekly dosing versus daily dosing remains unknown.

“I would say [dupilumab] has the potential to improve adherence, but we need to see if that’s going to be the case or not,” Dr. Falk said.

The authors disclosed relationships with Dr. Falk Pharma, AstraZeneca, and Sanofi/Regeneron (the manufacturers of Dupixent [dupilumab]), among others. Dr. Horsley-Silva, Dr. Falk, and Dr. Leung conducted clinical trials for dupilumab on behalf of Sanofi/Regeneron, with Dr. Leung also disclosing speaking honoraria from Sanofi/Regeneron. Dr. Horsley-Silva has acted as a clinical trial site principal investigator for Allakos and Celgene/Bristol-Myers Squibb.

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

When Amy Moser had a simple urinary tract infection in her late 20s, her doctor prescribed Cipro, a powerful antibiotic used to treat anthrax and some of the most fearsome bacterial infections.

Nearly 2 weeks after she finished her treatment, her left kneecap dislocated while she was trying on a swimsuit at a retail store. Shortly afterward, she had painful ligament ruptures in her wrists, then her shoulder dislocated, followed by three Achilles tendon tears.

“That’s when I fell apart,” says Ms. Moser, a Phoenix health blogger and book author. “From that moment on, for almost the next 2.5 years consistently, I had new tendon tears every few weeks.”

Ms. Moser’s doctors had no answer for what was causing her injuries, all of which required surgical fixes. A married mother of three, she was otherwise healthy and fit. So, after her third Achilles tear, she turned to the FDA’s website for answers. There, she found many warnings about side effects of Cipro, Levaquin, and other so-called fluoroquinolones, including risks for tendon and ligament injuries.

“When all the ruptures started to happen, my doctor kept asking me if I’d ever taken Levaquin, and every time I was like, ‘No.’ So I did what all doctors don’t want you to do: I Googled ‘Levaquin,’ ” she recalls.

Her search led to FDA warnings and articles about the possibility of tendon and ligament ruptures with fluroquinolones.

“That was the first time I’d ever even heard that word ‘fluroquinolones,’ and I found Cipro on that list ... and I realized that I’d just been prescribed that before everything started,” she says.

That was 12 years ago. Since then, the FDA has issued more warnings about fluoroquinolone risks. In that time, Ms. Moser, now 40, has had more than 30 surgeries to correct tendon ruptures and injuries, including a double-knee replacement this year.

“I am in chronic pain all the time,” she says. “I am chronically injured. I have a lot of tears that I’ve not fixed because they’re very complicated, and I don’t know if the rest of my body can handle the strain of recovering from those surgeries.”

Ms. Moser’s is hardly an isolated case. Since the 1980s, more than 60,000 patients have reported hundreds of thousands of serious events linked to fluoroquinolones to the FDA, including 6,575 reports of deaths.

The most common side effects were tendon rupture, as well as neurological and psychiatric symptoms. But experts estimate only 1%-10% of such events are reported to the FDA. That suggests that fluoroquinolones might have harmed hundreds of thousands of people in the United States alone, says Charles Bennett, MD, a hematologist at the University of South Carolina’s College of Pharmacy, Columbia.

Yet despite the many patient reports and FDA warnings on dangerous side effects, many doctors continue to wrongly prescribe fluoroquinolones for simple urinary tract infections, sinus infections, and respiratory issues better treated with less risky antibiotics.

“There probably is overprescription by primary care doctors for urinary tract infections and respiratory infections, when there could be alternatives that are safer to use,” says Amesh Adalja, MD, an infectious disease specialist and senior scholar with the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security.

“I would say that’s probably the case in the outpatient setting, not necessarily in the hospital setting or among infectious disease doctors ... but I think it’s important to say there are still some judicious uses of fluoroquinolones,” he says. “However, there probably is a lot of injudicious use of fluoroquinolones along with many other antibiotics in the primary care setting.”
 

FDA warnings on fluoroquinolones

Fluoroquinolones are a class of broad-spectrum antibiotics used for decades to treat certain bacterial infections.

FDA-approved fluoroquinolones include ciprofloxacin (Cipro), ciprofloxacin extended-release tablets, delafloxacin (Baxdela), gemifloxacin (Factive) levofloxacin (Levaquin), moxifloxacin (Avelox), and ofloxacin (Floxin). More than 60 generic versions of these brand-name medicines are also on the market, making them among the most prescribed antibiotics in the U.S.

Over the past 2 decades, a wide range of physical and mental health side effects have been tied to fluoroquinolones. As a result of these “adverse event reports” and research published in medical literature, the FDA has required an escalating series of warnings and safety labeling changes for doctors who prescribe these drugs.

• In 2008, the FDA first added a “black box” warning to fluoroquinolones, citing an increased risk of tendinitis and tendon rupture in patients prescribed these meds.
• In 2011, the agency required the warning label to include risks of worsening symptoms for those with myasthenia gravis, a chronic autoimmune disease that causes muscle weakness, vision problems, and speech problems.
• In 2013, regulators required updated labels noting the potential for irreversible peripheral neuropathy (serious nerve damage).
• In 2016, the FDA issued its strongest warning against the use of such antibiotics for simple bacterial infections – such as uncomplicated urinary tract infections (UTIs), acute sinusitis, and acute bronchitis – saying the “association of fluoroquinolones with disabling and potentially permanent side effects involving tendons, muscles, joints, nerves and the central nervous system ... outweighs the benefits for patients.”
• And in 2018, regulators required safety labeling changes to include warnings about the risks of aortic aneurysm – a life-threatening enlargement of the main vessel that delivers blood to the body – as well as mental health side effects and serious blood sugar disturbances.

But FDA regulators have stopped short of barring fluoroquinolone use in the treatment of bacterial infections, citing the benefits for certain conditions.

“For some patients, the benefits of fluoroquinolones may continue to outweigh the risks for treatment of serious bacterial infections, such as pneumonia or intra-abdominal infections,” said former FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb, MD, “but there are other serious, known risks associated with these strong antibiotics that must be carefully weighed when considering their use.”

In December 2021, a study published in the journal JAMA Network Open found the FDA’s warnings may have helped lower prescribing of the drugs in Medicare patients. But not all doctors have been responsive to those warnings, researchers found.

“An overall decline in change over time and an immediate change in fluoroquinolone prescribing was observed after the 2016 FDA warning,” the authors concluded. “Certain physicians, such as primary care physicians, were more responsive to FDA warnings than others. ... Findings of this study suggest that identifying the association of physician and organizational characteristics with fluoroquinolone prescribing practices could help in developing mechanisms for improving de-adoption.”

Some critics say the FDA should do more to spotlight the dangers of fluoroquinolones and require doctors and patients to sign checklist consent forms to show they are aware of the potential side effects of these drugs.

Rachel Brummert, a patient advocate who sits on an FDA consumer advisory board, believes the FDA needs to improve its communication to doctors on fluoroquinolone risks and get tougher with those who continue to inappropriately prescribe the drugs.

“I think there needs to be a system in place, where if something comes down from the FDA about a drug, the physician has to sign off on it, the patient has to sign off on it and mark that they understand that there are these ‘black box’ warnings,” says Ms. Brummert, 52, a representative on the FDA’s Medical Devices Advisory Committee.

As an example, she points to Australia’s medical laws requiring doctors and patients to sign a checklist before any fluoroquinolone prescription is approved.

“When a physician prescribes a fluoroquinolone antibiotic, there’s a checklist – does the patient have an infection, is it a simple infection, do they have allergies?” she notes. “And you can’t even get the prescription out – it won’t even print out, it won’t go into the system – unless you check all of the boxes. But we don’t do that here. We don’t have that type of system right now.”

Ms. Brummert says such a system might have prevented the harm from taking Levaquin her doctor prescribed for a suspected sinus infection in 2006.

Soon after she began taking the antibiotic, she ruptured her Achilles tendon, requiring surgery. By 2009, she’d had three ruptures, each needing surgical fixes. To date, she’s had more than 30 surgeries to correct tendon ruptures. She’s also had seizures, blood pressure issues, depression, chronic pain, and memory problems she attributes to taking Levaquin.

As it turns out, her doctor misdiagnosed her condition – a misstep that would have been averted with a system like Australia’s, which requires doctors to verify the presence of a bacterial infection through a simple test before prescribing a fluoroquinolone.

“When I got the Levaquin, it was for a suspected sinus infection that it turned out I didn’t even have in the first place,” she notes. “So, I took the Levaquin basically for nothing. But what I would have asked my doctor had I known is: ‘Why should I take something so strong for so simple an infection?’

“It seems common sense to me now that you don’t prescribe something that can kill anthrax for a simple sinus infection. It’s like an atom bomb killing a mosquito. I agree that there are uses for these drugs, but they are being overprescribed. And so, here I am 16 years later – I’m still rupturing, I’m still having surgery, and I’m still in pain – all for something I didn’t even need medicine for in the first place.”
 

Should guidelines be stronger?

So, why are so many doctors continuing to prescribe fluoroquinolones for simple infections? Dr. Adalja and other experts say several things are at work.

For one thing, Dr. Adalja notes, fluoroquinolones are broad-spectrum antibiotics that are effective against dangerous germs, including “gram-negative” bacterial infections, and are “100% bioavailable.” That means they are as effective when given in pill form as they are if put directly into a vein. So they can be used in an outpatient setting or to allow a patient to be discharged from a hospital sooner because they don’t need an IV to receive treatment.

“There are still some uses for these drugs because they are so bioavailable, and I think that drives some of the use, and those are legitimate uses, knowing that there are risks when you do it,” he says. “But no drug is without risks, and you have to weigh risks and benefits – that’s what medicine is about: deciding what the best drug is for a patient.”

But Dr. Adalja says the overprescription of fluoroquinolones is part of the larger trend of antibiotic overuse. That is driving up antibiotic resistance, which in turn is another thing leading doctors to turn to Cipro and other fluoroquinolones after other drugs have proven ineffective.

“You can’t separate this from the fact that 80% of antibiotic prescriptions in the outpatient setting are probably illegitimate or not warranted,” he notes. “And because fluoroquinolones are highly effective drugs against certain pathogens, they are the go-to [drug] for many people who are prescribing antibiotics.”

That’s why patients should be wary whenever a doctor prescribes a fluoroquinolone, or any drug to treat a suspected infection, he says.

“Any time a patient is getting prescribed an antibiotic by a physician, they should ask: ‘Do I really need this antibiotic?’ That should be the first question they ask,” he advises. “And if they’re getting a fluoroquinolone, they may want to ask: ‘Is this the best antibiotic for me?’ ”
 

What you can do

Ms. Brummert and Ms. Moser say they are sharing their stories to raise awareness of the dangers of fluoroquinolones.

Ms. Moser has published a book on her experiences, “The Magnificent Story of a Lame Author,” and provides a wealth of consumer resources on her blog: Mountains and Mustard Seeds.

“As much as I hate what has happened to me, it has put me in a place where I am glad that I can inform other patients,” she says.

Ms. Brummert supplements her advocacy work as an FDA adviser with useful materials she provides on her website: Drugwatch.com.

“Pain into purpose – that’s what I call it,” she says. “I can’t change what happened to me, but I can warn others.”

The upshot for patients?

• the FDA’s Drug Safety Communication on Fluoroquinolones online to learn more about the risks and benefits of these powerful antibiotics.
• If you believe you’ve been harmed by fluoroquinolones, MedWatch website to report your experiences.

Ms. Brummert also advises patients to ask 12 critical questions of any doctor who wants to prescribe a fluoroquinolone, including the following listed on her website:

• For what condition is this medication prescribed, and is there another drug specific to my condition?
• What are the risks associated with this medication, and do the benefits outweigh them?
• Will this medication interact with my other drugs and/or other health conditions?
• What are the “boxed” warnings for this medication, and where can I report adverse events?

“I would also do my own research,” she says. “I wouldn’t just take a prescription from a physician and just say, ‘OK, doctor knows best.’ ”

Ms. Moser agrees that you have to be your own patient advocate and not simply take a doctor’s advice on any medical issue without having a deeper conversation.

“I’ve had arguments with doctors who legitimately did not believe me when I told them what happened to me,” she says. “And I actually told them, ‘Go get your Physicians’ Desk Reference [for prescription drugs]’ and they opened the book in front of me and read the warnings. Obviously, they had not been keeping up with the added warnings. So, I do think that doctors do need to be better informed.”

“So, yes, it’s the FDA’s responsibility, but it is also the doctors’ responsibility to make sure that they’re watching out for the side effects and they’re reporting them when their patients come up with them and making those connections.”

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

When Amy Moser had a simple urinary tract infection in her late 20s, her doctor prescribed Cipro, a powerful antibiotic used to treat anthrax and some of the most fearsome bacterial infections.

Nearly 2 weeks after she finished her treatment, her left kneecap dislocated while she was trying on a swimsuit at a retail store. Shortly afterward, she had painful ligament ruptures in her wrists, then her shoulder dislocated, followed by three Achilles tendon tears.

“That’s when I fell apart,” says Ms. Moser, a Phoenix health blogger and book author. “From that moment on, for almost the next 2.5 years consistently, I had new tendon tears every few weeks.”

Ms. Moser’s doctors had no answer for what was causing her injuries, all of which required surgical fixes. A married mother of three, she was otherwise healthy and fit. So, after her third Achilles tear, she turned to the FDA’s website for answers. There, she found many warnings about side effects of Cipro, Levaquin, and other so-called fluoroquinolones, including risks for tendon and ligament injuries.

“When all the ruptures started to happen, my doctor kept asking me if I’d ever taken Levaquin, and every time I was like, ‘No.’ So I did what all doctors don’t want you to do: I Googled ‘Levaquin,’ ” she recalls.

Her search led to FDA warnings and articles about the possibility of tendon and ligament ruptures with fluroquinolones.

“That was the first time I’d ever even heard that word ‘fluroquinolones,’ and I found Cipro on that list ... and I realized that I’d just been prescribed that before everything started,” she says.

That was 12 years ago. Since then, the FDA has issued more warnings about fluoroquinolone risks. In that time, Ms. Moser, now 40, has had more than 30 surgeries to correct tendon ruptures and injuries, including a double-knee replacement this year.

“I am in chronic pain all the time,” she says. “I am chronically injured. I have a lot of tears that I’ve not fixed because they’re very complicated, and I don’t know if the rest of my body can handle the strain of recovering from those surgeries.”

Ms. Moser’s is hardly an isolated case. Since the 1980s, more than 60,000 patients have reported hundreds of thousands of serious events linked to fluoroquinolones to the FDA, including 6,575 reports of deaths.

The most common side effects were tendon rupture, as well as neurological and psychiatric symptoms. But experts estimate only 1%-10% of such events are reported to the FDA. That suggests that fluoroquinolones might have harmed hundreds of thousands of people in the United States alone, says Charles Bennett, MD, a hematologist at the University of South Carolina’s College of Pharmacy, Columbia.

Yet despite the many patient reports and FDA warnings on dangerous side effects, many doctors continue to wrongly prescribe fluoroquinolones for simple urinary tract infections, sinus infections, and respiratory issues better treated with less risky antibiotics.

“There probably is overprescription by primary care doctors for urinary tract infections and respiratory infections, when there could be alternatives that are safer to use,” says Amesh Adalja, MD, an infectious disease specialist and senior scholar with the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security.

“I would say that’s probably the case in the outpatient setting, not necessarily in the hospital setting or among infectious disease doctors ... but I think it’s important to say there are still some judicious uses of fluoroquinolones,” he says. “However, there probably is a lot of injudicious use of fluoroquinolones along with many other antibiotics in the primary care setting.”
 

FDA warnings on fluoroquinolones

Fluoroquinolones are a class of broad-spectrum antibiotics used for decades to treat certain bacterial infections.

FDA-approved fluoroquinolones include ciprofloxacin (Cipro), ciprofloxacin extended-release tablets, delafloxacin (Baxdela), gemifloxacin (Factive) levofloxacin (Levaquin), moxifloxacin (Avelox), and ofloxacin (Floxin). More than 60 generic versions of these brand-name medicines are also on the market, making them among the most prescribed antibiotics in the U.S.

Over the past 2 decades, a wide range of physical and mental health side effects have been tied to fluoroquinolones. As a result of these “adverse event reports” and research published in medical literature, the FDA has required an escalating series of warnings and safety labeling changes for doctors who prescribe these drugs.

• In 2008, the FDA first added a “black box” warning to fluoroquinolones, citing an increased risk of tendinitis and tendon rupture in patients prescribed these meds.
• In 2011, the agency required the warning label to include risks of worsening symptoms for those with myasthenia gravis, a chronic autoimmune disease that causes muscle weakness, vision problems, and speech problems.
• In 2013, regulators required updated labels noting the potential for irreversible peripheral neuropathy (serious nerve damage).
• In 2016, the FDA issued its strongest warning against the use of such antibiotics for simple bacterial infections – such as uncomplicated urinary tract infections (UTIs), acute sinusitis, and acute bronchitis – saying the “association of fluoroquinolones with disabling and potentially permanent side effects involving tendons, muscles, joints, nerves and the central nervous system ... outweighs the benefits for patients.”
• And in 2018, regulators required safety labeling changes to include warnings about the risks of aortic aneurysm – a life-threatening enlargement of the main vessel that delivers blood to the body – as well as mental health side effects and serious blood sugar disturbances.

But FDA regulators have stopped short of barring fluoroquinolone use in the treatment of bacterial infections, citing the benefits for certain conditions.

“For some patients, the benefits of fluoroquinolones may continue to outweigh the risks for treatment of serious bacterial infections, such as pneumonia or intra-abdominal infections,” said former FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb, MD, “but there are other serious, known risks associated with these strong antibiotics that must be carefully weighed when considering their use.”

In December 2021, a study published in the journal JAMA Network Open found the FDA’s warnings may have helped lower prescribing of the drugs in Medicare patients. But not all doctors have been responsive to those warnings, researchers found.

“An overall decline in change over time and an immediate change in fluoroquinolone prescribing was observed after the 2016 FDA warning,” the authors concluded. “Certain physicians, such as primary care physicians, were more responsive to FDA warnings than others. ... Findings of this study suggest that identifying the association of physician and organizational characteristics with fluoroquinolone prescribing practices could help in developing mechanisms for improving de-adoption.”

Some critics say the FDA should do more to spotlight the dangers of fluoroquinolones and require doctors and patients to sign checklist consent forms to show they are aware of the potential side effects of these drugs.

Rachel Brummert, a patient advocate who sits on an FDA consumer advisory board, believes the FDA needs to improve its communication to doctors on fluoroquinolone risks and get tougher with those who continue to inappropriately prescribe the drugs.

“I think there needs to be a system in place, where if something comes down from the FDA about a drug, the physician has to sign off on it, the patient has to sign off on it and mark that they understand that there are these ‘black box’ warnings,” says Ms. Brummert, 52, a representative on the FDA’s Medical Devices Advisory Committee.

As an example, she points to Australia’s medical laws requiring doctors and patients to sign a checklist before any fluoroquinolone prescription is approved.

“When a physician prescribes a fluoroquinolone antibiotic, there’s a checklist – does the patient have an infection, is it a simple infection, do they have allergies?” she notes. “And you can’t even get the prescription out – it won’t even print out, it won’t go into the system – unless you check all of the boxes. But we don’t do that here. We don’t have that type of system right now.”

Ms. Brummert says such a system might have prevented the harm from taking Levaquin her doctor prescribed for a suspected sinus infection in 2006.

Soon after she began taking the antibiotic, she ruptured her Achilles tendon, requiring surgery. By 2009, she’d had three ruptures, each needing surgical fixes. To date, she’s had more than 30 surgeries to correct tendon ruptures. She’s also had seizures, blood pressure issues, depression, chronic pain, and memory problems she attributes to taking Levaquin.

As it turns out, her doctor misdiagnosed her condition – a misstep that would have been averted with a system like Australia’s, which requires doctors to verify the presence of a bacterial infection through a simple test before prescribing a fluoroquinolone.

“When I got the Levaquin, it was for a suspected sinus infection that it turned out I didn’t even have in the first place,” she notes. “So, I took the Levaquin basically for nothing. But what I would have asked my doctor had I known is: ‘Why should I take something so strong for so simple an infection?’

“It seems common sense to me now that you don’t prescribe something that can kill anthrax for a simple sinus infection. It’s like an atom bomb killing a mosquito. I agree that there are uses for these drugs, but they are being overprescribed. And so, here I am 16 years later – I’m still rupturing, I’m still having surgery, and I’m still in pain – all for something I didn’t even need medicine for in the first place.”
 

Should guidelines be stronger?

So, why are so many doctors continuing to prescribe fluoroquinolones for simple infections? Dr. Adalja and other experts say several things are at work.

For one thing, Dr. Adalja notes, fluoroquinolones are broad-spectrum antibiotics that are effective against dangerous germs, including “gram-negative” bacterial infections, and are “100% bioavailable.” That means they are as effective when given in pill form as they are if put directly into a vein. So they can be used in an outpatient setting or to allow a patient to be discharged from a hospital sooner because they don’t need an IV to receive treatment.

“There are still some uses for these drugs because they are so bioavailable, and I think that drives some of the use, and those are legitimate uses, knowing that there are risks when you do it,” he says. “But no drug is without risks, and you have to weigh risks and benefits – that’s what medicine is about: deciding what the best drug is for a patient.”

But Dr. Adalja says the overprescription of fluoroquinolones is part of the larger trend of antibiotic overuse. That is driving up antibiotic resistance, which in turn is another thing leading doctors to turn to Cipro and other fluoroquinolones after other drugs have proven ineffective.

“You can’t separate this from the fact that 80% of antibiotic prescriptions in the outpatient setting are probably illegitimate or not warranted,” he notes. “And because fluoroquinolones are highly effective drugs against certain pathogens, they are the go-to [drug] for many people who are prescribing antibiotics.”

That’s why patients should be wary whenever a doctor prescribes a fluoroquinolone, or any drug to treat a suspected infection, he says.

“Any time a patient is getting prescribed an antibiotic by a physician, they should ask: ‘Do I really need this antibiotic?’ That should be the first question they ask,” he advises. “And if they’re getting a fluoroquinolone, they may want to ask: ‘Is this the best antibiotic for me?’ ”
 

What you can do

Ms. Brummert and Ms. Moser say they are sharing their stories to raise awareness of the dangers of fluoroquinolones.

Ms. Moser has published a book on her experiences, “The Magnificent Story of a Lame Author,” and provides a wealth of consumer resources on her blog: Mountains and Mustard Seeds.

“As much as I hate what has happened to me, it has put me in a place where I am glad that I can inform other patients,” she says.

Ms. Brummert supplements her advocacy work as an FDA adviser with useful materials she provides on her website: Drugwatch.com.

“Pain into purpose – that’s what I call it,” she says. “I can’t change what happened to me, but I can warn others.”

The upshot for patients?

• the FDA’s Drug Safety Communication on Fluoroquinolones online to learn more about the risks and benefits of these powerful antibiotics.
• If you believe you’ve been harmed by fluoroquinolones, MedWatch website to report your experiences.

Ms. Brummert also advises patients to ask 12 critical questions of any doctor who wants to prescribe a fluoroquinolone, including the following listed on her website:

• For what condition is this medication prescribed, and is there another drug specific to my condition?
• What are the risks associated with this medication, and do the benefits outweigh them?
• Will this medication interact with my other drugs and/or other health conditions?
• What are the “boxed” warnings for this medication, and where can I report adverse events?

“I would also do my own research,” she says. “I wouldn’t just take a prescription from a physician and just say, ‘OK, doctor knows best.’ ”

Ms. Moser agrees that you have to be your own patient advocate and not simply take a doctor’s advice on any medical issue without having a deeper conversation.

“I’ve had arguments with doctors who legitimately did not believe me when I told them what happened to me,” she says. “And I actually told them, ‘Go get your Physicians’ Desk Reference [for prescription drugs]’ and they opened the book in front of me and read the warnings. Obviously, they had not been keeping up with the added warnings. So, I do think that doctors do need to be better informed.”

“So, yes, it’s the FDA’s responsibility, but it is also the doctors’ responsibility to make sure that they’re watching out for the side effects and they’re reporting them when their patients come up with them and making those connections.”

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

When Amy Moser had a simple urinary tract infection in her late 20s, her doctor prescribed Cipro, a powerful antibiotic used to treat anthrax and some of the most fearsome bacterial infections.

Nearly 2 weeks after she finished her treatment, her left kneecap dislocated while she was trying on a swimsuit at a retail store. Shortly afterward, she had painful ligament ruptures in her wrists, then her shoulder dislocated, followed by three Achilles tendon tears.

“That’s when I fell apart,” says Ms. Moser, a Phoenix health blogger and book author. “From that moment on, for almost the next 2.5 years consistently, I had new tendon tears every few weeks.”

Ms. Moser’s doctors had no answer for what was causing her injuries, all of which required surgical fixes. A married mother of three, she was otherwise healthy and fit. So, after her third Achilles tear, she turned to the FDA’s website for answers. There, she found many warnings about side effects of Cipro, Levaquin, and other so-called fluoroquinolones, including risks for tendon and ligament injuries.

“When all the ruptures started to happen, my doctor kept asking me if I’d ever taken Levaquin, and every time I was like, ‘No.’ So I did what all doctors don’t want you to do: I Googled ‘Levaquin,’ ” she recalls.

Her search led to FDA warnings and articles about the possibility of tendon and ligament ruptures with fluroquinolones.

“That was the first time I’d ever even heard that word ‘fluroquinolones,’ and I found Cipro on that list ... and I realized that I’d just been prescribed that before everything started,” she says.

That was 12 years ago. Since then, the FDA has issued more warnings about fluoroquinolone risks. In that time, Ms. Moser, now 40, has had more than 30 surgeries to correct tendon ruptures and injuries, including a double-knee replacement this year.

“I am in chronic pain all the time,” she says. “I am chronically injured. I have a lot of tears that I’ve not fixed because they’re very complicated, and I don’t know if the rest of my body can handle the strain of recovering from those surgeries.”

Ms. Moser’s is hardly an isolated case. Since the 1980s, more than 60,000 patients have reported hundreds of thousands of serious events linked to fluoroquinolones to the FDA, including 6,575 reports of deaths.

The most common side effects were tendon rupture, as well as neurological and psychiatric symptoms. But experts estimate only 1%-10% of such events are reported to the FDA. That suggests that fluoroquinolones might have harmed hundreds of thousands of people in the United States alone, says Charles Bennett, MD, a hematologist at the University of South Carolina’s College of Pharmacy, Columbia.

Yet despite the many patient reports and FDA warnings on dangerous side effects, many doctors continue to wrongly prescribe fluoroquinolones for simple urinary tract infections, sinus infections, and respiratory issues better treated with less risky antibiotics.

“There probably is overprescription by primary care doctors for urinary tract infections and respiratory infections, when there could be alternatives that are safer to use,” says Amesh Adalja, MD, an infectious disease specialist and senior scholar with the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security.

“I would say that’s probably the case in the outpatient setting, not necessarily in the hospital setting or among infectious disease doctors ... but I think it’s important to say there are still some judicious uses of fluoroquinolones,” he says. “However, there probably is a lot of injudicious use of fluoroquinolones along with many other antibiotics in the primary care setting.”
 

FDA warnings on fluoroquinolones

Fluoroquinolones are a class of broad-spectrum antibiotics used for decades to treat certain bacterial infections.

FDA-approved fluoroquinolones include ciprofloxacin (Cipro), ciprofloxacin extended-release tablets, delafloxacin (Baxdela), gemifloxacin (Factive) levofloxacin (Levaquin), moxifloxacin (Avelox), and ofloxacin (Floxin). More than 60 generic versions of these brand-name medicines are also on the market, making them among the most prescribed antibiotics in the U.S.

Over the past 2 decades, a wide range of physical and mental health side effects have been tied to fluoroquinolones. As a result of these “adverse event reports” and research published in medical literature, the FDA has required an escalating series of warnings and safety labeling changes for doctors who prescribe these drugs.

• In 2008, the FDA first added a “black box” warning to fluoroquinolones, citing an increased risk of tendinitis and tendon rupture in patients prescribed these meds.
• In 2011, the agency required the warning label to include risks of worsening symptoms for those with myasthenia gravis, a chronic autoimmune disease that causes muscle weakness, vision problems, and speech problems.
• In 2013, regulators required updated labels noting the potential for irreversible peripheral neuropathy (serious nerve damage).
• In 2016, the FDA issued its strongest warning against the use of such antibiotics for simple bacterial infections – such as uncomplicated urinary tract infections (UTIs), acute sinusitis, and acute bronchitis – saying the “association of fluoroquinolones with disabling and potentially permanent side effects involving tendons, muscles, joints, nerves and the central nervous system ... outweighs the benefits for patients.”
• And in 2018, regulators required safety labeling changes to include warnings about the risks of aortic aneurysm – a life-threatening enlargement of the main vessel that delivers blood to the body – as well as mental health side effects and serious blood sugar disturbances.

But FDA regulators have stopped short of barring fluoroquinolone use in the treatment of bacterial infections, citing the benefits for certain conditions.

“For some patients, the benefits of fluoroquinolones may continue to outweigh the risks for treatment of serious bacterial infections, such as pneumonia or intra-abdominal infections,” said former FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb, MD, “but there are other serious, known risks associated with these strong antibiotics that must be carefully weighed when considering their use.”

In December 2021, a study published in the journal JAMA Network Open found the FDA’s warnings may have helped lower prescribing of the drugs in Medicare patients. But not all doctors have been responsive to those warnings, researchers found.

“An overall decline in change over time and an immediate change in fluoroquinolone prescribing was observed after the 2016 FDA warning,” the authors concluded. “Certain physicians, such as primary care physicians, were more responsive to FDA warnings than others. ... Findings of this study suggest that identifying the association of physician and organizational characteristics with fluoroquinolone prescribing practices could help in developing mechanisms for improving de-adoption.”

Some critics say the FDA should do more to spotlight the dangers of fluoroquinolones and require doctors and patients to sign checklist consent forms to show they are aware of the potential side effects of these drugs.

Rachel Brummert, a patient advocate who sits on an FDA consumer advisory board, believes the FDA needs to improve its communication to doctors on fluoroquinolone risks and get tougher with those who continue to inappropriately prescribe the drugs.

“I think there needs to be a system in place, where if something comes down from the FDA about a drug, the physician has to sign off on it, the patient has to sign off on it and mark that they understand that there are these ‘black box’ warnings,” says Ms. Brummert, 52, a representative on the FDA’s Medical Devices Advisory Committee.

As an example, she points to Australia’s medical laws requiring doctors and patients to sign a checklist before any fluoroquinolone prescription is approved.

“When a physician prescribes a fluoroquinolone antibiotic, there’s a checklist – does the patient have an infection, is it a simple infection, do they have allergies?” she notes. “And you can’t even get the prescription out – it won’t even print out, it won’t go into the system – unless you check all of the boxes. But we don’t do that here. We don’t have that type of system right now.”

Ms. Brummert says such a system might have prevented the harm from taking Levaquin her doctor prescribed for a suspected sinus infection in 2006.

Soon after she began taking the antibiotic, she ruptured her Achilles tendon, requiring surgery. By 2009, she’d had three ruptures, each needing surgical fixes. To date, she’s had more than 30 surgeries to correct tendon ruptures. She’s also had seizures, blood pressure issues, depression, chronic pain, and memory problems she attributes to taking Levaquin.

As it turns out, her doctor misdiagnosed her condition – a misstep that would have been averted with a system like Australia’s, which requires doctors to verify the presence of a bacterial infection through a simple test before prescribing a fluoroquinolone.

“When I got the Levaquin, it was for a suspected sinus infection that it turned out I didn’t even have in the first place,” she notes. “So, I took the Levaquin basically for nothing. But what I would have asked my doctor had I known is: ‘Why should I take something so strong for so simple an infection?’

“It seems common sense to me now that you don’t prescribe something that can kill anthrax for a simple sinus infection. It’s like an atom bomb killing a mosquito. I agree that there are uses for these drugs, but they are being overprescribed. And so, here I am 16 years later – I’m still rupturing, I’m still having surgery, and I’m still in pain – all for something I didn’t even need medicine for in the first place.”
 

Should guidelines be stronger?

So, why are so many doctors continuing to prescribe fluoroquinolones for simple infections? Dr. Adalja and other experts say several things are at work.

For one thing, Dr. Adalja notes, fluoroquinolones are broad-spectrum antibiotics that are effective against dangerous germs, including “gram-negative” bacterial infections, and are “100% bioavailable.” That means they are as effective when given in pill form as they are if put directly into a vein. So they can be used in an outpatient setting or to allow a patient to be discharged from a hospital sooner because they don’t need an IV to receive treatment.

“There are still some uses for these drugs because they are so bioavailable, and I think that drives some of the use, and those are legitimate uses, knowing that there are risks when you do it,” he says. “But no drug is without risks, and you have to weigh risks and benefits – that’s what medicine is about: deciding what the best drug is for a patient.”

But Dr. Adalja says the overprescription of fluoroquinolones is part of the larger trend of antibiotic overuse. That is driving up antibiotic resistance, which in turn is another thing leading doctors to turn to Cipro and other fluoroquinolones after other drugs have proven ineffective.

“You can’t separate this from the fact that 80% of antibiotic prescriptions in the outpatient setting are probably illegitimate or not warranted,” he notes. “And because fluoroquinolones are highly effective drugs against certain pathogens, they are the go-to [drug] for many people who are prescribing antibiotics.”

That’s why patients should be wary whenever a doctor prescribes a fluoroquinolone, or any drug to treat a suspected infection, he says.

“Any time a patient is getting prescribed an antibiotic by a physician, they should ask: ‘Do I really need this antibiotic?’ That should be the first question they ask,” he advises. “And if they’re getting a fluoroquinolone, they may want to ask: ‘Is this the best antibiotic for me?’ ”
 

What you can do

Ms. Brummert and Ms. Moser say they are sharing their stories to raise awareness of the dangers of fluoroquinolones.

Ms. Moser has published a book on her experiences, “The Magnificent Story of a Lame Author,” and provides a wealth of consumer resources on her blog: Mountains and Mustard Seeds.

“As much as I hate what has happened to me, it has put me in a place where I am glad that I can inform other patients,” she says.

Ms. Brummert supplements her advocacy work as an FDA adviser with useful materials she provides on her website: Drugwatch.com.

“Pain into purpose – that’s what I call it,” she says. “I can’t change what happened to me, but I can warn others.”

The upshot for patients?

• the FDA’s Drug Safety Communication on Fluoroquinolones online to learn more about the risks and benefits of these powerful antibiotics.
• If you believe you’ve been harmed by fluoroquinolones, MedWatch website to report your experiences.

Ms. Brummert also advises patients to ask 12 critical questions of any doctor who wants to prescribe a fluoroquinolone, including the following listed on her website:

• For what condition is this medication prescribed, and is there another drug specific to my condition?
• What are the risks associated with this medication, and do the benefits outweigh them?
• Will this medication interact with my other drugs and/or other health conditions?
• What are the “boxed” warnings for this medication, and where can I report adverse events?

“I would also do my own research,” she says. “I wouldn’t just take a prescription from a physician and just say, ‘OK, doctor knows best.’ ”

Ms. Moser agrees that you have to be your own patient advocate and not simply take a doctor’s advice on any medical issue without having a deeper conversation.

“I’ve had arguments with doctors who legitimately did not believe me when I told them what happened to me,” she says. “And I actually told them, ‘Go get your Physicians’ Desk Reference [for prescription drugs]’ and they opened the book in front of me and read the warnings. Obviously, they had not been keeping up with the added warnings. So, I do think that doctors do need to be better informed.”

“So, yes, it’s the FDA’s responsibility, but it is also the doctors’ responsibility to make sure that they’re watching out for the side effects and they’re reporting them when their patients come up with them and making those connections.”

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

LONDON – Substantial reductions in liver fat and fibrosis can be achieved with statin therapy, according to research presented at the annual International Liver Congress sponsored by the European Association for the Study of the Liver.

Statins are thought to have multiple beneficial actions in people with fatty liver disease, but there has been little insight into how they may be exerting such effects.

Now, data from the Rotterdam Study and others suggest that statins may be reducing the formation of lipid droplets as well as influencing the expression of important inflammatory genes.

The results “require further confirmation,” the team behind the work said, which was done at Erasmus Medical Center in Rotterdam, the Netherlands, in collaboration with researchers at The First Affiliated Hospital of Wenzhou (China) Medical University.

Sara Freeman/MDedge News

“Statins are inversely associated with multiple components of the NAFLD [nonalcoholic fatty liver disease] spectrum,” said Ibrahim Ayada, a PhD student in the department of gastroenterology and hepatology at Erasmus MC.

“Statins can inhibit lipid synthesis in organoids and statins also exhibit healthy inflammatory effects, which might contribute to the hepatoprotective effects that we observe in our population studies,” Mr. Ayada said.
 

A rising problem that needs addressing

Together NAFLD and NASH constitute a significant and increasing health burden, Mr. Ayada observed, noting that there were an estimated 64 million people in the United States and 52 million people in Europe, at least, with the rise mirroring the obesity pandemic.

“The number of patients visiting outpatient clinics has nearly doubled within a study period of 5 years,” he said.

“There is no pharmacologic therapy,” he reminded his audience, observing that fatty liver disease was a major indication for liver transplantation.

Statins are a long-standing staple of cardiovascular disease management and are known to have pleiotropic effects, Mr. Ayada explained. Their use in NAFLD and non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) has been purported but is supported by inconclusive evidence.

Indeed, a prior Cochrane review performed in 2013 found only two studies that were eligible for analysis and had “high risk of bias and a small numbers of participants,” according to the review’s authors.
 

Examining the connection

To look at the possible benefits of statins in people with NASH and examine how these effects might be occurring, Mr. Ayada and collaborators first took data from the Rotterdam Study, a large population-based prospective cohort that has been collecting data on its participants since the early 90s.

Data on over 4,500 participants were examined and of these, just over 1,000 had NAFLD. Statin versus no statin use was found to be associated with around a 30% reduction in fatty liver disease, with an odds ratio or 0.72 for NAFLD.

Then, looking only at a subset of patients with biopsy-proven NAFLD, statin use was associated with a 45% reduction in NASH (OR, 0.55) and a 24% reduction in fibrosis, although only the NASH reduction was significant (P = .031). The purpose of this cohort is to look at potential biomarkers and all participants had donated blood, urine, and stool samples; all were of Chinese descent, Mr. Ayada said.

“We then pooled our results with existing evidence in a meta-analysis,” said Mr. Ayada, including 16 studies. While results showed an overall inverse association, only the findings for a reduction in NAFLD and fibrosis were significant; the relationship between statins and NASH was not significant.
 

Investigating mechanistic effects

Then, for the second part of their work, Mr. Ayada and associates looked at potential mechanistic effects of statins.

“We did part two because we knew part one was going to be cross-sectional and we could only show the association and not causality, so we tried to shed some light on possible pathways,” he said.

To do this they used a novel model of liver organoids developed to study fatty liver disease and test potential therapeutics. In this model human liver organoids are exposed to sodium lactate, sodium pyruvate, and octanoic acid, which induce the formation of lipid droplets. Exposing the organoids to statins – simvastatin and lovastatin were used in the experiments – resulted in a reduced number of the induced lipid droplets.

“Although all concentrations of statins significantly inhibited the lipid size versus the control, the major effect was quite modest,” observed Mr. Ayada. The effect was most noticeable at the highest dose used (10 micromolar), and what they think might be happening is that the statins are clearing the smaller droplets first, leaving the larger ones behind.

Next, they looked at the effect of statin treatment on inflammatory gene expression in liver-derived monocytes. These will turn into macrophages and play a key role in chronic inflammation, Mr. Ayada explained. Initial results suggest that several proinflammatory cytokines such as interleukin-1 beta, IL-6, and IL-8 may be downplayed by statin therapy.

An anti-inflammatory effect of statins was also reported in unrelated poster presentations at the congress. While researchers Seul Ki Han and associated from South Korea showed an anti-inflammatory effect of a combination of simvastatin and ezetimibe (SAT083), a Dutch team found that atorvastatin reduced the infiltration of hepatic macrophages, neutrophils, and monocytes, as well as lowering levels of proinflammatory cytokines (SAT033).
 

Statins for NASH – a missed opportunity?

“As far as I am aware there is no robust evidence from large, randomized trials to suggest statins lessen chances of NAFLD, or improve its surrogate markers such as ALT or GGT [gamma-glutamyltransferase] levels,” Naveed Sattar, PhD, FRCP, FRCPath, FRSE, FMedSci, commented in an interview.

“The Rotterdam study is merely cross-sectional and cannot answer the question of causality,” added Dr. Sattar, who is professor of metabolic medicine and Honorary Consultant in Cardiovascular & Medical Science at the University of Glasgow. “It may be people who have less NAFLD are more likely to be prescribed statins, perhaps because doctors are wary of prescribing statins to those with slightly deranged liver tests,” he qualified.

Moreover, said Dr. Sattar, “prior evidence shows statins are underused in people with heart disease but who have NAFLD, which represents a missed opportunity to prevent heart disease.

“If statins had positive effects for preventing conversion of NAFLD to NASH or lessening fibrosis, I believe we would have known that by now.”

As for use of statins in future treatments of fatty liver disease, Dr. Sattar said: “I would not pin my hopes on statins to improve liver health, but doctors need to remember statins are safe in people with NAFLD or NASH and they should not be withheld in those who have existing cardiovascular disease or at elevated risk.” 

The study received no commercial funding. Mr. Ayada and Dr. Sattar had no relevant conflicts of interest.
 

LONDON – Substantial reductions in liver fat and fibrosis can be achieved with statin therapy, according to research presented at the annual International Liver Congress sponsored by the European Association for the Study of the Liver.

Statins are thought to have multiple beneficial actions in people with fatty liver disease, but there has been little insight into how they may be exerting such effects.

Now, data from the Rotterdam Study and others suggest that statins may be reducing the formation of lipid droplets as well as influencing the expression of important inflammatory genes.

The results “require further confirmation,” the team behind the work said, which was done at Erasmus Medical Center in Rotterdam, the Netherlands, in collaboration with researchers at The First Affiliated Hospital of Wenzhou (China) Medical University.

Sara Freeman/MDedge News

“Statins are inversely associated with multiple components of the NAFLD [nonalcoholic fatty liver disease] spectrum,” said Ibrahim Ayada, a PhD student in the department of gastroenterology and hepatology at Erasmus MC.

“Statins can inhibit lipid synthesis in organoids and statins also exhibit healthy inflammatory effects, which might contribute to the hepatoprotective effects that we observe in our population studies,” Mr. Ayada said.
 

A rising problem that needs addressing

Together NAFLD and NASH constitute a significant and increasing health burden, Mr. Ayada observed, noting that there were an estimated 64 million people in the United States and 52 million people in Europe, at least, with the rise mirroring the obesity pandemic.

“The number of patients visiting outpatient clinics has nearly doubled within a study period of 5 years,” he said.

“There is no pharmacologic therapy,” he reminded his audience, observing that fatty liver disease was a major indication for liver transplantation.

Statins are a long-standing staple of cardiovascular disease management and are known to have pleiotropic effects, Mr. Ayada explained. Their use in NAFLD and non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) has been purported but is supported by inconclusive evidence.

Indeed, a prior Cochrane review performed in 2013 found only two studies that were eligible for analysis and had “high risk of bias and a small numbers of participants,” according to the review’s authors.
 

Examining the connection

To look at the possible benefits of statins in people with NASH and examine how these effects might be occurring, Mr. Ayada and collaborators first took data from the Rotterdam Study, a large population-based prospective cohort that has been collecting data on its participants since the early 90s.

Data on over 4,500 participants were examined and of these, just over 1,000 had NAFLD. Statin versus no statin use was found to be associated with around a 30% reduction in fatty liver disease, with an odds ratio or 0.72 for NAFLD.

Then, looking only at a subset of patients with biopsy-proven NAFLD, statin use was associated with a 45% reduction in NASH (OR, 0.55) and a 24% reduction in fibrosis, although only the NASH reduction was significant (P = .031). The purpose of this cohort is to look at potential biomarkers and all participants had donated blood, urine, and stool samples; all were of Chinese descent, Mr. Ayada said.

“We then pooled our results with existing evidence in a meta-analysis,” said Mr. Ayada, including 16 studies. While results showed an overall inverse association, only the findings for a reduction in NAFLD and fibrosis were significant; the relationship between statins and NASH was not significant.
 

Investigating mechanistic effects

Then, for the second part of their work, Mr. Ayada and associates looked at potential mechanistic effects of statins.

“We did part two because we knew part one was going to be cross-sectional and we could only show the association and not causality, so we tried to shed some light on possible pathways,” he said.

To do this they used a novel model of liver organoids developed to study fatty liver disease and test potential therapeutics. In this model human liver organoids are exposed to sodium lactate, sodium pyruvate, and octanoic acid, which induce the formation of lipid droplets. Exposing the organoids to statins – simvastatin and lovastatin were used in the experiments – resulted in a reduced number of the induced lipid droplets.

“Although all concentrations of statins significantly inhibited the lipid size versus the control, the major effect was quite modest,” observed Mr. Ayada. The effect was most noticeable at the highest dose used (10 micromolar), and what they think might be happening is that the statins are clearing the smaller droplets first, leaving the larger ones behind.

Next, they looked at the effect of statin treatment on inflammatory gene expression in liver-derived monocytes. These will turn into macrophages and play a key role in chronic inflammation, Mr. Ayada explained. Initial results suggest that several proinflammatory cytokines such as interleukin-1 beta, IL-6, and IL-8 may be downplayed by statin therapy.

An anti-inflammatory effect of statins was also reported in unrelated poster presentations at the congress. While researchers Seul Ki Han and associated from South Korea showed an anti-inflammatory effect of a combination of simvastatin and ezetimibe (SAT083), a Dutch team found that atorvastatin reduced the infiltration of hepatic macrophages, neutrophils, and monocytes, as well as lowering levels of proinflammatory cytokines (SAT033).
 

Statins for NASH – a missed opportunity?

“As far as I am aware there is no robust evidence from large, randomized trials to suggest statins lessen chances of NAFLD, or improve its surrogate markers such as ALT or GGT [gamma-glutamyltransferase] levels,” Naveed Sattar, PhD, FRCP, FRCPath, FRSE, FMedSci, commented in an interview.

“The Rotterdam study is merely cross-sectional and cannot answer the question of causality,” added Dr. Sattar, who is professor of metabolic medicine and Honorary Consultant in Cardiovascular & Medical Science at the University of Glasgow. “It may be people who have less NAFLD are more likely to be prescribed statins, perhaps because doctors are wary of prescribing statins to those with slightly deranged liver tests,” he qualified.

Moreover, said Dr. Sattar, “prior evidence shows statins are underused in people with heart disease but who have NAFLD, which represents a missed opportunity to prevent heart disease.

“If statins had positive effects for preventing conversion of NAFLD to NASH or lessening fibrosis, I believe we would have known that by now.”

As for use of statins in future treatments of fatty liver disease, Dr. Sattar said: “I would not pin my hopes on statins to improve liver health, but doctors need to remember statins are safe in people with NAFLD or NASH and they should not be withheld in those who have existing cardiovascular disease or at elevated risk.” 

The study received no commercial funding. Mr. Ayada and Dr. Sattar had no relevant conflicts of interest.
 

LONDON – Substantial reductions in liver fat and fibrosis can be achieved with statin therapy, according to research presented at the annual International Liver Congress sponsored by the European Association for the Study of the Liver.

Statins are thought to have multiple beneficial actions in people with fatty liver disease, but there has been little insight into how they may be exerting such effects.

Now, data from the Rotterdam Study and others suggest that statins may be reducing the formation of lipid droplets as well as influencing the expression of important inflammatory genes.

The results “require further confirmation,” the team behind the work said, which was done at Erasmus Medical Center in Rotterdam, the Netherlands, in collaboration with researchers at The First Affiliated Hospital of Wenzhou (China) Medical University.

Sara Freeman/MDedge News

“Statins are inversely associated with multiple components of the NAFLD [nonalcoholic fatty liver disease] spectrum,” said Ibrahim Ayada, a PhD student in the department of gastroenterology and hepatology at Erasmus MC.

“Statins can inhibit lipid synthesis in organoids and statins also exhibit healthy inflammatory effects, which might contribute to the hepatoprotective effects that we observe in our population studies,” Mr. Ayada said.
 

A rising problem that needs addressing

Together NAFLD and NASH constitute a significant and increasing health burden, Mr. Ayada observed, noting that there were an estimated 64 million people in the United States and 52 million people in Europe, at least, with the rise mirroring the obesity pandemic.

“The number of patients visiting outpatient clinics has nearly doubled within a study period of 5 years,” he said.

“There is no pharmacologic therapy,” he reminded his audience, observing that fatty liver disease was a major indication for liver transplantation.

Statins are a long-standing staple of cardiovascular disease management and are known to have pleiotropic effects, Mr. Ayada explained. Their use in NAFLD and non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) has been purported but is supported by inconclusive evidence.

Indeed, a prior Cochrane review performed in 2013 found only two studies that were eligible for analysis and had “high risk of bias and a small numbers of participants,” according to the review’s authors.
 

Examining the connection

To look at the possible benefits of statins in people with NASH and examine how these effects might be occurring, Mr. Ayada and collaborators first took data from the Rotterdam Study, a large population-based prospective cohort that has been collecting data on its participants since the early 90s.

Data on over 4,500 participants were examined and of these, just over 1,000 had NAFLD. Statin versus no statin use was found to be associated with around a 30% reduction in fatty liver disease, with an odds ratio or 0.72 for NAFLD.

Then, looking only at a subset of patients with biopsy-proven NAFLD, statin use was associated with a 45% reduction in NASH (OR, 0.55) and a 24% reduction in fibrosis, although only the NASH reduction was significant (P = .031). The purpose of this cohort is to look at potential biomarkers and all participants had donated blood, urine, and stool samples; all were of Chinese descent, Mr. Ayada said.

“We then pooled our results with existing evidence in a meta-analysis,” said Mr. Ayada, including 16 studies. While results showed an overall inverse association, only the findings for a reduction in NAFLD and fibrosis were significant; the relationship between statins and NASH was not significant.
 

Investigating mechanistic effects

Then, for the second part of their work, Mr. Ayada and associates looked at potential mechanistic effects of statins.

“We did part two because we knew part one was going to be cross-sectional and we could only show the association and not causality, so we tried to shed some light on possible pathways,” he said.

To do this they used a novel model of liver organoids developed to study fatty liver disease and test potential therapeutics. In this model human liver organoids are exposed to sodium lactate, sodium pyruvate, and octanoic acid, which induce the formation of lipid droplets. Exposing the organoids to statins – simvastatin and lovastatin were used in the experiments – resulted in a reduced number of the induced lipid droplets.

“Although all concentrations of statins significantly inhibited the lipid size versus the control, the major effect was quite modest,” observed Mr. Ayada. The effect was most noticeable at the highest dose used (10 micromolar), and what they think might be happening is that the statins are clearing the smaller droplets first, leaving the larger ones behind.

Next, they looked at the effect of statin treatment on inflammatory gene expression in liver-derived monocytes. These will turn into macrophages and play a key role in chronic inflammation, Mr. Ayada explained. Initial results suggest that several proinflammatory cytokines such as interleukin-1 beta, IL-6, and IL-8 may be downplayed by statin therapy.

An anti-inflammatory effect of statins was also reported in unrelated poster presentations at the congress. While researchers Seul Ki Han and associated from South Korea showed an anti-inflammatory effect of a combination of simvastatin and ezetimibe (SAT083), a Dutch team found that atorvastatin reduced the infiltration of hepatic macrophages, neutrophils, and monocytes, as well as lowering levels of proinflammatory cytokines (SAT033).
 

Statins for NASH – a missed opportunity?

“As far as I am aware there is no robust evidence from large, randomized trials to suggest statins lessen chances of NAFLD, or improve its surrogate markers such as ALT or GGT [gamma-glutamyltransferase] levels,” Naveed Sattar, PhD, FRCP, FRCPath, FRSE, FMedSci, commented in an interview.

“The Rotterdam study is merely cross-sectional and cannot answer the question of causality,” added Dr. Sattar, who is professor of metabolic medicine and Honorary Consultant in Cardiovascular & Medical Science at the University of Glasgow. “It may be people who have less NAFLD are more likely to be prescribed statins, perhaps because doctors are wary of prescribing statins to those with slightly deranged liver tests,” he qualified.

Moreover, said Dr. Sattar, “prior evidence shows statins are underused in people with heart disease but who have NAFLD, which represents a missed opportunity to prevent heart disease.

“If statins had positive effects for preventing conversion of NAFLD to NASH or lessening fibrosis, I believe we would have known that by now.”

As for use of statins in future treatments of fatty liver disease, Dr. Sattar said: “I would not pin my hopes on statins to improve liver health, but doctors need to remember statins are safe in people with NAFLD or NASH and they should not be withheld in those who have existing cardiovascular disease or at elevated risk.” 

The study received no commercial funding. Mr. Ayada and Dr. Sattar had no relevant conflicts of interest.
 

Zelnorm (tegaserod), an oral short-term treatment of irritable bowel syndrome and constipation (IBS-C), is being removed from the U.S. market effective June 30, according to the manufacturer, Alfasigma.

The Italian pharmaceutical company said the drug is being removed for business purposes, not because of any concern involving its safety or efficacy, nor has it been recalled.

The drug has been through a teeter totter of regulations since its inception.

When it was first introduced in 2002, Zelnorm was a first-of-its-kind drug and was intended to treat all women with IBS-C in the short term. But it was removed from the market 5 years later following concerns about cardiovascular side effects. Clinical data showed an increased incidence of stroke and angina in women taking Zelnorm.

Despite these concerns, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration voted to reintroduce the drug into the market in 2019, but only for women without a history of heart health problems.

Though Alfasigma will stop making the drug, a company news release said current users can continue use for a while.

“Patients will continue to have access to Zelnorm (tegaserod) for as long as the existing supply of product remains in the trade channel,” Alfasigma said in a news release about the drug removal. The company urged its customers to discuss alternative IBS medications with their doctor.

Zelnorm is a serotonin agonist, meaning it binds to receptors and stops the release of serotonin into the system. These sorts of drugs can decrease the pain associated with IBS and help increase gut motility in order to pass stool. Other drugs besides Zelnorm that use this mechanism include alosetron and cilansetron.

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

Zelnorm (tegaserod), an oral short-term treatment of irritable bowel syndrome and constipation (IBS-C), is being removed from the U.S. market effective June 30, according to the manufacturer, Alfasigma.

The Italian pharmaceutical company said the drug is being removed for business purposes, not because of any concern involving its safety or efficacy, nor has it been recalled.

The drug has been through a teeter totter of regulations since its inception.

When it was first introduced in 2002, Zelnorm was a first-of-its-kind drug and was intended to treat all women with IBS-C in the short term. But it was removed from the market 5 years later following concerns about cardiovascular side effects. Clinical data showed an increased incidence of stroke and angina in women taking Zelnorm.

Despite these concerns, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration voted to reintroduce the drug into the market in 2019, but only for women without a history of heart health problems.

Though Alfasigma will stop making the drug, a company news release said current users can continue use for a while.

“Patients will continue to have access to Zelnorm (tegaserod) for as long as the existing supply of product remains in the trade channel,” Alfasigma said in a news release about the drug removal. The company urged its customers to discuss alternative IBS medications with their doctor.

Zelnorm is a serotonin agonist, meaning it binds to receptors and stops the release of serotonin into the system. These sorts of drugs can decrease the pain associated with IBS and help increase gut motility in order to pass stool. Other drugs besides Zelnorm that use this mechanism include alosetron and cilansetron.

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

Zelnorm (tegaserod), an oral short-term treatment of irritable bowel syndrome and constipation (IBS-C), is being removed from the U.S. market effective June 30, according to the manufacturer, Alfasigma.

The Italian pharmaceutical company said the drug is being removed for business purposes, not because of any concern involving its safety or efficacy, nor has it been recalled.

The drug has been through a teeter totter of regulations since its inception.

When it was first introduced in 2002, Zelnorm was a first-of-its-kind drug and was intended to treat all women with IBS-C in the short term. But it was removed from the market 5 years later following concerns about cardiovascular side effects. Clinical data showed an increased incidence of stroke and angina in women taking Zelnorm.

Despite these concerns, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration voted to reintroduce the drug into the market in 2019, but only for women without a history of heart health problems.

Though Alfasigma will stop making the drug, a company news release said current users can continue use for a while.

“Patients will continue to have access to Zelnorm (tegaserod) for as long as the existing supply of product remains in the trade channel,” Alfasigma said in a news release about the drug removal. The company urged its customers to discuss alternative IBS medications with their doctor.

Zelnorm is a serotonin agonist, meaning it binds to receptors and stops the release of serotonin into the system. These sorts of drugs can decrease the pain associated with IBS and help increase gut motility in order to pass stool. Other drugs besides Zelnorm that use this mechanism include alosetron and cilansetron.

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration issued a warning today that the cancer drug duvelisib (Copiktra, Verastem), a PI3 kinase inhibitor, may increase the risk of death and serious side effects.

Duvelisib was approved in 2018 to treat adults with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) or small lymphocytic lymphoma (SLL) who had received at least two prior therapies that did not work or stopped working.

However, more recent 5-year overall survival results from the randomized phase 3 DUO clinical trial found a possible increased risk of death with duvelisib, compared with another drug used to treat leukemia and lymphoma, according to an FDA Drug Safety Communication.

“The trial also found Copiktra was associated with a higher risk of serious side effects, including infections, diarrhea, inflammation of the intestines and lungs, skin reactions, and high liver enzyme levels in the blood,” states the warning, which advises prescribers to weigh the risks and benefits of continued use versus use of other treatments.

More specifically, median 5-year overall survival among 319 patients with CLL or SLL in the DUO trial was 52.3 months with duvelisib versus 63.3 months with the monoclonal antibody ofatumumab (hazard ratio, 1.09 overall and 1.06 among patients who received at least two prior lines of therapy).

Serious adverse events of grade 3 or higher were also more common in those treated with duvelisib.

Of note, in April, the FDA also announced that it was withdrawing approval of the relapsed or refractory follicular lymphoma indication for duvelisib following a voluntary request by the drug manufacturer Secura Bio.

A public meeting will be scheduled to discuss the findings of the trial and whether the drug should continue to be prescribed.

This FDA warning follows the agency’s June 1 withdrawal of approval for umbralisib (Ukoniq), another PI3 kinase inhibitor, following an investigation into a “possible increased risk of death.”

As reported by this news organization, umbralisib had received accelerated approval in February 2021 to treat adults with relapsed or refractory marginal zone lymphoma following at least one prior therapy and those with relapsed or refractory follicular lymphoma who had received at least three prior therapies.

“These safety findings were similar for other medicines in the same PI3 kinase inhibitor class, which were discussed at an advisory committee meeting of non-FDA experts in April 2022,” according to the FDA warning.

The FDA urges patients and health care professionals to report side effects involving duvelisib or other medicines to the FDA MedWatch program.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration issued a warning today that the cancer drug duvelisib (Copiktra, Verastem), a PI3 kinase inhibitor, may increase the risk of death and serious side effects.

Duvelisib was approved in 2018 to treat adults with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) or small lymphocytic lymphoma (SLL) who had received at least two prior therapies that did not work or stopped working.

However, more recent 5-year overall survival results from the randomized phase 3 DUO clinical trial found a possible increased risk of death with duvelisib, compared with another drug used to treat leukemia and lymphoma, according to an FDA Drug Safety Communication.

“The trial also found Copiktra was associated with a higher risk of serious side effects, including infections, diarrhea, inflammation of the intestines and lungs, skin reactions, and high liver enzyme levels in the blood,” states the warning, which advises prescribers to weigh the risks and benefits of continued use versus use of other treatments.

More specifically, median 5-year overall survival among 319 patients with CLL or SLL in the DUO trial was 52.3 months with duvelisib versus 63.3 months with the monoclonal antibody ofatumumab (hazard ratio, 1.09 overall and 1.06 among patients who received at least two prior lines of therapy).

Serious adverse events of grade 3 or higher were also more common in those treated with duvelisib.

Of note, in April, the FDA also announced that it was withdrawing approval of the relapsed or refractory follicular lymphoma indication for duvelisib following a voluntary request by the drug manufacturer Secura Bio.

A public meeting will be scheduled to discuss the findings of the trial and whether the drug should continue to be prescribed.

This FDA warning follows the agency’s June 1 withdrawal of approval for umbralisib (Ukoniq), another PI3 kinase inhibitor, following an investigation into a “possible increased risk of death.”

As reported by this news organization, umbralisib had received accelerated approval in February 2021 to treat adults with relapsed or refractory marginal zone lymphoma following at least one prior therapy and those with relapsed or refractory follicular lymphoma who had received at least three prior therapies.

“These safety findings were similar for other medicines in the same PI3 kinase inhibitor class, which were discussed at an advisory committee meeting of non-FDA experts in April 2022,” according to the FDA warning.

The FDA urges patients and health care professionals to report side effects involving duvelisib or other medicines to the FDA MedWatch program.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration issued a warning today that the cancer drug duvelisib (Copiktra, Verastem), a PI3 kinase inhibitor, may increase the risk of death and serious side effects.

Duvelisib was approved in 2018 to treat adults with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) or small lymphocytic lymphoma (SLL) who had received at least two prior therapies that did not work or stopped working.

However, more recent 5-year overall survival results from the randomized phase 3 DUO clinical trial found a possible increased risk of death with duvelisib, compared with another drug used to treat leukemia and lymphoma, according to an FDA Drug Safety Communication.

“The trial also found Copiktra was associated with a higher risk of serious side effects, including infections, diarrhea, inflammation of the intestines and lungs, skin reactions, and high liver enzyme levels in the blood,” states the warning, which advises prescribers to weigh the risks and benefits of continued use versus use of other treatments.

More specifically, median 5-year overall survival among 319 patients with CLL or SLL in the DUO trial was 52.3 months with duvelisib versus 63.3 months with the monoclonal antibody ofatumumab (hazard ratio, 1.09 overall and 1.06 among patients who received at least two prior lines of therapy).

Serious adverse events of grade 3 or higher were also more common in those treated with duvelisib.

Of note, in April, the FDA also announced that it was withdrawing approval of the relapsed or refractory follicular lymphoma indication for duvelisib following a voluntary request by the drug manufacturer Secura Bio.

A public meeting will be scheduled to discuss the findings of the trial and whether the drug should continue to be prescribed.

This FDA warning follows the agency’s June 1 withdrawal of approval for umbralisib (Ukoniq), another PI3 kinase inhibitor, following an investigation into a “possible increased risk of death.”

As reported by this news organization, umbralisib had received accelerated approval in February 2021 to treat adults with relapsed or refractory marginal zone lymphoma following at least one prior therapy and those with relapsed or refractory follicular lymphoma who had received at least three prior therapies.

“These safety findings were similar for other medicines in the same PI3 kinase inhibitor class, which were discussed at an advisory committee meeting of non-FDA experts in April 2022,” according to the FDA warning.

The FDA urges patients and health care professionals to report side effects involving duvelisib or other medicines to the FDA MedWatch program.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com

As states ban or limit abortion in the wake of the demise of Roe v. Wade, physicians are turning their attention to widely-used drugs that can cause birth defects. At issue: Should these drugs still be prescribed to women of childbearing age if they don’t have the option of terminating their pregnancies?

javi_indy/ Thinkstock

“Doctors are going to understandably be terrified that a patient may become pregnant using a teratogen that they have prescribed,” said University of Pittsburgh rheumatologist Mehret Birru Talabi, MD, PhD, who works in a state where the future of abortion rights is uncertain. “While this was a feared outcome before Roe v. Wade was overturned, abortion provided an escape hatch by which women could avoid having to continue a pregnancy and potentially raise a child with congenital anomalies. I believe that prescribing is going to become much more defensive and conservative. Some clinicians may choose not to prescribe these medications to patients who have childbearing potential, even if they don’t have much risk for pregnancy.”

Other physicians expressed similar concerns in interviews. Duke University, Durham, N.C., rheumatologist Megan E. B. Clowse, MD, MPH, fears that physicians will be wary of prescribing a variety of medications – including new ones for which there are few pregnancy data – if abortion is unavailable. “Women who receive these new or teratogenic medications will likely lose their reproductive autonomy and be forced to choose between having sexual relationships with men, obtaining procedures that make them permanently sterile, or using contraception that may cause intolerable side effects,” she said. “I am very concerned that young women with rheumatic disease will now be left with active disease resulting in joint damage and renal failure.”

Abortion is now banned in at least six states, according to The New York Times. That number may rise to 16 as more restrictions become law. Another five states aren’t expected to ban abortion soon but have implemented gestational age limits on abortion or are expected to adopt them. In another nine states, courts or lawmakers will decide whether abortion remains legal.

Only 20 states and the District of Columbia have firm abortion protections in place.

Numerous drugs are considered teratogens, which means they may cause birth defects. Thalidomide is the most infamous, but there are many more, including several used in rheumatology, dermatology, and gastroenterology. Among the most widely used teratogenic medications are the acne drugs isotretinoin and methotrexate, which are used to treat a variety of conditions, such as cancer, rheumatoid arthritis, and psoriasis.

Dr. Clowse, who helps manage an industry-supported website devoted to reproductive care for women with lupus (www.LupusPregnancy.org), noted that several drugs linked to birth defects and pregnancy loss are commonly prescribed in rheumatology.

“Methotrexate is the most common medication and has been the cornerstone of rheumatoid arthritis [treatment] for at least two decades,” she said. “Mycophenolate is our best medication to treat lupus nephritis, which is inflammation in the kidneys caused by lupus. This is a common complication for young women with lupus, and all of our guideline-recommended treatment regimens include a medication that causes pregnancy loss and birth defects, either mycophenolate or cyclophosphamide.”

Rheumatologists also prescribe a large number of new drugs for which there are few data about pregnancy risks. “It typically takes about two decades to have sufficient data about the safety of our medications,” she said.

Reflecting the sensitivity of the topic, Dr. Clowse made clear that her opinions don’t represent the views of her institution. She works in North Carolina, where the fate of abortion rights is uncertain, according to The New York Times.

What about alternatives? “The short answer is that some of these medications work really well and sometimes much better than the nonteratogenic alternatives,” said Dr. Birru Talabi. “I’m worried about methotrexate. It has been used to induce abortions but is primarily used in the United States as a highly effective treatment for cancer as well as a myriad of rheumatic diseases. If legislators try to restrict access to methotrexate, we may see increasing disability and even death among people who need this medication but cannot access it.”

Rheumatologists aren’t the only physicians who are worrying about the fates of their patients in a new era of abortion restrictions. Gastroenterologist Sunanda Kane, MD, MSPH, of the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., said several teratogenic medications are used in her field to treat constipation, viral hepatitis, and inflammatory bowel disease.

“When treating women of childbearing age, there are usually alternatives. If we do prescribe a medication with a high teratogenic potential, we counsel and document that we have discussed two forms of birth control to avoid pregnancy. We usually do not prescribe a drug with teratogenic potential with the ‘out’ being an abortion if a pregnancy does occur,” she said. However, “if abortion is not even on the table as an option, we may be much less likely to prescribe these medications. This will be particularly true in patients who clearly do not have the means to travel to have an abortion in any situation.”

Abortion is expected to remain legal in Minnesota, where Dr. Kane practices, but it may be restricted or banned in nearby Wisconsin, depending on the state legislature. None of her patients have had abortions after becoming pregnant while taking the medications, she said, although she “did have a patient who because of her religious faith did not have an abortion after exposure and ended up with a stillbirth.”

The crackdown on abortion won’t just pose risks to patients who take potentially dangerous medications, physicians said. Dr. Kane said pregnancy itself is a significant risk for patients with “very active, uncontrolled gastrointestinal conditions where a pregnancy could be harmful to the mother’s health or result in offspring that are very unhealthy.” These include decompensated cirrhosis, uncontrolled Crohn’s disease or ulcerative colitis, refractory gastroparesis, uncontrolled celiac sprue, and chronic pancreatitis, she said.

“There have been times when after shared decisionmaking, a patient with very active inflammatory bowel disease has decided to terminate the pregnancy because of her own ongoing health issues,” she said. “Not having this option will potentially lead to disastrous results.”

Dr. Clowse, the Duke University rheumatologist, echoed Dr. Kane’s concerns about women who are too sick to bear children. “The removal of abortion rights puts the lives and quality of life for women with rheumatic disease at risk. For patients with lupus and other systemic rheumatic disease, pregnancy can be medically catastrophic, leading to permanent harm and even death to the woman and her offspring. I am worried that women in these conditions will die without lifesaving pregnancy terminations, due to worries about the legal consequences for their physicians.”

The U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling that overturned Roe v. Wade has also raised the prospect that the court could ultimately allow birth control to be restricted or outlawed.

While the ruling states that “nothing in this opinion should be understood to cast doubt on precedents that do not concern abortion,” Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a concurrence in which he said that the court should reconsider a 1960s ruling that forbids the banning of contraceptives. Republicans have dismissed concerns about bans being allowed, although Democrats, including the president and vice president, starkly warn that they could happen.

“If we as providers have to be concerned that there will be an unplanned pregnancy because of the lack of access to contraception,” Dr. Kane said, “this will have significant downstream consequences to the kind of care we can provide and might just drive some providers to not give care to female patients at all given this concern.”

The physicians quoted in this article report no relevant financial relationships.

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

As states ban or limit abortion in the wake of the demise of Roe v. Wade, physicians are turning their attention to widely-used drugs that can cause birth defects. At issue: Should these drugs still be prescribed to women of childbearing age if they don’t have the option of terminating their pregnancies?

javi_indy/ Thinkstock

“Doctors are going to understandably be terrified that a patient may become pregnant using a teratogen that they have prescribed,” said University of Pittsburgh rheumatologist Mehret Birru Talabi, MD, PhD, who works in a state where the future of abortion rights is uncertain. “While this was a feared outcome before Roe v. Wade was overturned, abortion provided an escape hatch by which women could avoid having to continue a pregnancy and potentially raise a child with congenital anomalies. I believe that prescribing is going to become much more defensive and conservative. Some clinicians may choose not to prescribe these medications to patients who have childbearing potential, even if they don’t have much risk for pregnancy.”

Other physicians expressed similar concerns in interviews. Duke University, Durham, N.C., rheumatologist Megan E. B. Clowse, MD, MPH, fears that physicians will be wary of prescribing a variety of medications – including new ones for which there are few pregnancy data – if abortion is unavailable. “Women who receive these new or teratogenic medications will likely lose their reproductive autonomy and be forced to choose between having sexual relationships with men, obtaining procedures that make them permanently sterile, or using contraception that may cause intolerable side effects,” she said. “I am very concerned that young women with rheumatic disease will now be left with active disease resulting in joint damage and renal failure.”

Abortion is now banned in at least six states, according to The New York Times. That number may rise to 16 as more restrictions become law. Another five states aren’t expected to ban abortion soon but have implemented gestational age limits on abortion or are expected to adopt them. In another nine states, courts or lawmakers will decide whether abortion remains legal.

Only 20 states and the District of Columbia have firm abortion protections in place.

Numerous drugs are considered teratogens, which means they may cause birth defects. Thalidomide is the most infamous, but there are many more, including several used in rheumatology, dermatology, and gastroenterology. Among the most widely used teratogenic medications are the acne drugs isotretinoin and methotrexate, which are used to treat a variety of conditions, such as cancer, rheumatoid arthritis, and psoriasis.

Dr. Clowse, who helps manage an industry-supported website devoted to reproductive care for women with lupus (www.LupusPregnancy.org), noted that several drugs linked to birth defects and pregnancy loss are commonly prescribed in rheumatology.

“Methotrexate is the most common medication and has been the cornerstone of rheumatoid arthritis [treatment] for at least two decades,” she said. “Mycophenolate is our best medication to treat lupus nephritis, which is inflammation in the kidneys caused by lupus. This is a common complication for young women with lupus, and all of our guideline-recommended treatment regimens include a medication that causes pregnancy loss and birth defects, either mycophenolate or cyclophosphamide.”

Rheumatologists also prescribe a large number of new drugs for which there are few data about pregnancy risks. “It typically takes about two decades to have sufficient data about the safety of our medications,” she said.

Reflecting the sensitivity of the topic, Dr. Clowse made clear that her opinions don’t represent the views of her institution. She works in North Carolina, where the fate of abortion rights is uncertain, according to The New York Times.

What about alternatives? “The short answer is that some of these medications work really well and sometimes much better than the nonteratogenic alternatives,” said Dr. Birru Talabi. “I’m worried about methotrexate. It has been used to induce abortions but is primarily used in the United States as a highly effective treatment for cancer as well as a myriad of rheumatic diseases. If legislators try to restrict access to methotrexate, we may see increasing disability and even death among people who need this medication but cannot access it.”

Rheumatologists aren’t the only physicians who are worrying about the fates of their patients in a new era of abortion restrictions. Gastroenterologist Sunanda Kane, MD, MSPH, of the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., said several teratogenic medications are used in her field to treat constipation, viral hepatitis, and inflammatory bowel disease.

“When treating women of childbearing age, there are usually alternatives. If we do prescribe a medication with a high teratogenic potential, we counsel and document that we have discussed two forms of birth control to avoid pregnancy. We usually do not prescribe a drug with teratogenic potential with the ‘out’ being an abortion if a pregnancy does occur,” she said. However, “if abortion is not even on the table as an option, we may be much less likely to prescribe these medications. This will be particularly true in patients who clearly do not have the means to travel to have an abortion in any situation.”

Abortion is expected to remain legal in Minnesota, where Dr. Kane practices, but it may be restricted or banned in nearby Wisconsin, depending on the state legislature. None of her patients have had abortions after becoming pregnant while taking the medications, she said, although she “did have a patient who because of her religious faith did not have an abortion after exposure and ended up with a stillbirth.”

The crackdown on abortion won’t just pose risks to patients who take potentially dangerous medications, physicians said. Dr. Kane said pregnancy itself is a significant risk for patients with “very active, uncontrolled gastrointestinal conditions where a pregnancy could be harmful to the mother’s health or result in offspring that are very unhealthy.” These include decompensated cirrhosis, uncontrolled Crohn’s disease or ulcerative colitis, refractory gastroparesis, uncontrolled celiac sprue, and chronic pancreatitis, she said.

“There have been times when after shared decisionmaking, a patient with very active inflammatory bowel disease has decided to terminate the pregnancy because of her own ongoing health issues,” she said. “Not having this option will potentially lead to disastrous results.”

Dr. Clowse, the Duke University rheumatologist, echoed Dr. Kane’s concerns about women who are too sick to bear children. “The removal of abortion rights puts the lives and quality of life for women with rheumatic disease at risk. For patients with lupus and other systemic rheumatic disease, pregnancy can be medically catastrophic, leading to permanent harm and even death to the woman and her offspring. I am worried that women in these conditions will die without lifesaving pregnancy terminations, due to worries about the legal consequences for their physicians.”

The U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling that overturned Roe v. Wade has also raised the prospect that the court could ultimately allow birth control to be restricted or outlawed.

While the ruling states that “nothing in this opinion should be understood to cast doubt on precedents that do not concern abortion,” Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a concurrence in which he said that the court should reconsider a 1960s ruling that forbids the banning of contraceptives. Republicans have dismissed concerns about bans being allowed, although Democrats, including the president and vice president, starkly warn that they could happen.

“If we as providers have to be concerned that there will be an unplanned pregnancy because of the lack of access to contraception,” Dr. Kane said, “this will have significant downstream consequences to the kind of care we can provide and might just drive some providers to not give care to female patients at all given this concern.”

The physicians quoted in this article report no relevant financial relationships.

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

As states ban or limit abortion in the wake of the demise of Roe v. Wade, physicians are turning their attention to widely-used drugs that can cause birth defects. At issue: Should these drugs still be prescribed to women of childbearing age if they don’t have the option of terminating their pregnancies?

javi_indy/ Thinkstock

“Doctors are going to understandably be terrified that a patient may become pregnant using a teratogen that they have prescribed,” said University of Pittsburgh rheumatologist Mehret Birru Talabi, MD, PhD, who works in a state where the future of abortion rights is uncertain. “While this was a feared outcome before Roe v. Wade was overturned, abortion provided an escape hatch by which women could avoid having to continue a pregnancy and potentially raise a child with congenital anomalies. I believe that prescribing is going to become much more defensive and conservative. Some clinicians may choose not to prescribe these medications to patients who have childbearing potential, even if they don’t have much risk for pregnancy.”

Other physicians expressed similar concerns in interviews. Duke University, Durham, N.C., rheumatologist Megan E. B. Clowse, MD, MPH, fears that physicians will be wary of prescribing a variety of medications – including new ones for which there are few pregnancy data – if abortion is unavailable. “Women who receive these new or teratogenic medications will likely lose their reproductive autonomy and be forced to choose between having sexual relationships with men, obtaining procedures that make them permanently sterile, or using contraception that may cause intolerable side effects,” she said. “I am very concerned that young women with rheumatic disease will now be left with active disease resulting in joint damage and renal failure.”

Abortion is now banned in at least six states, according to The New York Times. That number may rise to 16 as more restrictions become law. Another five states aren’t expected to ban abortion soon but have implemented gestational age limits on abortion or are expected to adopt them. In another nine states, courts or lawmakers will decide whether abortion remains legal.

Only 20 states and the District of Columbia have firm abortion protections in place.

Numerous drugs are considered teratogens, which means they may cause birth defects. Thalidomide is the most infamous, but there are many more, including several used in rheumatology, dermatology, and gastroenterology. Among the most widely used teratogenic medications are the acne drugs isotretinoin and methotrexate, which are used to treat a variety of conditions, such as cancer, rheumatoid arthritis, and psoriasis.

Dr. Clowse, who helps manage an industry-supported website devoted to reproductive care for women with lupus (www.LupusPregnancy.org), noted that several drugs linked to birth defects and pregnancy loss are commonly prescribed in rheumatology.

“Methotrexate is the most common medication and has been the cornerstone of rheumatoid arthritis [treatment] for at least two decades,” she said. “Mycophenolate is our best medication to treat lupus nephritis, which is inflammation in the kidneys caused by lupus. This is a common complication for young women with lupus, and all of our guideline-recommended treatment regimens include a medication that causes pregnancy loss and birth defects, either mycophenolate or cyclophosphamide.”

Rheumatologists also prescribe a large number of new drugs for which there are few data about pregnancy risks. “It typically takes about two decades to have sufficient data about the safety of our medications,” she said.

Reflecting the sensitivity of the topic, Dr. Clowse made clear that her opinions don’t represent the views of her institution. She works in North Carolina, where the fate of abortion rights is uncertain, according to The New York Times.

What about alternatives? “The short answer is that some of these medications work really well and sometimes much better than the nonteratogenic alternatives,” said Dr. Birru Talabi. “I’m worried about methotrexate. It has been used to induce abortions but is primarily used in the United States as a highly effective treatment for cancer as well as a myriad of rheumatic diseases. If legislators try to restrict access to methotrexate, we may see increasing disability and even death among people who need this medication but cannot access it.”

Rheumatologists aren’t the only physicians who are worrying about the fates of their patients in a new era of abortion restrictions. Gastroenterologist Sunanda Kane, MD, MSPH, of the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., said several teratogenic medications are used in her field to treat constipation, viral hepatitis, and inflammatory bowel disease.

“When treating women of childbearing age, there are usually alternatives. If we do prescribe a medication with a high teratogenic potential, we counsel and document that we have discussed two forms of birth control to avoid pregnancy. We usually do not prescribe a drug with teratogenic potential with the ‘out’ being an abortion if a pregnancy does occur,” she said. However, “if abortion is not even on the table as an option, we may be much less likely to prescribe these medications. This will be particularly true in patients who clearly do not have the means to travel to have an abortion in any situation.”

Abortion is expected to remain legal in Minnesota, where Dr. Kane practices, but it may be restricted or banned in nearby Wisconsin, depending on the state legislature. None of her patients have had abortions after becoming pregnant while taking the medications, she said, although she “did have a patient who because of her religious faith did not have an abortion after exposure and ended up with a stillbirth.”

The crackdown on abortion won’t just pose risks to patients who take potentially dangerous medications, physicians said. Dr. Kane said pregnancy itself is a significant risk for patients with “very active, uncontrolled gastrointestinal conditions where a pregnancy could be harmful to the mother’s health or result in offspring that are very unhealthy.” These include decompensated cirrhosis, uncontrolled Crohn’s disease or ulcerative colitis, refractory gastroparesis, uncontrolled celiac sprue, and chronic pancreatitis, she said.

“There have been times when after shared decisionmaking, a patient with very active inflammatory bowel disease has decided to terminate the pregnancy because of her own ongoing health issues,” she said. “Not having this option will potentially lead to disastrous results.”

Dr. Clowse, the Duke University rheumatologist, echoed Dr. Kane’s concerns about women who are too sick to bear children. “The removal of abortion rights puts the lives and quality of life for women with rheumatic disease at risk. For patients with lupus and other systemic rheumatic disease, pregnancy can be medically catastrophic, leading to permanent harm and even death to the woman and her offspring. I am worried that women in these conditions will die without lifesaving pregnancy terminations, due to worries about the legal consequences for their physicians.”

The U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling that overturned Roe v. Wade has also raised the prospect that the court could ultimately allow birth control to be restricted or outlawed.

While the ruling states that “nothing in this opinion should be understood to cast doubt on precedents that do not concern abortion,” Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a concurrence in which he said that the court should reconsider a 1960s ruling that forbids the banning of contraceptives. Republicans have dismissed concerns about bans being allowed, although Democrats, including the president and vice president, starkly warn that they could happen.

“If we as providers have to be concerned that there will be an unplanned pregnancy because of the lack of access to contraception,” Dr. Kane said, “this will have significant downstream consequences to the kind of care we can provide and might just drive some providers to not give care to female patients at all given this concern.”

The physicians quoted in this article report no relevant financial relationships.

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

LONDON – Weight loss, lipid reductions, and “robust improvements” in lipid species associated with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease were achieved in patients who were treated with pemvidutide in a first-in-human, phase 1 clinical trial reported at the annual International Liver Congress, sponsored by the European Association for the Study of the Liver.

The presenting study investigator, Stephen A. Harrison, MD, said that pemvidutide, which is also being developed for the treatment of obesity, appeared to be well tolerated. There were no serious or severe adverse events, and no patient had to discontinue treatment because of side effects.

Sara Freeman/MDedge News

Overall, “pemvidutide represents a promising new agent,” said Dr. Harrison, medical director of Pinnacle Research in San Antonio, Texas.
 

Dual incretin effect

Pemvidutide is a “balanced” dual agonist of glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) and glucagon, Dr. Harrison explained in his oral abstract.

“With glucagon, we are working to drive energy expenditure up, and with GLP-1, we’re decreasing food intake,” Dr. Harrison said.

What might set pemvidutide apart from other incretins lies within its structure, Dr. Harrison suggested. The structure has two main regions – one with greater GLP-1 specificity and the other with greater glucagon specificity, and these two areas are linked by a propriety technology called a EuPort^™ domain. This is an area which allows the drug to bind to albumin, which increases its serum half-life and enables weekly dosing while slowing its entry into the bloodstream.

“Ultimately, we think that this has impacts, hypothetically, on tolerability and potentially mitigating the need for dose escalation,” said Dr. Harrison.
 

Weight loss results

The phase 1 study Dr. Harrison presented had a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled design with single and multiple ascending doses (SAD/MAD) of pemvidutide being tested. He presented data on the MAD phase only, noting that the SAD phase had been used to determine what doses to use in the latter.

Seventy individuals with a body mass index of between 25 and 40 kg/m² were recruited and 34 of these were enrolled in the MAD phase of the study. Three doses of pemvidutide were used, given subcutaneously once a week for 12 weeks: Seven participants received 1.2 mg, 9 were given 1.8 mg, 11 had 2.4 mg, and 7 subjects were treated with placebo. Dr. Harrison noted that there were no caloric restrictions in the trial and no lifestyle modifications or interventions.

The average age of study participants ranged from 27 to 35 years and the mean BMI was 30-31 kg/m² across each group, with their lipid parameters in the upper range of normal.

Clear weight loss reductions were seen across all the pemvidutide groups versus placebo, with the greatest percentage changes in weight loss seen with the two higher doses used. At week 12, there was a 4.9%, 10.3% and 9.0% weight loss in the 1.2-mg, 1.8-mg and 2.4-mg pemvidutide groups compared to 1.6% in placebo-treated individuals.

All patients in the 1.8-mg group achieved a 5% or greater weight loss, Dr. Harrison observed, but there “was a plateauing” effect with the 2.4-mg dose with 89% of patients achieving this target. In comparison, a third of patients on the lowest dose and 20% of those on placebo achieved this target.

The trajectory of weight loss seen in the trial suggests that “the rate of weight loss would continue beyond 12 weeks if we were to continue the therapy” Dr. Harrison said.
 

Lipid changes and liver fat reductions

Levels of serum lipids from baseline to week 12 fell to a greater extent with pemvidutide treatment than with placebo, in the range of –27% for total cholesterol in the two highest dose groups, –25% for LDL-cholesterol for those groups, –37% for triglycerides for the 1.2- and 1.8-mg groups, and reductions in apolipoprotein B were seen.

“We saw an initial decline in HDL [high-density lipoprotein],” Dr. Harrison said, noting that “this is consistent with prior studies looking at rapid weight loss, and over time, this mitigates as you continue to treat at least based on other mechanisms of action or other drugs with similar mechanisms.”

Pemvidutide treatment was also associated with increased lipid oxidation and decreased lipid synthesis, and “there was a robust decrease in lipids implicated in NASH inflammation,” Dr. Harrison pointed out.

Importantly, in five of eight participants who had high levels of liver fat at baseline – defined as a 5% or greater magnetic resonance imaging–derived proton-density-fat-fraction (MRI-PDFF) – showed a decrease to undetectable limits (1.5% or less). This was a greater than 90% reduction in liver fat, Dr. Harrison said. All five patients were in the 1.8-mg and 2.4-mg groups.

As for side effects, these were “predominantly upper GI, with nausea and vomiting.” These were mild in most cases, but he pointed out that five patients treated with the 1.8-mg dose experienced moderate nausea and three experienced moderate vomiting. Mild diarrhea and constipation were also seen in two of patients given this dose but was not reported in any of the other groups.

During the discussion following the presentation, it was pointed out that there was no clear dose-dependent effect considering the 1.8-mg dose seemed to have a stronger effect in some areas than the 2.4-mg dose. That’s a fair point, Dr. Harrison responded, reiterating it was a small study with a short treatment duration, but that there did look like a plateauing effect, “at least in patients with a mean BMI of between 30 and 31.”

Dr. Harrison was asked about potential effects on insulin levels and if that was a worry because, if glucagon is stimulated, it could increase insulin. That in turn might encourage insulin resistance and promote worse outcomes.

“If you look outside of just this program, glucagon agonism has been dosed in a lot of patients over time, and we haven’t seen that,” Dr. Harrison replied. Pemvidutide is an agonist rather than antagonist, so perhaps the [nonalcoholic steatohepatitis]–inducing effects seen before with glucagon antagonism won’t occur, he suggested.

Dr. Harrison disclosed ties to Altimmune (the study sponsor), Akero, Axcella, Bristol Myers Squibb, Cirius, CiVi Biopharma, Conatus, Corcept, CymaBay, Enyo, Galectin, Genentech, Genfit, Gilead, Hepion, Hightide, HistoIndex, Intercept, Madrigal, Metacrine, NGM Bio, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, NorthSea, Pfizer, Sagimet, Viking, and 89Bio.

LONDON – Weight loss, lipid reductions, and “robust improvements” in lipid species associated with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease were achieved in patients who were treated with pemvidutide in a first-in-human, phase 1 clinical trial reported at the annual International Liver Congress, sponsored by the European Association for the Study of the Liver.

The presenting study investigator, Stephen A. Harrison, MD, said that pemvidutide, which is also being developed for the treatment of obesity, appeared to be well tolerated. There were no serious or severe adverse events, and no patient had to discontinue treatment because of side effects.

Sara Freeman/MDedge News

Overall, “pemvidutide represents a promising new agent,” said Dr. Harrison, medical director of Pinnacle Research in San Antonio, Texas.
 

Dual incretin effect

Pemvidutide is a “balanced” dual agonist of glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) and glucagon, Dr. Harrison explained in his oral abstract.

“With glucagon, we are working to drive energy expenditure up, and with GLP-1, we’re decreasing food intake,” Dr. Harrison said.

What might set pemvidutide apart from other incretins lies within its structure, Dr. Harrison suggested. The structure has two main regions – one with greater GLP-1 specificity and the other with greater glucagon specificity, and these two areas are linked by a propriety technology called a EuPort^™ domain. This is an area which allows the drug to bind to albumin, which increases its serum half-life and enables weekly dosing while slowing its entry into the bloodstream.

“Ultimately, we think that this has impacts, hypothetically, on tolerability and potentially mitigating the need for dose escalation,” said Dr. Harrison.
 

Weight loss results

The phase 1 study Dr. Harrison presented had a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled design with single and multiple ascending doses (SAD/MAD) of pemvidutide being tested. He presented data on the MAD phase only, noting that the SAD phase had been used to determine what doses to use in the latter.

Seventy individuals with a body mass index of between 25 and 40 kg/m² were recruited and 34 of these were enrolled in the MAD phase of the study. Three doses of pemvidutide were used, given subcutaneously once a week for 12 weeks: Seven participants received 1.2 mg, 9 were given 1.8 mg, 11 had 2.4 mg, and 7 subjects were treated with placebo. Dr. Harrison noted that there were no caloric restrictions in the trial and no lifestyle modifications or interventions.

The average age of study participants ranged from 27 to 35 years and the mean BMI was 30-31 kg/m² across each group, with their lipid parameters in the upper range of normal.

Clear weight loss reductions were seen across all the pemvidutide groups versus placebo, with the greatest percentage changes in weight loss seen with the two higher doses used. At week 12, there was a 4.9%, 10.3% and 9.0% weight loss in the 1.2-mg, 1.8-mg and 2.4-mg pemvidutide groups compared to 1.6% in placebo-treated individuals.

All patients in the 1.8-mg group achieved a 5% or greater weight loss, Dr. Harrison observed, but there “was a plateauing” effect with the 2.4-mg dose with 89% of patients achieving this target. In comparison, a third of patients on the lowest dose and 20% of those on placebo achieved this target.

The trajectory of weight loss seen in the trial suggests that “the rate of weight loss would continue beyond 12 weeks if we were to continue the therapy” Dr. Harrison said.
 

Lipid changes and liver fat reductions

Levels of serum lipids from baseline to week 12 fell to a greater extent with pemvidutide treatment than with placebo, in the range of –27% for total cholesterol in the two highest dose groups, –25% for LDL-cholesterol for those groups, –37% for triglycerides for the 1.2- and 1.8-mg groups, and reductions in apolipoprotein B were seen.

“We saw an initial decline in HDL [high-density lipoprotein],” Dr. Harrison said, noting that “this is consistent with prior studies looking at rapid weight loss, and over time, this mitigates as you continue to treat at least based on other mechanisms of action or other drugs with similar mechanisms.”

Pemvidutide treatment was also associated with increased lipid oxidation and decreased lipid synthesis, and “there was a robust decrease in lipids implicated in NASH inflammation,” Dr. Harrison pointed out.

Importantly, in five of eight participants who had high levels of liver fat at baseline – defined as a 5% or greater magnetic resonance imaging–derived proton-density-fat-fraction (MRI-PDFF) – showed a decrease to undetectable limits (1.5% or less). This was a greater than 90% reduction in liver fat, Dr. Harrison said. All five patients were in the 1.8-mg and 2.4-mg groups.

As for side effects, these were “predominantly upper GI, with nausea and vomiting.” These were mild in most cases, but he pointed out that five patients treated with the 1.8-mg dose experienced moderate nausea and three experienced moderate vomiting. Mild diarrhea and constipation were also seen in two of patients given this dose but was not reported in any of the other groups.

During the discussion following the presentation, it was pointed out that there was no clear dose-dependent effect considering the 1.8-mg dose seemed to have a stronger effect in some areas than the 2.4-mg dose. That’s a fair point, Dr. Harrison responded, reiterating it was a small study with a short treatment duration, but that there did look like a plateauing effect, “at least in patients with a mean BMI of between 30 and 31.”

Dr. Harrison was asked about potential effects on insulin levels and if that was a worry because, if glucagon is stimulated, it could increase insulin. That in turn might encourage insulin resistance and promote worse outcomes.

“If you look outside of just this program, glucagon agonism has been dosed in a lot of patients over time, and we haven’t seen that,” Dr. Harrison replied. Pemvidutide is an agonist rather than antagonist, so perhaps the [nonalcoholic steatohepatitis]–inducing effects seen before with glucagon antagonism won’t occur, he suggested.

Dr. Harrison disclosed ties to Altimmune (the study sponsor), Akero, Axcella, Bristol Myers Squibb, Cirius, CiVi Biopharma, Conatus, Corcept, CymaBay, Enyo, Galectin, Genentech, Genfit, Gilead, Hepion, Hightide, HistoIndex, Intercept, Madrigal, Metacrine, NGM Bio, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, NorthSea, Pfizer, Sagimet, Viking, and 89Bio.

LONDON – Weight loss, lipid reductions, and “robust improvements” in lipid species associated with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease were achieved in patients who were treated with pemvidutide in a first-in-human, phase 1 clinical trial reported at the annual International Liver Congress, sponsored by the European Association for the Study of the Liver.

The presenting study investigator, Stephen A. Harrison, MD, said that pemvidutide, which is also being developed for the treatment of obesity, appeared to be well tolerated. There were no serious or severe adverse events, and no patient had to discontinue treatment because of side effects.

Sara Freeman/MDedge News

Overall, “pemvidutide represents a promising new agent,” said Dr. Harrison, medical director of Pinnacle Research in San Antonio, Texas.
 

Dual incretin effect

Pemvidutide is a “balanced” dual agonist of glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) and glucagon, Dr. Harrison explained in his oral abstract.

“With glucagon, we are working to drive energy expenditure up, and with GLP-1, we’re decreasing food intake,” Dr. Harrison said.

What might set pemvidutide apart from other incretins lies within its structure, Dr. Harrison suggested. The structure has two main regions – one with greater GLP-1 specificity and the other with greater glucagon specificity, and these two areas are linked by a propriety technology called a EuPort^™ domain. This is an area which allows the drug to bind to albumin, which increases its serum half-life and enables weekly dosing while slowing its entry into the bloodstream.

“Ultimately, we think that this has impacts, hypothetically, on tolerability and potentially mitigating the need for dose escalation,” said Dr. Harrison.
 

Weight loss results

The phase 1 study Dr. Harrison presented had a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled design with single and multiple ascending doses (SAD/MAD) of pemvidutide being tested. He presented data on the MAD phase only, noting that the SAD phase had been used to determine what doses to use in the latter.

Seventy individuals with a body mass index of between 25 and 40 kg/m² were recruited and 34 of these were enrolled in the MAD phase of the study. Three doses of pemvidutide were used, given subcutaneously once a week for 12 weeks: Seven participants received 1.2 mg, 9 were given 1.8 mg, 11 had 2.4 mg, and 7 subjects were treated with placebo. Dr. Harrison noted that there were no caloric restrictions in the trial and no lifestyle modifications or interventions.

The average age of study participants ranged from 27 to 35 years and the mean BMI was 30-31 kg/m² across each group, with their lipid parameters in the upper range of normal.

Clear weight loss reductions were seen across all the pemvidutide groups versus placebo, with the greatest percentage changes in weight loss seen with the two higher doses used. At week 12, there was a 4.9%, 10.3% and 9.0% weight loss in the 1.2-mg, 1.8-mg and 2.4-mg pemvidutide groups compared to 1.6% in placebo-treated individuals.

All patients in the 1.8-mg group achieved a 5% or greater weight loss, Dr. Harrison observed, but there “was a plateauing” effect with the 2.4-mg dose with 89% of patients achieving this target. In comparison, a third of patients on the lowest dose and 20% of those on placebo achieved this target.

The trajectory of weight loss seen in the trial suggests that “the rate of weight loss would continue beyond 12 weeks if we were to continue the therapy” Dr. Harrison said.
 

Lipid changes and liver fat reductions

Levels of serum lipids from baseline to week 12 fell to a greater extent with pemvidutide treatment than with placebo, in the range of –27% for total cholesterol in the two highest dose groups, –25% for LDL-cholesterol for those groups, –37% for triglycerides for the 1.2- and 1.8-mg groups, and reductions in apolipoprotein B were seen.

“We saw an initial decline in HDL [high-density lipoprotein],” Dr. Harrison said, noting that “this is consistent with prior studies looking at rapid weight loss, and over time, this mitigates as you continue to treat at least based on other mechanisms of action or other drugs with similar mechanisms.”

Pemvidutide treatment was also associated with increased lipid oxidation and decreased lipid synthesis, and “there was a robust decrease in lipids implicated in NASH inflammation,” Dr. Harrison pointed out.

Importantly, in five of eight participants who had high levels of liver fat at baseline – defined as a 5% or greater magnetic resonance imaging–derived proton-density-fat-fraction (MRI-PDFF) – showed a decrease to undetectable limits (1.5% or less). This was a greater than 90% reduction in liver fat, Dr. Harrison said. All five patients were in the 1.8-mg and 2.4-mg groups.

As for side effects, these were “predominantly upper GI, with nausea and vomiting.” These were mild in most cases, but he pointed out that five patients treated with the 1.8-mg dose experienced moderate nausea and three experienced moderate vomiting. Mild diarrhea and constipation were also seen in two of patients given this dose but was not reported in any of the other groups.

During the discussion following the presentation, it was pointed out that there was no clear dose-dependent effect considering the 1.8-mg dose seemed to have a stronger effect in some areas than the 2.4-mg dose. That’s a fair point, Dr. Harrison responded, reiterating it was a small study with a short treatment duration, but that there did look like a plateauing effect, “at least in patients with a mean BMI of between 30 and 31.”

Dr. Harrison was asked about potential effects on insulin levels and if that was a worry because, if glucagon is stimulated, it could increase insulin. That in turn might encourage insulin resistance and promote worse outcomes.

“If you look outside of just this program, glucagon agonism has been dosed in a lot of patients over time, and we haven’t seen that,” Dr. Harrison replied. Pemvidutide is an agonist rather than antagonist, so perhaps the [nonalcoholic steatohepatitis]–inducing effects seen before with glucagon antagonism won’t occur, he suggested.

Dr. Harrison disclosed ties to Altimmune (the study sponsor), Akero, Axcella, Bristol Myers Squibb, Cirius, CiVi Biopharma, Conatus, Corcept, CymaBay, Enyo, Galectin, Genentech, Genfit, Gilead, Hepion, Hightide, HistoIndex, Intercept, Madrigal, Metacrine, NGM Bio, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, NorthSea, Pfizer, Sagimet, Viking, and 89Bio.

Hydroxychloroquine should be initiated with caution in older patients with rheumatoid arthritis who also have heart failure or are at risk for it, say the authors of a study suggesting that the drug could increase their risk for major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), compared with methotrexate.

A cohort study published online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology looked at outcomes in 54,462 patients with RA aged 65 years or older and not previously treated with disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs. Half were initiated on methotrexate and half on hydroxychloroquine, making 27,231 propensity-matched pairs.

Across the entire cohort, hydroxychloroquine was not associated with a higher risk for sudden cardiac arrest, ventricular arrhythmia, or MACE, compared with methotrexate. When broken down into individual cardiovascular events, the data suggested a statistically significant 17% increase in the risk for cardiovascular mortality and 10% increase in all-cause mortality with hydroxychloroquine, although there were no differences in the risks for myocardial infarction or stroke.

However, a subgroup analysis revealed a significant 30% increase in the risk for MACE among patients starting hydroxychloroquine who also had a history of heart failure, compared with patients taking methotrexate. The researchers found no difference between the two drugs in patients without a history of heart failure. The study also suggested an overall 41% increase in the risk for hospitalization with heart failure with hydroxychloroquine, regardless of heart failure history.

Hydroxychloroquine was also associated with a 34% increase in the risk for cardiovascular mortality, a 22% increase in the risk for all-cause mortality, and a 74% increase in the risk for MI.

The lead author of the study, Elvira D’Andrea, MD, PhD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School in Boston, said that hydroxychloroquine is used as a first-line treatment for RA, but there was limited evidence on its cardiovascular risks. The pandemic in particular shined a spotlight on these concerns and prompted the researchers to extend their original prepandemic study to encompass additional cardiovascular outcomes.

“The emerging concerns on its cardiovascular safety in early 2020 has led the rheumatological community, and patients regularly taking hydroxychloroquine for rheumatoid arthritis, to confusion,” Dr. D’Andrea said in an interview.

She advised that clinicians be cautious when initiating hydroxychloroquine in older patients with existing heart failure or who have risk factors for it. “Although heart failure is a known concern for hydroxychloroquine use, these findings helped to clarify the relationship between the use of hydroxychloroquine or methotrexate and heart failure. Clinicians should pay careful attention to clinical manifestations of cardiomyopathy or heart failure in older patients with rheumatoid arthritis treated with hydroxychloroquine.”

Hydroxychloroquine is associated with cardiotoxicity, particularly cardiomyopathy, which may help precipitate MACE or heart failure exacerbations in patients who already have deterioration of their cardiac tissue, the authors suggested.

Short follow-up period leaves risk attribution under question

In an accompanying editorial, Elizabeth Blair Solow, MD, and Bonnie L. Bermas, MD, of the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, commented that the lack of an increased risk for arrhythmic events or MACE in the overall cohort taking hydroxychloroquine was reassuring. They also suggested the subgroup analysis findings among patients with preexisting heart failure were still “exploratory and hypothesis-generating” and should be interpreted with caution.

They noted that the follow-up time of the study was relatively short – a median of 209 days – given that hydroxychloroquine does not reach a steady-state level for 6 months.

“Evidence to date suggests cardiomyopathy from HCQ [hydroxychloroquine] takes years to develop, many months beyond the exposures described here, bringing into question as to whether HCQ itself increased HF hospitalizations,” the editorialists wrote.

The editorial also raised the question of whether the association observed in the study was related to a possible cardioprotective effect of methotrexate, given that previous studies have suggested this effect in older patients with RA.

The study authors did an exploratory analysis comparing hydroxychloroquine with sulfasalazine, which appeared to support their main findings of a possible cardiovascular effect of hydroxychloroquine. However, they qualified this by pointing out that the analysis involved small numbers of patients.

Senior investigator Seoyoung C. Kim, MD, ScD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, also noted that the study only looked at outcomes in patients aged 65 years and older.

“It would be clinically important to further examine the cardiovascular safety of hydroxychloroquine versus methotrexate in a younger population with rheumatic conditions,” she said.

The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, and Harvard Medical School. Four authors declared unrelated research grants from the pharmaceutical sector, with one also declaring stock options and consulting work with the pharmaceutical sector. No other conflicts of interest were declared.

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

Hydroxychloroquine should be initiated with caution in older patients with rheumatoid arthritis who also have heart failure or are at risk for it, say the authors of a study suggesting that the drug could increase their risk for major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), compared with methotrexate.

A cohort study published online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology looked at outcomes in 54,462 patients with RA aged 65 years or older and not previously treated with disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs. Half were initiated on methotrexate and half on hydroxychloroquine, making 27,231 propensity-matched pairs.

Across the entire cohort, hydroxychloroquine was not associated with a higher risk for sudden cardiac arrest, ventricular arrhythmia, or MACE, compared with methotrexate. When broken down into individual cardiovascular events, the data suggested a statistically significant 17% increase in the risk for cardiovascular mortality and 10% increase in all-cause mortality with hydroxychloroquine, although there were no differences in the risks for myocardial infarction or stroke.

However, a subgroup analysis revealed a significant 30% increase in the risk for MACE among patients starting hydroxychloroquine who also had a history of heart failure, compared with patients taking methotrexate. The researchers found no difference between the two drugs in patients without a history of heart failure. The study also suggested an overall 41% increase in the risk for hospitalization with heart failure with hydroxychloroquine, regardless of heart failure history.

Hydroxychloroquine was also associated with a 34% increase in the risk for cardiovascular mortality, a 22% increase in the risk for all-cause mortality, and a 74% increase in the risk for MI.

The lead author of the study, Elvira D’Andrea, MD, PhD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School in Boston, said that hydroxychloroquine is used as a first-line treatment for RA, but there was limited evidence on its cardiovascular risks. The pandemic in particular shined a spotlight on these concerns and prompted the researchers to extend their original prepandemic study to encompass additional cardiovascular outcomes.

“The emerging concerns on its cardiovascular safety in early 2020 has led the rheumatological community, and patients regularly taking hydroxychloroquine for rheumatoid arthritis, to confusion,” Dr. D’Andrea said in an interview.

She advised that clinicians be cautious when initiating hydroxychloroquine in older patients with existing heart failure or who have risk factors for it. “Although heart failure is a known concern for hydroxychloroquine use, these findings helped to clarify the relationship between the use of hydroxychloroquine or methotrexate and heart failure. Clinicians should pay careful attention to clinical manifestations of cardiomyopathy or heart failure in older patients with rheumatoid arthritis treated with hydroxychloroquine.”

Hydroxychloroquine is associated with cardiotoxicity, particularly cardiomyopathy, which may help precipitate MACE or heart failure exacerbations in patients who already have deterioration of their cardiac tissue, the authors suggested.

Short follow-up period leaves risk attribution under question

In an accompanying editorial, Elizabeth Blair Solow, MD, and Bonnie L. Bermas, MD, of the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, commented that the lack of an increased risk for arrhythmic events or MACE in the overall cohort taking hydroxychloroquine was reassuring. They also suggested the subgroup analysis findings among patients with preexisting heart failure were still “exploratory and hypothesis-generating” and should be interpreted with caution.

They noted that the follow-up time of the study was relatively short – a median of 209 days – given that hydroxychloroquine does not reach a steady-state level for 6 months.

“Evidence to date suggests cardiomyopathy from HCQ [hydroxychloroquine] takes years to develop, many months beyond the exposures described here, bringing into question as to whether HCQ itself increased HF hospitalizations,” the editorialists wrote.

The editorial also raised the question of whether the association observed in the study was related to a possible cardioprotective effect of methotrexate, given that previous studies have suggested this effect in older patients with RA.

The study authors did an exploratory analysis comparing hydroxychloroquine with sulfasalazine, which appeared to support their main findings of a possible cardiovascular effect of hydroxychloroquine. However, they qualified this by pointing out that the analysis involved small numbers of patients.

Senior investigator Seoyoung C. Kim, MD, ScD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, also noted that the study only looked at outcomes in patients aged 65 years and older.

“It would be clinically important to further examine the cardiovascular safety of hydroxychloroquine versus methotrexate in a younger population with rheumatic conditions,” she said.

The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, and Harvard Medical School. Four authors declared unrelated research grants from the pharmaceutical sector, with one also declaring stock options and consulting work with the pharmaceutical sector. No other conflicts of interest were declared.

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

Hydroxychloroquine should be initiated with caution in older patients with rheumatoid arthritis who also have heart failure or are at risk for it, say the authors of a study suggesting that the drug could increase their risk for major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), compared with methotrexate.

A cohort study published online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology looked at outcomes in 54,462 patients with RA aged 65 years or older and not previously treated with disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs. Half were initiated on methotrexate and half on hydroxychloroquine, making 27,231 propensity-matched pairs.

Across the entire cohort, hydroxychloroquine was not associated with a higher risk for sudden cardiac arrest, ventricular arrhythmia, or MACE, compared with methotrexate. When broken down into individual cardiovascular events, the data suggested a statistically significant 17% increase in the risk for cardiovascular mortality and 10% increase in all-cause mortality with hydroxychloroquine, although there were no differences in the risks for myocardial infarction or stroke.

However, a subgroup analysis revealed a significant 30% increase in the risk for MACE among patients starting hydroxychloroquine who also had a history of heart failure, compared with patients taking methotrexate. The researchers found no difference between the two drugs in patients without a history of heart failure. The study also suggested an overall 41% increase in the risk for hospitalization with heart failure with hydroxychloroquine, regardless of heart failure history.

Hydroxychloroquine was also associated with a 34% increase in the risk for cardiovascular mortality, a 22% increase in the risk for all-cause mortality, and a 74% increase in the risk for MI.

The lead author of the study, Elvira D’Andrea, MD, PhD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School in Boston, said that hydroxychloroquine is used as a first-line treatment for RA, but there was limited evidence on its cardiovascular risks. The pandemic in particular shined a spotlight on these concerns and prompted the researchers to extend their original prepandemic study to encompass additional cardiovascular outcomes.

“The emerging concerns on its cardiovascular safety in early 2020 has led the rheumatological community, and patients regularly taking hydroxychloroquine for rheumatoid arthritis, to confusion,” Dr. D’Andrea said in an interview.

She advised that clinicians be cautious when initiating hydroxychloroquine in older patients with existing heart failure or who have risk factors for it. “Although heart failure is a known concern for hydroxychloroquine use, these findings helped to clarify the relationship between the use of hydroxychloroquine or methotrexate and heart failure. Clinicians should pay careful attention to clinical manifestations of cardiomyopathy or heart failure in older patients with rheumatoid arthritis treated with hydroxychloroquine.”

Hydroxychloroquine is associated with cardiotoxicity, particularly cardiomyopathy, which may help precipitate MACE or heart failure exacerbations in patients who already have deterioration of their cardiac tissue, the authors suggested.

Short follow-up period leaves risk attribution under question

In an accompanying editorial, Elizabeth Blair Solow, MD, and Bonnie L. Bermas, MD, of the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, commented that the lack of an increased risk for arrhythmic events or MACE in the overall cohort taking hydroxychloroquine was reassuring. They also suggested the subgroup analysis findings among patients with preexisting heart failure were still “exploratory and hypothesis-generating” and should be interpreted with caution.

They noted that the follow-up time of the study was relatively short – a median of 209 days – given that hydroxychloroquine does not reach a steady-state level for 6 months.

“Evidence to date suggests cardiomyopathy from HCQ [hydroxychloroquine] takes years to develop, many months beyond the exposures described here, bringing into question as to whether HCQ itself increased HF hospitalizations,” the editorialists wrote.

The editorial also raised the question of whether the association observed in the study was related to a possible cardioprotective effect of methotrexate, given that previous studies have suggested this effect in older patients with RA.

The study authors did an exploratory analysis comparing hydroxychloroquine with sulfasalazine, which appeared to support their main findings of a possible cardiovascular effect of hydroxychloroquine. However, they qualified this by pointing out that the analysis involved small numbers of patients.

Senior investigator Seoyoung C. Kim, MD, ScD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, also noted that the study only looked at outcomes in patients aged 65 years and older.

“It would be clinically important to further examine the cardiovascular safety of hydroxychloroquine versus methotrexate in a younger population with rheumatic conditions,” she said.

The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, and Harvard Medical School. Four authors declared unrelated research grants from the pharmaceutical sector, with one also declaring stock options and consulting work with the pharmaceutical sector. No other conflicts of interest were declared.

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

A new study finds that mortality is significantly higher among patients with advanced solid tumors who are admitted to the hospital for chemotherapy treatment.

The findings – released in a poster session at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology – found that patients with solid tumors were more likely to be treated for nonurgent indications, not be referred to palliative care, and die within 60 days, compared with patients with hematologic malignancies.

Decisions about inpatient chemotherapy should not be uniform and instead should be based on a case-by-case basis, said Natalie Berger, MD, a hematologist-oncologist at Mount Sinai Hospital,, New York, and the study’s lead author.

Inpatient chemotherapy can be appropriate in certain situations, such as when chemotherapy must be given in the hospital and when it must be administered quickly after a patient presents with cancer symptoms and needs relief, she said.

However, “sometimes patients are admitted due to infection, side effects of chemotherapy or cancer, or for reasons unrelated to their cancer, and chemotherapy may be administered when it is not appropriate. It is also overutilized at the end of life which can lead to more aggressive end-of-life care rather than focusing on quality of life and supportive care,” Dr. Berger said.

The study is based on a retrospective chart review of 880 patients admitted to Mount Sinai Hospital between January 2016 and December 2017 to receive chemotherapy.

They found that the type of tumor was used to determine the urgency of an in-hospital stay for chemotherapy (odds ratio, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.25-0.72; P = .001). Patients with solid tumors or older patients or patients with a functional impairment score (Karnofsky Performance Scale) of 50% were less likely to respond to chemotherapy. There was also a decrease in quality of life among these patients, but only 46% of patients with solid tumors and 15% of patients with hematologic malignancies met with a palliative care professional.

One-third (34%) of patients with solid tumors didn’t have urgent indications, 43% of patients had no response to inpatient chemotherapy, and 20% died within 60 days, compared with patients with hematologic malignancies (19%, 19%, and 9%, respectively).

“There are many reasons why this [high mortality rate in patients with solid tumors] may be happening. Solid tumor patients are more often admitted at a later stage of their cancer when they are sicker, and they were also less likely to have a response to inpatient chemotherapy. Older patients and patients with a poor performance status were also less likely to respond to chemotherapy. This indicates that these patients were sicker, and chemotherapy use may not have been appropriate and palliative care may be underutilized,” she said.

Dr. Berger and colleagues have created a standardized protocol to assess “the appropriateness” of inpatient chemotherapy, improve quality of life, and reduce chemotherapy and health care utilization at the end of life. The protocol has been implemented as a pilot program at Mount Sinai Hospital, Dr. Berger said.

“Any inpatient chemotherapy case that meets standard accepted criteria for required inpatient administration are auto-approved through the electronic survey. For cases outside of standard criteria, further information must be inputted to determine appropriateness of inpatient treatment and are then scored electronically and reviewed by committee physicians and pharmacists,” she said.

Gabriel A. Brooks, MD, MPH, an oncologist with Dartmouth Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, N.H., who was not affiliated with the study, said that inpatient chemotherapy treatment is under scrutiny elsewhere as well.

“There has been recognition that patients who are otherwise sick enough to require hospital admission are often too sick to benefit from chemotherapy,” although there are exceptions. “There is certainly a movement to limit inpatient chemotherapy to situations where it is most likely to be beneficial. Some of this is driven by cost pressures. For instance, Medicare pays for inpatient hospitalizations using the DRG [diagnosis-related group] system. Hospitals cannot charge a la carte for treatments given in the hospital. Instead, they are reimbursed at a fixed rate based on the hospital diagnoses. This will often lead to poor reimbursement of high-cost cancer treatments.”

Dr. Brooks said the study offers insight into who’s getting inpatient chemotherapy. However, “what I can’t tell from this poster is how often the solid tumor patients are getting first-line chemotherapy [as] these patients may be presenting late or may have a potentially treatable cancer with a narrow closing window for treatment versus later-line chemotherapy.”

He also noted that patient and family wishes are missing from the research. “This is critical. Patients and families should be informed that inpatient chemotherapy may not provide the benefit they are hoping for, especially for patients with solid tumors starting later lines of therapy. Patients should be informed that there are alternatives to inpatient chemotherapy, such as hospice referral or waiting for possible outpatient treatment – if their condition improves. But when a patient wants to try inpatient chemotherapy and their doctor wants to offer it, then it is likely a reasonable thing to try.”

Going forward, he said, “qualitative study is needed to better understand when and why inpatient chemotherapy is used. There are likely some clear good uses and some clear bad uses of inpatient chemotherapy. Can outpatient regimens be substituted for the regimens where patients are directly admitted? Or, can outpatient protocols be devised for these regimens? Are there specific situations where inpatient chemotherapy is the right thing (leukemia, esophageal cancer with worsening dysphagia, etc.)?”

No study funding was received.

A new study finds that mortality is significantly higher among patients with advanced solid tumors who are admitted to the hospital for chemotherapy treatment.

The findings – released in a poster session at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology – found that patients with solid tumors were more likely to be treated for nonurgent indications, not be referred to palliative care, and die within 60 days, compared with patients with hematologic malignancies.

Decisions about inpatient chemotherapy should not be uniform and instead should be based on a case-by-case basis, said Natalie Berger, MD, a hematologist-oncologist at Mount Sinai Hospital,, New York, and the study’s lead author.

Inpatient chemotherapy can be appropriate in certain situations, such as when chemotherapy must be given in the hospital and when it must be administered quickly after a patient presents with cancer symptoms and needs relief, she said.

However, “sometimes patients are admitted due to infection, side effects of chemotherapy or cancer, or for reasons unrelated to their cancer, and chemotherapy may be administered when it is not appropriate. It is also overutilized at the end of life which can lead to more aggressive end-of-life care rather than focusing on quality of life and supportive care,” Dr. Berger said.

The study is based on a retrospective chart review of 880 patients admitted to Mount Sinai Hospital between January 2016 and December 2017 to receive chemotherapy.

They found that the type of tumor was used to determine the urgency of an in-hospital stay for chemotherapy (odds ratio, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.25-0.72; P = .001). Patients with solid tumors or older patients or patients with a functional impairment score (Karnofsky Performance Scale) of 50% were less likely to respond to chemotherapy. There was also a decrease in quality of life among these patients, but only 46% of patients with solid tumors and 15% of patients with hematologic malignancies met with a palliative care professional.

One-third (34%) of patients with solid tumors didn’t have urgent indications, 43% of patients had no response to inpatient chemotherapy, and 20% died within 60 days, compared with patients with hematologic malignancies (19%, 19%, and 9%, respectively).

“There are many reasons why this [high mortality rate in patients with solid tumors] may be happening. Solid tumor patients are more often admitted at a later stage of their cancer when they are sicker, and they were also less likely to have a response to inpatient chemotherapy. Older patients and patients with a poor performance status were also less likely to respond to chemotherapy. This indicates that these patients were sicker, and chemotherapy use may not have been appropriate and palliative care may be underutilized,” she said.

Dr. Berger and colleagues have created a standardized protocol to assess “the appropriateness” of inpatient chemotherapy, improve quality of life, and reduce chemotherapy and health care utilization at the end of life. The protocol has been implemented as a pilot program at Mount Sinai Hospital, Dr. Berger said.

“Any inpatient chemotherapy case that meets standard accepted criteria for required inpatient administration are auto-approved through the electronic survey. For cases outside of standard criteria, further information must be inputted to determine appropriateness of inpatient treatment and are then scored electronically and reviewed by committee physicians and pharmacists,” she said.

Gabriel A. Brooks, MD, MPH, an oncologist with Dartmouth Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, N.H., who was not affiliated with the study, said that inpatient chemotherapy treatment is under scrutiny elsewhere as well.

“There has been recognition that patients who are otherwise sick enough to require hospital admission are often too sick to benefit from chemotherapy,” although there are exceptions. “There is certainly a movement to limit inpatient chemotherapy to situations where it is most likely to be beneficial. Some of this is driven by cost pressures. For instance, Medicare pays for inpatient hospitalizations using the DRG [diagnosis-related group] system. Hospitals cannot charge a la carte for treatments given in the hospital. Instead, they are reimbursed at a fixed rate based on the hospital diagnoses. This will often lead to poor reimbursement of high-cost cancer treatments.”

Dr. Brooks said the study offers insight into who’s getting inpatient chemotherapy. However, “what I can’t tell from this poster is how often the solid tumor patients are getting first-line chemotherapy [as] these patients may be presenting late or may have a potentially treatable cancer with a narrow closing window for treatment versus later-line chemotherapy.”

He also noted that patient and family wishes are missing from the research. “This is critical. Patients and families should be informed that inpatient chemotherapy may not provide the benefit they are hoping for, especially for patients with solid tumors starting later lines of therapy. Patients should be informed that there are alternatives to inpatient chemotherapy, such as hospice referral or waiting for possible outpatient treatment – if their condition improves. But when a patient wants to try inpatient chemotherapy and their doctor wants to offer it, then it is likely a reasonable thing to try.”

Going forward, he said, “qualitative study is needed to better understand when and why inpatient chemotherapy is used. There are likely some clear good uses and some clear bad uses of inpatient chemotherapy. Can outpatient regimens be substituted for the regimens where patients are directly admitted? Or, can outpatient protocols be devised for these regimens? Are there specific situations where inpatient chemotherapy is the right thing (leukemia, esophageal cancer with worsening dysphagia, etc.)?”

No study funding was received.

A new study finds that mortality is significantly higher among patients with advanced solid tumors who are admitted to the hospital for chemotherapy treatment.

The findings – released in a poster session at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology – found that patients with solid tumors were more likely to be treated for nonurgent indications, not be referred to palliative care, and die within 60 days, compared with patients with hematologic malignancies.

Decisions about inpatient chemotherapy should not be uniform and instead should be based on a case-by-case basis, said Natalie Berger, MD, a hematologist-oncologist at Mount Sinai Hospital,, New York, and the study’s lead author.

Inpatient chemotherapy can be appropriate in certain situations, such as when chemotherapy must be given in the hospital and when it must be administered quickly after a patient presents with cancer symptoms and needs relief, she said.

However, “sometimes patients are admitted due to infection, side effects of chemotherapy or cancer, or for reasons unrelated to their cancer, and chemotherapy may be administered when it is not appropriate. It is also overutilized at the end of life which can lead to more aggressive end-of-life care rather than focusing on quality of life and supportive care,” Dr. Berger said.

The study is based on a retrospective chart review of 880 patients admitted to Mount Sinai Hospital between January 2016 and December 2017 to receive chemotherapy.

They found that the type of tumor was used to determine the urgency of an in-hospital stay for chemotherapy (odds ratio, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.25-0.72; P = .001). Patients with solid tumors or older patients or patients with a functional impairment score (Karnofsky Performance Scale) of 50% were less likely to respond to chemotherapy. There was also a decrease in quality of life among these patients, but only 46% of patients with solid tumors and 15% of patients with hematologic malignancies met with a palliative care professional.

One-third (34%) of patients with solid tumors didn’t have urgent indications, 43% of patients had no response to inpatient chemotherapy, and 20% died within 60 days, compared with patients with hematologic malignancies (19%, 19%, and 9%, respectively).

“There are many reasons why this [high mortality rate in patients with solid tumors] may be happening. Solid tumor patients are more often admitted at a later stage of their cancer when they are sicker, and they were also less likely to have a response to inpatient chemotherapy. Older patients and patients with a poor performance status were also less likely to respond to chemotherapy. This indicates that these patients were sicker, and chemotherapy use may not have been appropriate and palliative care may be underutilized,” she said.

Dr. Berger and colleagues have created a standardized protocol to assess “the appropriateness” of inpatient chemotherapy, improve quality of life, and reduce chemotherapy and health care utilization at the end of life. The protocol has been implemented as a pilot program at Mount Sinai Hospital, Dr. Berger said.

“Any inpatient chemotherapy case that meets standard accepted criteria for required inpatient administration are auto-approved through the electronic survey. For cases outside of standard criteria, further information must be inputted to determine appropriateness of inpatient treatment and are then scored electronically and reviewed by committee physicians and pharmacists,” she said.

Gabriel A. Brooks, MD, MPH, an oncologist with Dartmouth Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, N.H., who was not affiliated with the study, said that inpatient chemotherapy treatment is under scrutiny elsewhere as well.

“There has been recognition that patients who are otherwise sick enough to require hospital admission are often too sick to benefit from chemotherapy,” although there are exceptions. “There is certainly a movement to limit inpatient chemotherapy to situations where it is most likely to be beneficial. Some of this is driven by cost pressures. For instance, Medicare pays for inpatient hospitalizations using the DRG [diagnosis-related group] system. Hospitals cannot charge a la carte for treatments given in the hospital. Instead, they are reimbursed at a fixed rate based on the hospital diagnoses. This will often lead to poor reimbursement of high-cost cancer treatments.”

Dr. Brooks said the study offers insight into who’s getting inpatient chemotherapy. However, “what I can’t tell from this poster is how often the solid tumor patients are getting first-line chemotherapy [as] these patients may be presenting late or may have a potentially treatable cancer with a narrow closing window for treatment versus later-line chemotherapy.”

He also noted that patient and family wishes are missing from the research. “This is critical. Patients and families should be informed that inpatient chemotherapy may not provide the benefit they are hoping for, especially for patients with solid tumors starting later lines of therapy. Patients should be informed that there are alternatives to inpatient chemotherapy, such as hospice referral or waiting for possible outpatient treatment – if their condition improves. But when a patient wants to try inpatient chemotherapy and their doctor wants to offer it, then it is likely a reasonable thing to try.”

Going forward, he said, “qualitative study is needed to better understand when and why inpatient chemotherapy is used. There are likely some clear good uses and some clear bad uses of inpatient chemotherapy. Can outpatient regimens be substituted for the regimens where patients are directly admitted? Or, can outpatient protocols be devised for these regimens? Are there specific situations where inpatient chemotherapy is the right thing (leukemia, esophageal cancer with worsening dysphagia, etc.)?”

No study funding was received.

We’ve still got some work to do before we can say with authority whether concurrent neoadjuvant chemotherapy and immunotherapy is better than concurrent adjuvant chemotherapy with immunotherapy for non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). While there has been some notable progress in this area, we need phase 3 trials that compare the two therapeutic approaches.

Investigators reporting at the 2022 annual meeting of American Society of Clinical Oncology focused primarily on neoadjuvant treatment, which I’ll address here.

In the randomized, phase 2 NADIM II clinical trial reported at the meeting, researchers expanded on the results of NADIM published in 2020 in the Lancet Oncology and in May 2022 in the Journal of Clinical Oncology along with CheckMate 816 results published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

In each of these three studies, researchers compared nivolumab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone (abstract 8501) as a neoadjuvant treatment for resectable stage IIIA NSCLC. In the study reported at ASCO 2022, patients with resectable clinical stage IIIA-B (per American Joint Committee on Cancer 8th edition) NSCLC and no known EGFR/ALK alterations, were randomized to receive preoperative nivolumab plus chemotherapy (paclitaxel and carboplatin; n = 57) or chemotherapy (n = 29) alone followed by surgery.

The primary endpoint was pathological complete response (pCR); secondary endpoints included major pathological response, safety and tolerability, impact on surgical issues such as delayed or canceled surgeries or length of hospital stay, overall survival and progression free survival. The pCR rate was 36.8% in the neoadjuvant nivolumab plus chemotherapy arm and 6.9% in the chemotherapy alone arm. (P = .0068). 25% of patients on the nivolumab plus chemo arm had grade 3-4 adverse events, compared with 10.3% in the control arm. 93% of patients on the nivolumab plus chemo arm underwent definitive surgery whereas 69.0% of the patients on the chemo alone arm had definitive surgery. (P = .008)
 

What else did we learn about neoadjuvant treatment at the meeting?

Investigators looking at the optimal number of neoadjuvant cycles (abstract 8500) found that three cycles of sintilimab (an investigational PD-1 inhibitor) produced a numerically higher major pathological response rate, compared with two cycles (when given in concert with platinum-doublet chemotherapy). And, neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy does not result in significant survival benefits when compared with neoadjuvant chemotherapy alone (abstract 8503).

Of course, when it comes to resectable NSCLC, the goal of treatment is to increase the cure rate and improve survival. No randomized studies have reported yet on overall survival, probably because they are too immature. Instead, disease-free survival (DFS) or event-free survival (EFS) are often used as surrogate endpoints. Since none of the studies reported at ASCO reported on DFS or EFS, we need to look elsewhere. CheckMate 816 was a phase 3 study which randomized patients with stages IB-IIIA NSCLC to receive neoadjuvant nivolumab plus platinum-based chemotherapy or neoadjuvant platinum-based chemotherapy alone, followed by resection. The median EFS was 31.6 months with nivolumab plus chemotherapy and 20.8 months with chemotherapy alone (P = .005). The percentage of patients with a pCR was 24.0% and 2.2%, respectively (P < .001).

We all know one has to be careful when doing cross-trial comparisons as these studies differ by the percentage of patients with various stages of disease, the type of immunotherapy and chemotherapy used, etc. However, I think we can agree that neoadjuvant chemoimmunotherapy results in better outcomes than chemotherapy alone.

Of course, resectable NSCLC is, by definition, resectable. And traditionally, resection is followed by adjuvant chemotherapy to eradicate micrometastases. Unfortunately, the current standard of care for completely resected early-stage NSCLC (stage I [tumor ≥ 4 cm] to IIIA) involves adjuvant platinum-based combination chemotherapy which results in only a modest 4%-5% improvement in survival versus observation.

Given these modest results, as in the neoadjuvant space, investigators have looked at the benefit of adding immunotherapy to adjuvant chemotherapy. One such study has been reported. IMpower 010 randomly assigned patients with completely resected stage IB (tumors ≥ 4 cm) to IIIA NSCLC, whose tumor cells expressed at least 1% PD-L1, to receive adjuvant atezolizumab or best supportive care after adjuvant platinum-based chemotherapy. In the stage II-IIIA population whose tumors expressed PD-L1 on 1% or more of tumor cells, 3-year DFS rates were 60% and 48% in the atezolizumab and best supportive care arms, respectively (hazard ratio, 0·66 P =·.0039). In all patients in the stage II-IIIA population, the 3-year DFS rates were 56% in the atezolizumab group and 49% in the best supportive care group, (HR, 0.79; P = .020).

KEYNOTE-091, reported at the 2021 annual meeting of the European Society for Medical Oncology, randomized early-stage NSCLC patients following complete resection and adjuvant chemotherapy to pembrolizumab or placebo. Median DFS for the overall population was 53.6 months for patients in the pembro arm versus 42 months in the placebo arm (HR, 0.76; P = .0014). Interestingly, the benefit was not seen in patients with PD-L1 with at least 50%, where the 18-month DFS rate was 71.7% in the pembro arm and 70.2% in the placebo arm (HR, 0.82; P = .14). Although the contradictory results of PD-L1 as a biomarker is puzzling, I think we can agree that the addition of immunotherapy following adjuvant chemotherapy improves outcomes compared to adjuvant chemotherapy alone.
 

What to do when a patient presents with resectable disease?

Cross-trial comparisons are fraught with danger. Until we have a phase 3 study comparing concurrent neoadjuvant chemo/immunotherapy with concurrent adjuvant chemo/immunotherapy, I do not think we can answer the question “which is better?” However, there are some caveats to keep in mind when deciding on which approach to recommend to our patients: First, neoadjuvant treatment requires biomarker testing to ensure the patient does not have EGFR or ALK mutations. This will necessitate a delay in the operation. Will patients be willing to wait? Will the surgeon? Or, would patients prefer to proceed with surgery while the results are pending? Yes, neoadjuvant therapy gives you information regarding the pCR rate, but does that help you in subsequent management of the patient? We do not know.

Secondly, the two adjuvant studies used adjuvant chemotherapy followed by adjuvant immunotherapy, as contrasted to the neoadjuvant study which used concurrent chemo/immunotherapy. Given the longer duration of treatment in postoperative sequential adjuvant studies, there tends to be more drop off because of patients being unwilling or unfit postoperatively to receive long courses of therapy. In IMpower 010, 1,269 patients completed adjuvant chemotherapy; 1,005 were randomized, and of the 507 assigned to the atezolizumab/chemo group, only 323 completed treatment.

Finally, we must beware of using neoadjuvant chemo/immunotherapy to “down-stage” a patient. KEYNOTE-091 included patients with IIIA disease and no benefit to adjuvant chemotherapy followed by immunotherapy was found in this subgroup of patients, which leads me to wonder if these patients were appropriately selected as surgical candidates. In the NADIM II trials, 9 of 29 patients on the neoadjuvant chemotherapy were not resected.

So, many questions remain. In addition to the ones we’ve raised, there is a clear and immediate need for predictive and prognostic biomarkers. In the NADIM II trial, PD-L1 expression was a predictive biomarker of response. The pCR rate for patients with a PD-L1 tumor expression of less than 1%, 1%-49%, and 50% or higher was 15%, 41.7%, and 61.1%, respectively. However, in KEYNOTE-091, the benefit was not seen in patients with PD-L1 of at least than 50%, where the 18-month DFS rate was 71.7% in the pembro arm and 70.2% in the placebo arm.

Another possible biomarker: circulating tumor DNA. In the first NADIM study, three low pretreatment levels of ctDNA were significantly associated with improved progression-free survival and overall survival (HR, 0.20 and HR, 0.07, respectively). Although clinical response did not predict survival outcomes, undetectable ctDNA levels after neoadjuvant treatment were significantly associated with progression-free survival and overall survival (HR, 0.26 and HR0.04, respectively). Similarly, in CheckMate 816, clearance of ctDNA was associated with longer EFS in patients with ctDNA clearance than in those without ctDNA clearance in both the nivolumab/chemotherapy group (HR, 0.60) and the chemotherapy-alone group (HR, 0.63).

Hopefully, ASCO 2023 will provide more answers.

Dr. Schiller is a medical oncologist and founding member of Oncologists United for Climate and Health. She is a former board member of the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer and a current board member of the Lung Cancer Research Foundation.

We’ve still got some work to do before we can say with authority whether concurrent neoadjuvant chemotherapy and immunotherapy is better than concurrent adjuvant chemotherapy with immunotherapy for non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). While there has been some notable progress in this area, we need phase 3 trials that compare the two therapeutic approaches.

Investigators reporting at the 2022 annual meeting of American Society of Clinical Oncology focused primarily on neoadjuvant treatment, which I’ll address here.

In the randomized, phase 2 NADIM II clinical trial reported at the meeting, researchers expanded on the results of NADIM published in 2020 in the Lancet Oncology and in May 2022 in the Journal of Clinical Oncology along with CheckMate 816 results published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

In each of these three studies, researchers compared nivolumab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone (abstract 8501) as a neoadjuvant treatment for resectable stage IIIA NSCLC. In the study reported at ASCO 2022, patients with resectable clinical stage IIIA-B (per American Joint Committee on Cancer 8th edition) NSCLC and no known EGFR/ALK alterations, were randomized to receive preoperative nivolumab plus chemotherapy (paclitaxel and carboplatin; n = 57) or chemotherapy (n = 29) alone followed by surgery.

The primary endpoint was pathological complete response (pCR); secondary endpoints included major pathological response, safety and tolerability, impact on surgical issues such as delayed or canceled surgeries or length of hospital stay, overall survival and progression free survival. The pCR rate was 36.8% in the neoadjuvant nivolumab plus chemotherapy arm and 6.9% in the chemotherapy alone arm. (P = .0068). 25% of patients on the nivolumab plus chemo arm had grade 3-4 adverse events, compared with 10.3% in the control arm. 93% of patients on the nivolumab plus chemo arm underwent definitive surgery whereas 69.0% of the patients on the chemo alone arm had definitive surgery. (P = .008)
 

What else did we learn about neoadjuvant treatment at the meeting?

Investigators looking at the optimal number of neoadjuvant cycles (abstract 8500) found that three cycles of sintilimab (an investigational PD-1 inhibitor) produced a numerically higher major pathological response rate, compared with two cycles (when given in concert with platinum-doublet chemotherapy). And, neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy does not result in significant survival benefits when compared with neoadjuvant chemotherapy alone (abstract 8503).

Of course, when it comes to resectable NSCLC, the goal of treatment is to increase the cure rate and improve survival. No randomized studies have reported yet on overall survival, probably because they are too immature. Instead, disease-free survival (DFS) or event-free survival (EFS) are often used as surrogate endpoints. Since none of the studies reported at ASCO reported on DFS or EFS, we need to look elsewhere. CheckMate 816 was a phase 3 study which randomized patients with stages IB-IIIA NSCLC to receive neoadjuvant nivolumab plus platinum-based chemotherapy or neoadjuvant platinum-based chemotherapy alone, followed by resection. The median EFS was 31.6 months with nivolumab plus chemotherapy and 20.8 months with chemotherapy alone (P = .005). The percentage of patients with a pCR was 24.0% and 2.2%, respectively (P < .001).

We all know one has to be careful when doing cross-trial comparisons as these studies differ by the percentage of patients with various stages of disease, the type of immunotherapy and chemotherapy used, etc. However, I think we can agree that neoadjuvant chemoimmunotherapy results in better outcomes than chemotherapy alone.

Of course, resectable NSCLC is, by definition, resectable. And traditionally, resection is followed by adjuvant chemotherapy to eradicate micrometastases. Unfortunately, the current standard of care for completely resected early-stage NSCLC (stage I [tumor ≥ 4 cm] to IIIA) involves adjuvant platinum-based combination chemotherapy which results in only a modest 4%-5% improvement in survival versus observation.

Given these modest results, as in the neoadjuvant space, investigators have looked at the benefit of adding immunotherapy to adjuvant chemotherapy. One such study has been reported. IMpower 010 randomly assigned patients with completely resected stage IB (tumors ≥ 4 cm) to IIIA NSCLC, whose tumor cells expressed at least 1% PD-L1, to receive adjuvant atezolizumab or best supportive care after adjuvant platinum-based chemotherapy. In the stage II-IIIA population whose tumors expressed PD-L1 on 1% or more of tumor cells, 3-year DFS rates were 60% and 48% in the atezolizumab and best supportive care arms, respectively (hazard ratio, 0·66 P =·.0039). In all patients in the stage II-IIIA population, the 3-year DFS rates were 56% in the atezolizumab group and 49% in the best supportive care group, (HR, 0.79; P = .020).

KEYNOTE-091, reported at the 2021 annual meeting of the European Society for Medical Oncology, randomized early-stage NSCLC patients following complete resection and adjuvant chemotherapy to pembrolizumab or placebo. Median DFS for the overall population was 53.6 months for patients in the pembro arm versus 42 months in the placebo arm (HR, 0.76; P = .0014). Interestingly, the benefit was not seen in patients with PD-L1 with at least 50%, where the 18-month DFS rate was 71.7% in the pembro arm and 70.2% in the placebo arm (HR, 0.82; P = .14). Although the contradictory results of PD-L1 as a biomarker is puzzling, I think we can agree that the addition of immunotherapy following adjuvant chemotherapy improves outcomes compared to adjuvant chemotherapy alone.
 

What to do when a patient presents with resectable disease?

Cross-trial comparisons are fraught with danger. Until we have a phase 3 study comparing concurrent neoadjuvant chemo/immunotherapy with concurrent adjuvant chemo/immunotherapy, I do not think we can answer the question “which is better?” However, there are some caveats to keep in mind when deciding on which approach to recommend to our patients: First, neoadjuvant treatment requires biomarker testing to ensure the patient does not have EGFR or ALK mutations. This will necessitate a delay in the operation. Will patients be willing to wait? Will the surgeon? Or, would patients prefer to proceed with surgery while the results are pending? Yes, neoadjuvant therapy gives you information regarding the pCR rate, but does that help you in subsequent management of the patient? We do not know.

Secondly, the two adjuvant studies used adjuvant chemotherapy followed by adjuvant immunotherapy, as contrasted to the neoadjuvant study which used concurrent chemo/immunotherapy. Given the longer duration of treatment in postoperative sequential adjuvant studies, there tends to be more drop off because of patients being unwilling or unfit postoperatively to receive long courses of therapy. In IMpower 010, 1,269 patients completed adjuvant chemotherapy; 1,005 were randomized, and of the 507 assigned to the atezolizumab/chemo group, only 323 completed treatment.

Finally, we must beware of using neoadjuvant chemo/immunotherapy to “down-stage” a patient. KEYNOTE-091 included patients with IIIA disease and no benefit to adjuvant chemotherapy followed by immunotherapy was found in this subgroup of patients, which leads me to wonder if these patients were appropriately selected as surgical candidates. In the NADIM II trials, 9 of 29 patients on the neoadjuvant chemotherapy were not resected.

So, many questions remain. In addition to the ones we’ve raised, there is a clear and immediate need for predictive and prognostic biomarkers. In the NADIM II trial, PD-L1 expression was a predictive biomarker of response. The pCR rate for patients with a PD-L1 tumor expression of less than 1%, 1%-49%, and 50% or higher was 15%, 41.7%, and 61.1%, respectively. However, in KEYNOTE-091, the benefit was not seen in patients with PD-L1 of at least than 50%, where the 18-month DFS rate was 71.7% in the pembro arm and 70.2% in the placebo arm.

Another possible biomarker: circulating tumor DNA. In the first NADIM study, three low pretreatment levels of ctDNA were significantly associated with improved progression-free survival and overall survival (HR, 0.20 and HR, 0.07, respectively). Although clinical response did not predict survival outcomes, undetectable ctDNA levels after neoadjuvant treatment were significantly associated with progression-free survival and overall survival (HR, 0.26 and HR0.04, respectively). Similarly, in CheckMate 816, clearance of ctDNA was associated with longer EFS in patients with ctDNA clearance than in those without ctDNA clearance in both the nivolumab/chemotherapy group (HR, 0.60) and the chemotherapy-alone group (HR, 0.63).

Hopefully, ASCO 2023 will provide more answers.

Dr. Schiller is a medical oncologist and founding member of Oncologists United for Climate and Health. She is a former board member of the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer and a current board member of the Lung Cancer Research Foundation.

We’ve still got some work to do before we can say with authority whether concurrent neoadjuvant chemotherapy and immunotherapy is better than concurrent adjuvant chemotherapy with immunotherapy for non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). While there has been some notable progress in this area, we need phase 3 trials that compare the two therapeutic approaches.

Investigators reporting at the 2022 annual meeting of American Society of Clinical Oncology focused primarily on neoadjuvant treatment, which I’ll address here.

In the randomized, phase 2 NADIM II clinical trial reported at the meeting, researchers expanded on the results of NADIM published in 2020 in the Lancet Oncology and in May 2022 in the Journal of Clinical Oncology along with CheckMate 816 results published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

In each of these three studies, researchers compared nivolumab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone (abstract 8501) as a neoadjuvant treatment for resectable stage IIIA NSCLC. In the study reported at ASCO 2022, patients with resectable clinical stage IIIA-B (per American Joint Committee on Cancer 8th edition) NSCLC and no known EGFR/ALK alterations, were randomized to receive preoperative nivolumab plus chemotherapy (paclitaxel and carboplatin; n = 57) or chemotherapy (n = 29) alone followed by surgery.

The primary endpoint was pathological complete response (pCR); secondary endpoints included major pathological response, safety and tolerability, impact on surgical issues such as delayed or canceled surgeries or length of hospital stay, overall survival and progression free survival. The pCR rate was 36.8% in the neoadjuvant nivolumab plus chemotherapy arm and 6.9% in the chemotherapy alone arm. (P = .0068). 25% of patients on the nivolumab plus chemo arm had grade 3-4 adverse events, compared with 10.3% in the control arm. 93% of patients on the nivolumab plus chemo arm underwent definitive surgery whereas 69.0% of the patients on the chemo alone arm had definitive surgery. (P = .008)
 

What else did we learn about neoadjuvant treatment at the meeting?

Investigators looking at the optimal number of neoadjuvant cycles (abstract 8500) found that three cycles of sintilimab (an investigational PD-1 inhibitor) produced a numerically higher major pathological response rate, compared with two cycles (when given in concert with platinum-doublet chemotherapy). And, neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy does not result in significant survival benefits when compared with neoadjuvant chemotherapy alone (abstract 8503).

Of course, when it comes to resectable NSCLC, the goal of treatment is to increase the cure rate and improve survival. No randomized studies have reported yet on overall survival, probably because they are too immature. Instead, disease-free survival (DFS) or event-free survival (EFS) are often used as surrogate endpoints. Since none of the studies reported at ASCO reported on DFS or EFS, we need to look elsewhere. CheckMate 816 was a phase 3 study which randomized patients with stages IB-IIIA NSCLC to receive neoadjuvant nivolumab plus platinum-based chemotherapy or neoadjuvant platinum-based chemotherapy alone, followed by resection. The median EFS was 31.6 months with nivolumab plus chemotherapy and 20.8 months with chemotherapy alone (P = .005). The percentage of patients with a pCR was 24.0% and 2.2%, respectively (P < .001).

We all know one has to be careful when doing cross-trial comparisons as these studies differ by the percentage of patients with various stages of disease, the type of immunotherapy and chemotherapy used, etc. However, I think we can agree that neoadjuvant chemoimmunotherapy results in better outcomes than chemotherapy alone.

Of course, resectable NSCLC is, by definition, resectable. And traditionally, resection is followed by adjuvant chemotherapy to eradicate micrometastases. Unfortunately, the current standard of care for completely resected early-stage NSCLC (stage I [tumor ≥ 4 cm] to IIIA) involves adjuvant platinum-based combination chemotherapy which results in only a modest 4%-5% improvement in survival versus observation.

Given these modest results, as in the neoadjuvant space, investigators have looked at the benefit of adding immunotherapy to adjuvant chemotherapy. One such study has been reported. IMpower 010 randomly assigned patients with completely resected stage IB (tumors ≥ 4 cm) to IIIA NSCLC, whose tumor cells expressed at least 1% PD-L1, to receive adjuvant atezolizumab or best supportive care after adjuvant platinum-based chemotherapy. In the stage II-IIIA population whose tumors expressed PD-L1 on 1% or more of tumor cells, 3-year DFS rates were 60% and 48% in the atezolizumab and best supportive care arms, respectively (hazard ratio, 0·66 P =·.0039). In all patients in the stage II-IIIA population, the 3-year DFS rates were 56% in the atezolizumab group and 49% in the best supportive care group, (HR, 0.79; P = .020).

KEYNOTE-091, reported at the 2021 annual meeting of the European Society for Medical Oncology, randomized early-stage NSCLC patients following complete resection and adjuvant chemotherapy to pembrolizumab or placebo. Median DFS for the overall population was 53.6 months for patients in the pembro arm versus 42 months in the placebo arm (HR, 0.76; P = .0014). Interestingly, the benefit was not seen in patients with PD-L1 with at least 50%, where the 18-month DFS rate was 71.7% in the pembro arm and 70.2% in the placebo arm (HR, 0.82; P = .14). Although the contradictory results of PD-L1 as a biomarker is puzzling, I think we can agree that the addition of immunotherapy following adjuvant chemotherapy improves outcomes compared to adjuvant chemotherapy alone.
 

What to do when a patient presents with resectable disease?

Cross-trial comparisons are fraught with danger. Until we have a phase 3 study comparing concurrent neoadjuvant chemo/immunotherapy with concurrent adjuvant chemo/immunotherapy, I do not think we can answer the question “which is better?” However, there are some caveats to keep in mind when deciding on which approach to recommend to our patients: First, neoadjuvant treatment requires biomarker testing to ensure the patient does not have EGFR or ALK mutations. This will necessitate a delay in the operation. Will patients be willing to wait? Will the surgeon? Or, would patients prefer to proceed with surgery while the results are pending? Yes, neoadjuvant therapy gives you information regarding the pCR rate, but does that help you in subsequent management of the patient? We do not know.

Secondly, the two adjuvant studies used adjuvant chemotherapy followed by adjuvant immunotherapy, as contrasted to the neoadjuvant study which used concurrent chemo/immunotherapy. Given the longer duration of treatment in postoperative sequential adjuvant studies, there tends to be more drop off because of patients being unwilling or unfit postoperatively to receive long courses of therapy. In IMpower 010, 1,269 patients completed adjuvant chemotherapy; 1,005 were randomized, and of the 507 assigned to the atezolizumab/chemo group, only 323 completed treatment.

Finally, we must beware of using neoadjuvant chemo/immunotherapy to “down-stage” a patient. KEYNOTE-091 included patients with IIIA disease and no benefit to adjuvant chemotherapy followed by immunotherapy was found in this subgroup of patients, which leads me to wonder if these patients were appropriately selected as surgical candidates. In the NADIM II trials, 9 of 29 patients on the neoadjuvant chemotherapy were not resected.

So, many questions remain. In addition to the ones we’ve raised, there is a clear and immediate need for predictive and prognostic biomarkers. In the NADIM II trial, PD-L1 expression was a predictive biomarker of response. The pCR rate for patients with a PD-L1 tumor expression of less than 1%, 1%-49%, and 50% or higher was 15%, 41.7%, and 61.1%, respectively. However, in KEYNOTE-091, the benefit was not seen in patients with PD-L1 of at least than 50%, where the 18-month DFS rate was 71.7% in the pembro arm and 70.2% in the placebo arm.

Another possible biomarker: circulating tumor DNA. In the first NADIM study, three low pretreatment levels of ctDNA were significantly associated with improved progression-free survival and overall survival (HR, 0.20 and HR, 0.07, respectively). Although clinical response did not predict survival outcomes, undetectable ctDNA levels after neoadjuvant treatment were significantly associated with progression-free survival and overall survival (HR, 0.26 and HR0.04, respectively). Similarly, in CheckMate 816, clearance of ctDNA was associated with longer EFS in patients with ctDNA clearance than in those without ctDNA clearance in both the nivolumab/chemotherapy group (HR, 0.60) and the chemotherapy-alone group (HR, 0.63).

Hopefully, ASCO 2023 will provide more answers.

Dr. Schiller is a medical oncologist and founding member of Oncologists United for Climate and Health. She is a former board member of the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer and a current board member of the Lung Cancer Research Foundation.