User login
Is Metformin a ‘Drug for All Diseases’?
In 2021 alone, clinicians wrote more than 91 million orders for the medication — up from 40 million 2004.
But is metformin just getting started? Emerging evidence suggests the drug may be effective for a much broader range of conditions beyond managing high blood glucose, including various cancers, obesity, liver disease, cardiovascular, neurodegenerative, and renal diseases. As the evidence for diverse uses accumulates, many trials have launched, with researchers looking to expand metformin’s indications and validate or explore new directions.
Metformin’s long history as a pharmaceutical includes an herbal ancestry, recognition in 1918 for its ability to lower blood glucose, being cast aside because of toxicity fears in the 1930s, rediscovery and synthesis in Europe in the 1940s, the first reported use for diabetes in 1957, and approval in the United States in 1994.
The drug has maintained its place as the preferred first-line treatment for type 2 diabetes since 2011, when it was first included in the World Health Organization’s essential medicines list.
“The focus hitherto has been primarily on its insulin sensitization effects,” Akshay Jain, MD, a clinical and research endocrinologist at TLC Diabetes and Endocrinology, in Surrey, British Columbia, Canada, told this news organization.
“The recent surge of renewed interest is in part related to its postulated effects on multiple other receptors,” he said. “In my mind, the metformin data on coronary artery disease reduction and cancer-protective effects have come farther along than other disease states.”
Cardiovascular Outcomes
Gregory G. Schwartz, MD, PhD, chief of the cardiology section at Rocky Mountain Regional VA Medical Center and professor of medicine at the University of Colorado School of Medicine in Aurora, is leading the VA-IMPACT trial. Despite metformin’s long history and widespread use, he said his study is the first placebo-controlled cardiovascular outcomes trial of the drug.
Launched in 2023, the study tests the hypothesis that metformin reduces the risk for death or nonfatal ischemic cardiovascular events in patients with prediabetes and established coronary, cerebrovascular, or peripheral artery disease, Dr. Schwartz said. The trial is being conducted at roughly 40 VA medical centers, with a planned enrollment of 7410 patients. The estimated completion date is March 2029.
“The principal mechanism of action of metformin is through activation of AMP [adenosine monophosphate]–activated protein kinase, a central pathway in metabolic regulation, cell protection, and survival,” Dr. Schwartz explained. “Experimental data have demonstrated attenuated development of atherosclerosis, reduced myocardial infarct size, improved endothelial function, and antiarrhythmic actions — none of those dependent on the presence of diabetes.”
Dr. Schwartz and his colleagues decided to test their hypothesis in people with prediabetes, rather than diabetes, to create a “true placebo-controlled comparison,” he said.
“If patients with type 2 diabetes had been chosen, there would be potential for confounding because a placebo group would require more treatment with other active antihyperglycemic medications to achieve the same degree of glycemic control as a metformin group,” Dr. Schwartz said.
“If proven efficacious in the VA-IMPACT trial, metformin could provide an inexpensive, generally safe, and well-tolerated approach to reduce cardiovascular morbidity and mortality in a large segment of the population,” Dr. Schwartz added. “Perhaps the old dog can learn some new tricks.”
Other recruiting trials looking at cardiovascular-related outcomes include Met-PEF, LIMIT, and Metformin as an Adjunctive Therapy to Catheter Ablation in Atrial Fibrillation.
Reducing Cancer Risks
Sai Yendamuri, MD, chair of the Department of Thoracic Surgery and director of the Thoracic Surgery Laboratory at Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center in Buffalo, New York, is leading a phase 2 trial exploring whether metformin can prevent lung cancer in people with overweight or obesity who are at a high risk for the malignancy.
The study, which has accrued about 60% of its estimated enrollment, also will assess whether metformin can reprogram participants’ immune systems, with a view toward reducing the activity of regulatory T cells that are linked to development of tumors.
“In our preclinical and retrospective clinical data, we found that metformin had anticancer effects but only if the patients were overweight,” Dr. Yendamuri said. “In mice, we find that obesity increases regulatory T-cell function, which suppresses the immune system of the lungs. This effect is reversed by metformin.” The team is conducting the current study to examine if this happens in patients, as well. Results are expected next year.
Research is underway in other tumor types, including oral and endometrial, and brain cancers.
Preventing Alzheimer’s Disease
Cognitive function — or at least delaying its erosion — represents another front for metformin. José A. Luchsinger, MD, MPH, vice-chair for clinical and epidemiological research and director of the section on geriatrics, gerontology, and aging at Columbia University Irving Medical Center in New York City, is heading a phase 2/3 randomized controlled trial assessing the ability of the drug to prevent Alzheimer›s disease.
The study investigators hope to enroll 326 men and women aged 55-90 years with early and late mild cognitive impairment, overweight or obesity, and no diabetes.
“The hypothesis is that improving insulin and glucose levels can lead to lowering the risk of Alzheimer’s disease,” Dr. Luchsinger said. Recruitment should be complete by the end of 2024 and results are expected in late 2026.
Similar studies are underway in Europe and Asia.
Other areas of investigation, while tantalizing, are mostly in early stages, although bolstered by preclinical and mechanistic studies. The authors of a recent review on the potential mechanisms of action of metformin and existing evidence of the drug›s effectiveness — or lack thereof — in treating diseases other than diabetes, wrote: “Collectively, these data raise the question: Is metformin a drug for all diseases? It remains unclear as to whether all of these putative beneficial effects are secondary to its actions as an antihyperglycemic and insulin-sensitizing drug, or result from other cellular actions, including inhibition of mTOR (mammalian target for rapamycin), or direct antiviral actions.”
Off-Label Uses
Metformin currently is approved by the US Food and Drug Administration only for the treatment of type 2 diabetes, although it is also the only antidiabetic medication for prediabetes currently recommended by the American Diabetes Association.
Some studies currently are looking at its use in a variety of off-label indications, including obesity, gestational diabetes, weight gain from antipsychotics, and polycystic ovary syndrome.
For the most part, metformin is considered a safe drug, but it is not risk-free, Dr. Jain cautioned.
“Although it would certainly be helpful to see if this inexpensive medication that’s universally available can help in disease states, one shouldn’t overlook the potential risk of adverse effects, such as gastrointestinal, potential vitamin B12 deficiency, blunting of skeletal muscle development and the rare risk of lactic acidosis in those with kidney impairment,” he said.
“Similarly, with recent reports of the carcinogenic potential of certain formulations of long-acting metformin that contained NDMA [N-nitrosodimethylamine], it would be imperative that these kinks are removed before we incorporate metformin as the gift that keeps giving.”
Dr. Jain reported financial relationships with Abbott, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Dexcom, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Medtronic, Merck, and Novo Nordisk. Dr. Yendamuri disclosed serving on the scientific advisory board member of Karkinos Healthcare and research funding from Lumeda for the metformin study. Dr. Luchsinger reported receiving donated metformin and matching placebo from EMD Serono, a subsidiary of Merck, for the MAP study. Dr. Schwartz received research support from the US Department of Veterans Affairs as National Chair of the VA-IMPACT trial.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
In 2021 alone, clinicians wrote more than 91 million orders for the medication — up from 40 million 2004.
But is metformin just getting started? Emerging evidence suggests the drug may be effective for a much broader range of conditions beyond managing high blood glucose, including various cancers, obesity, liver disease, cardiovascular, neurodegenerative, and renal diseases. As the evidence for diverse uses accumulates, many trials have launched, with researchers looking to expand metformin’s indications and validate or explore new directions.
Metformin’s long history as a pharmaceutical includes an herbal ancestry, recognition in 1918 for its ability to lower blood glucose, being cast aside because of toxicity fears in the 1930s, rediscovery and synthesis in Europe in the 1940s, the first reported use for diabetes in 1957, and approval in the United States in 1994.
The drug has maintained its place as the preferred first-line treatment for type 2 diabetes since 2011, when it was first included in the World Health Organization’s essential medicines list.
“The focus hitherto has been primarily on its insulin sensitization effects,” Akshay Jain, MD, a clinical and research endocrinologist at TLC Diabetes and Endocrinology, in Surrey, British Columbia, Canada, told this news organization.
“The recent surge of renewed interest is in part related to its postulated effects on multiple other receptors,” he said. “In my mind, the metformin data on coronary artery disease reduction and cancer-protective effects have come farther along than other disease states.”
Cardiovascular Outcomes
Gregory G. Schwartz, MD, PhD, chief of the cardiology section at Rocky Mountain Regional VA Medical Center and professor of medicine at the University of Colorado School of Medicine in Aurora, is leading the VA-IMPACT trial. Despite metformin’s long history and widespread use, he said his study is the first placebo-controlled cardiovascular outcomes trial of the drug.
Launched in 2023, the study tests the hypothesis that metformin reduces the risk for death or nonfatal ischemic cardiovascular events in patients with prediabetes and established coronary, cerebrovascular, or peripheral artery disease, Dr. Schwartz said. The trial is being conducted at roughly 40 VA medical centers, with a planned enrollment of 7410 patients. The estimated completion date is March 2029.
“The principal mechanism of action of metformin is through activation of AMP [adenosine monophosphate]–activated protein kinase, a central pathway in metabolic regulation, cell protection, and survival,” Dr. Schwartz explained. “Experimental data have demonstrated attenuated development of atherosclerosis, reduced myocardial infarct size, improved endothelial function, and antiarrhythmic actions — none of those dependent on the presence of diabetes.”
Dr. Schwartz and his colleagues decided to test their hypothesis in people with prediabetes, rather than diabetes, to create a “true placebo-controlled comparison,” he said.
“If patients with type 2 diabetes had been chosen, there would be potential for confounding because a placebo group would require more treatment with other active antihyperglycemic medications to achieve the same degree of glycemic control as a metformin group,” Dr. Schwartz said.
“If proven efficacious in the VA-IMPACT trial, metformin could provide an inexpensive, generally safe, and well-tolerated approach to reduce cardiovascular morbidity and mortality in a large segment of the population,” Dr. Schwartz added. “Perhaps the old dog can learn some new tricks.”
Other recruiting trials looking at cardiovascular-related outcomes include Met-PEF, LIMIT, and Metformin as an Adjunctive Therapy to Catheter Ablation in Atrial Fibrillation.
Reducing Cancer Risks
Sai Yendamuri, MD, chair of the Department of Thoracic Surgery and director of the Thoracic Surgery Laboratory at Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center in Buffalo, New York, is leading a phase 2 trial exploring whether metformin can prevent lung cancer in people with overweight or obesity who are at a high risk for the malignancy.
The study, which has accrued about 60% of its estimated enrollment, also will assess whether metformin can reprogram participants’ immune systems, with a view toward reducing the activity of regulatory T cells that are linked to development of tumors.
“In our preclinical and retrospective clinical data, we found that metformin had anticancer effects but only if the patients were overweight,” Dr. Yendamuri said. “In mice, we find that obesity increases regulatory T-cell function, which suppresses the immune system of the lungs. This effect is reversed by metformin.” The team is conducting the current study to examine if this happens in patients, as well. Results are expected next year.
Research is underway in other tumor types, including oral and endometrial, and brain cancers.
Preventing Alzheimer’s Disease
Cognitive function — or at least delaying its erosion — represents another front for metformin. José A. Luchsinger, MD, MPH, vice-chair for clinical and epidemiological research and director of the section on geriatrics, gerontology, and aging at Columbia University Irving Medical Center in New York City, is heading a phase 2/3 randomized controlled trial assessing the ability of the drug to prevent Alzheimer›s disease.
The study investigators hope to enroll 326 men and women aged 55-90 years with early and late mild cognitive impairment, overweight or obesity, and no diabetes.
“The hypothesis is that improving insulin and glucose levels can lead to lowering the risk of Alzheimer’s disease,” Dr. Luchsinger said. Recruitment should be complete by the end of 2024 and results are expected in late 2026.
Similar studies are underway in Europe and Asia.
Other areas of investigation, while tantalizing, are mostly in early stages, although bolstered by preclinical and mechanistic studies. The authors of a recent review on the potential mechanisms of action of metformin and existing evidence of the drug›s effectiveness — or lack thereof — in treating diseases other than diabetes, wrote: “Collectively, these data raise the question: Is metformin a drug for all diseases? It remains unclear as to whether all of these putative beneficial effects are secondary to its actions as an antihyperglycemic and insulin-sensitizing drug, or result from other cellular actions, including inhibition of mTOR (mammalian target for rapamycin), or direct antiviral actions.”
Off-Label Uses
Metformin currently is approved by the US Food and Drug Administration only for the treatment of type 2 diabetes, although it is also the only antidiabetic medication for prediabetes currently recommended by the American Diabetes Association.
Some studies currently are looking at its use in a variety of off-label indications, including obesity, gestational diabetes, weight gain from antipsychotics, and polycystic ovary syndrome.
For the most part, metformin is considered a safe drug, but it is not risk-free, Dr. Jain cautioned.
“Although it would certainly be helpful to see if this inexpensive medication that’s universally available can help in disease states, one shouldn’t overlook the potential risk of adverse effects, such as gastrointestinal, potential vitamin B12 deficiency, blunting of skeletal muscle development and the rare risk of lactic acidosis in those with kidney impairment,” he said.
“Similarly, with recent reports of the carcinogenic potential of certain formulations of long-acting metformin that contained NDMA [N-nitrosodimethylamine], it would be imperative that these kinks are removed before we incorporate metformin as the gift that keeps giving.”
Dr. Jain reported financial relationships with Abbott, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Dexcom, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Medtronic, Merck, and Novo Nordisk. Dr. Yendamuri disclosed serving on the scientific advisory board member of Karkinos Healthcare and research funding from Lumeda for the metformin study. Dr. Luchsinger reported receiving donated metformin and matching placebo from EMD Serono, a subsidiary of Merck, for the MAP study. Dr. Schwartz received research support from the US Department of Veterans Affairs as National Chair of the VA-IMPACT trial.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
In 2021 alone, clinicians wrote more than 91 million orders for the medication — up from 40 million 2004.
But is metformin just getting started? Emerging evidence suggests the drug may be effective for a much broader range of conditions beyond managing high blood glucose, including various cancers, obesity, liver disease, cardiovascular, neurodegenerative, and renal diseases. As the evidence for diverse uses accumulates, many trials have launched, with researchers looking to expand metformin’s indications and validate or explore new directions.
Metformin’s long history as a pharmaceutical includes an herbal ancestry, recognition in 1918 for its ability to lower blood glucose, being cast aside because of toxicity fears in the 1930s, rediscovery and synthesis in Europe in the 1940s, the first reported use for diabetes in 1957, and approval in the United States in 1994.
The drug has maintained its place as the preferred first-line treatment for type 2 diabetes since 2011, when it was first included in the World Health Organization’s essential medicines list.
“The focus hitherto has been primarily on its insulin sensitization effects,” Akshay Jain, MD, a clinical and research endocrinologist at TLC Diabetes and Endocrinology, in Surrey, British Columbia, Canada, told this news organization.
“The recent surge of renewed interest is in part related to its postulated effects on multiple other receptors,” he said. “In my mind, the metformin data on coronary artery disease reduction and cancer-protective effects have come farther along than other disease states.”
Cardiovascular Outcomes
Gregory G. Schwartz, MD, PhD, chief of the cardiology section at Rocky Mountain Regional VA Medical Center and professor of medicine at the University of Colorado School of Medicine in Aurora, is leading the VA-IMPACT trial. Despite metformin’s long history and widespread use, he said his study is the first placebo-controlled cardiovascular outcomes trial of the drug.
Launched in 2023, the study tests the hypothesis that metformin reduces the risk for death or nonfatal ischemic cardiovascular events in patients with prediabetes and established coronary, cerebrovascular, or peripheral artery disease, Dr. Schwartz said. The trial is being conducted at roughly 40 VA medical centers, with a planned enrollment of 7410 patients. The estimated completion date is March 2029.
“The principal mechanism of action of metformin is through activation of AMP [adenosine monophosphate]–activated protein kinase, a central pathway in metabolic regulation, cell protection, and survival,” Dr. Schwartz explained. “Experimental data have demonstrated attenuated development of atherosclerosis, reduced myocardial infarct size, improved endothelial function, and antiarrhythmic actions — none of those dependent on the presence of diabetes.”
Dr. Schwartz and his colleagues decided to test their hypothesis in people with prediabetes, rather than diabetes, to create a “true placebo-controlled comparison,” he said.
“If patients with type 2 diabetes had been chosen, there would be potential for confounding because a placebo group would require more treatment with other active antihyperglycemic medications to achieve the same degree of glycemic control as a metformin group,” Dr. Schwartz said.
“If proven efficacious in the VA-IMPACT trial, metformin could provide an inexpensive, generally safe, and well-tolerated approach to reduce cardiovascular morbidity and mortality in a large segment of the population,” Dr. Schwartz added. “Perhaps the old dog can learn some new tricks.”
Other recruiting trials looking at cardiovascular-related outcomes include Met-PEF, LIMIT, and Metformin as an Adjunctive Therapy to Catheter Ablation in Atrial Fibrillation.
Reducing Cancer Risks
Sai Yendamuri, MD, chair of the Department of Thoracic Surgery and director of the Thoracic Surgery Laboratory at Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center in Buffalo, New York, is leading a phase 2 trial exploring whether metformin can prevent lung cancer in people with overweight or obesity who are at a high risk for the malignancy.
The study, which has accrued about 60% of its estimated enrollment, also will assess whether metformin can reprogram participants’ immune systems, with a view toward reducing the activity of regulatory T cells that are linked to development of tumors.
“In our preclinical and retrospective clinical data, we found that metformin had anticancer effects but only if the patients were overweight,” Dr. Yendamuri said. “In mice, we find that obesity increases regulatory T-cell function, which suppresses the immune system of the lungs. This effect is reversed by metformin.” The team is conducting the current study to examine if this happens in patients, as well. Results are expected next year.
Research is underway in other tumor types, including oral and endometrial, and brain cancers.
Preventing Alzheimer’s Disease
Cognitive function — or at least delaying its erosion — represents another front for metformin. José A. Luchsinger, MD, MPH, vice-chair for clinical and epidemiological research and director of the section on geriatrics, gerontology, and aging at Columbia University Irving Medical Center in New York City, is heading a phase 2/3 randomized controlled trial assessing the ability of the drug to prevent Alzheimer›s disease.
The study investigators hope to enroll 326 men and women aged 55-90 years with early and late mild cognitive impairment, overweight or obesity, and no diabetes.
“The hypothesis is that improving insulin and glucose levels can lead to lowering the risk of Alzheimer’s disease,” Dr. Luchsinger said. Recruitment should be complete by the end of 2024 and results are expected in late 2026.
Similar studies are underway in Europe and Asia.
Other areas of investigation, while tantalizing, are mostly in early stages, although bolstered by preclinical and mechanistic studies. The authors of a recent review on the potential mechanisms of action of metformin and existing evidence of the drug›s effectiveness — or lack thereof — in treating diseases other than diabetes, wrote: “Collectively, these data raise the question: Is metformin a drug for all diseases? It remains unclear as to whether all of these putative beneficial effects are secondary to its actions as an antihyperglycemic and insulin-sensitizing drug, or result from other cellular actions, including inhibition of mTOR (mammalian target for rapamycin), or direct antiviral actions.”
Off-Label Uses
Metformin currently is approved by the US Food and Drug Administration only for the treatment of type 2 diabetes, although it is also the only antidiabetic medication for prediabetes currently recommended by the American Diabetes Association.
Some studies currently are looking at its use in a variety of off-label indications, including obesity, gestational diabetes, weight gain from antipsychotics, and polycystic ovary syndrome.
For the most part, metformin is considered a safe drug, but it is not risk-free, Dr. Jain cautioned.
“Although it would certainly be helpful to see if this inexpensive medication that’s universally available can help in disease states, one shouldn’t overlook the potential risk of adverse effects, such as gastrointestinal, potential vitamin B12 deficiency, blunting of skeletal muscle development and the rare risk of lactic acidosis in those with kidney impairment,” he said.
“Similarly, with recent reports of the carcinogenic potential of certain formulations of long-acting metformin that contained NDMA [N-nitrosodimethylamine], it would be imperative that these kinks are removed before we incorporate metformin as the gift that keeps giving.”
Dr. Jain reported financial relationships with Abbott, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Dexcom, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Medtronic, Merck, and Novo Nordisk. Dr. Yendamuri disclosed serving on the scientific advisory board member of Karkinos Healthcare and research funding from Lumeda for the metformin study. Dr. Luchsinger reported receiving donated metformin and matching placebo from EMD Serono, a subsidiary of Merck, for the MAP study. Dr. Schwartz received research support from the US Department of Veterans Affairs as National Chair of the VA-IMPACT trial.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Stimulants for ADHD Not Linked to Prescription Drug Misuse
TOPLINE:
The use of stimulant therapy by adolescents with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) was not associated with later prescription drug misuse (PDM), a new study showed. However, misuse of prescription stimulants during adolescence was associated with significantly higher odds of later PDM.
METHODOLOGY:
- Data came from 11,066 participants in the ongoing Monitoring the Future panel study (baseline cohort years 2005-2017), a multicohort US national longitudinal study of adolescents followed into adulthood, in which procedures and measures are kept consistent across time.
- Participants (ages 17 and 18 years, 51.7% female, 11.2% Black, 15.7% Hispanic, and 59.6% White) completed self-administered questionnaires, with biennial follow-up during young adulthood (ages 19-24 years).
- The questionnaires asked about the number of occasions (if any) in which respondents used a prescription drug (benzodiazepine, opioid, or stimulant) on their own, without a physician’s order.
- Baseline covariates included sex, race, ethnicity, grade point average during high school, parental education, past 2-week binge drinking, past-month cigarette use, and past-year marijuana use, as well as demographic factors.
TAKEAWAY:
- Overall, 9.9% of participants reported lifetime stimulant therapy for ADHD, and 18.6% reported lifetime prescription stimulant misuse at baseline.
- Adolescents who received stimulant therapy for ADHD were less likely to report past-year prescription stimulant misuse as young adults compared with their same-age peers who did not receive stimulant therapy (adjusted odds ratio, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.52-0.99).
- The researchers found no significant differences between adolescents with or without lifetime stimulants in later incidence or prevalence of past-year PDM during young adulthood.
- The most robust predictor of prescription stimulant misuse during young adulthood was prescription stimulant misuse during adolescence; similarly, the most robust predictors of prescription opioid and prescription benzodiazepine misuse during young adulthood were prescription opioid and prescription benzodiazepine misuse (respectively) during adolescence.
IN PRACTICE:
“These findings amplify accumulating evidence suggesting that careful monitoring and screening during adolescence could identify individuals who are at relatively greater risk for PDM and need more comprehensive substance use assessment,” the authors wrote.
SOURCE:
Sean Esteban McCabe, PhD, professor and director, Center for the Study of Drugs, Alcohol, Smoking and Health, University of Michigan School of Nursing, Ann Arbor, was the lead and corresponding author of the study. It was published online on February 7 in Psychiatric Sciences.
LIMITATIONS:
Some subpopulations with higher rates of substance use, including youths who left school before completion and institutionalized populations, were excluded from the study, which may have led to an underestimation of PDM. Moreover, some potential confounders (eg, comorbid psychiatric conditions) were not assessed.
DISCLOSURES:
This study was supported by a research award from the US Food and Drug Administration and research awards from the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the NIH. Dr. McCabe reported no relevant financial relationships. The other authors’ disclosures are listed in the original paper.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
The use of stimulant therapy by adolescents with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) was not associated with later prescription drug misuse (PDM), a new study showed. However, misuse of prescription stimulants during adolescence was associated with significantly higher odds of later PDM.
METHODOLOGY:
- Data came from 11,066 participants in the ongoing Monitoring the Future panel study (baseline cohort years 2005-2017), a multicohort US national longitudinal study of adolescents followed into adulthood, in which procedures and measures are kept consistent across time.
- Participants (ages 17 and 18 years, 51.7% female, 11.2% Black, 15.7% Hispanic, and 59.6% White) completed self-administered questionnaires, with biennial follow-up during young adulthood (ages 19-24 years).
- The questionnaires asked about the number of occasions (if any) in which respondents used a prescription drug (benzodiazepine, opioid, or stimulant) on their own, without a physician’s order.
- Baseline covariates included sex, race, ethnicity, grade point average during high school, parental education, past 2-week binge drinking, past-month cigarette use, and past-year marijuana use, as well as demographic factors.
TAKEAWAY:
- Overall, 9.9% of participants reported lifetime stimulant therapy for ADHD, and 18.6% reported lifetime prescription stimulant misuse at baseline.
- Adolescents who received stimulant therapy for ADHD were less likely to report past-year prescription stimulant misuse as young adults compared with their same-age peers who did not receive stimulant therapy (adjusted odds ratio, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.52-0.99).
- The researchers found no significant differences between adolescents with or without lifetime stimulants in later incidence or prevalence of past-year PDM during young adulthood.
- The most robust predictor of prescription stimulant misuse during young adulthood was prescription stimulant misuse during adolescence; similarly, the most robust predictors of prescription opioid and prescription benzodiazepine misuse during young adulthood were prescription opioid and prescription benzodiazepine misuse (respectively) during adolescence.
IN PRACTICE:
“These findings amplify accumulating evidence suggesting that careful monitoring and screening during adolescence could identify individuals who are at relatively greater risk for PDM and need more comprehensive substance use assessment,” the authors wrote.
SOURCE:
Sean Esteban McCabe, PhD, professor and director, Center for the Study of Drugs, Alcohol, Smoking and Health, University of Michigan School of Nursing, Ann Arbor, was the lead and corresponding author of the study. It was published online on February 7 in Psychiatric Sciences.
LIMITATIONS:
Some subpopulations with higher rates of substance use, including youths who left school before completion and institutionalized populations, were excluded from the study, which may have led to an underestimation of PDM. Moreover, some potential confounders (eg, comorbid psychiatric conditions) were not assessed.
DISCLOSURES:
This study was supported by a research award from the US Food and Drug Administration and research awards from the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the NIH. Dr. McCabe reported no relevant financial relationships. The other authors’ disclosures are listed in the original paper.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
The use of stimulant therapy by adolescents with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) was not associated with later prescription drug misuse (PDM), a new study showed. However, misuse of prescription stimulants during adolescence was associated with significantly higher odds of later PDM.
METHODOLOGY:
- Data came from 11,066 participants in the ongoing Monitoring the Future panel study (baseline cohort years 2005-2017), a multicohort US national longitudinal study of adolescents followed into adulthood, in which procedures and measures are kept consistent across time.
- Participants (ages 17 and 18 years, 51.7% female, 11.2% Black, 15.7% Hispanic, and 59.6% White) completed self-administered questionnaires, with biennial follow-up during young adulthood (ages 19-24 years).
- The questionnaires asked about the number of occasions (if any) in which respondents used a prescription drug (benzodiazepine, opioid, or stimulant) on their own, without a physician’s order.
- Baseline covariates included sex, race, ethnicity, grade point average during high school, parental education, past 2-week binge drinking, past-month cigarette use, and past-year marijuana use, as well as demographic factors.
TAKEAWAY:
- Overall, 9.9% of participants reported lifetime stimulant therapy for ADHD, and 18.6% reported lifetime prescription stimulant misuse at baseline.
- Adolescents who received stimulant therapy for ADHD were less likely to report past-year prescription stimulant misuse as young adults compared with their same-age peers who did not receive stimulant therapy (adjusted odds ratio, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.52-0.99).
- The researchers found no significant differences between adolescents with or without lifetime stimulants in later incidence or prevalence of past-year PDM during young adulthood.
- The most robust predictor of prescription stimulant misuse during young adulthood was prescription stimulant misuse during adolescence; similarly, the most robust predictors of prescription opioid and prescription benzodiazepine misuse during young adulthood were prescription opioid and prescription benzodiazepine misuse (respectively) during adolescence.
IN PRACTICE:
“These findings amplify accumulating evidence suggesting that careful monitoring and screening during adolescence could identify individuals who are at relatively greater risk for PDM and need more comprehensive substance use assessment,” the authors wrote.
SOURCE:
Sean Esteban McCabe, PhD, professor and director, Center for the Study of Drugs, Alcohol, Smoking and Health, University of Michigan School of Nursing, Ann Arbor, was the lead and corresponding author of the study. It was published online on February 7 in Psychiatric Sciences.
LIMITATIONS:
Some subpopulations with higher rates of substance use, including youths who left school before completion and institutionalized populations, were excluded from the study, which may have led to an underestimation of PDM. Moreover, some potential confounders (eg, comorbid psychiatric conditions) were not assessed.
DISCLOSURES:
This study was supported by a research award from the US Food and Drug Administration and research awards from the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the NIH. Dr. McCabe reported no relevant financial relationships. The other authors’ disclosures are listed in the original paper.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Selenium Supplementation Shows Thyroid Benefits
TOPLINE:
, research from a new meta-analysis showed.
METHODOLOGY:
- For the systematic review and meta-analysis, 35 randomized controlled trials were identified that included evaluation of selenium supplementation’s effects on thyroid function.
- The studies focused on a variety of key thyroid function measures, including thyroid-stimulating hormone (TSH), free and total thyroxine (fT4, T4), free and total triiodothyronine (fT3, T3), thyroid antibodies, safety, and other factors.
- Stratified analyses were conducted to evaluate key factors including the dose and duration of selenium supplementation; patients’ thyroid status, age, gender, treatment with hormone replacement, and selenium status, such as deficiency or sufficiency; and other factors.
- While patients’ selenium levels at baseline were reported in only about half of the studies, among those that did have the data, the vast majority — 89% of cohorts — were selenium deficient.
- The study populations ranged from 31 to 364 and included children, adolescents, and adults.
TAKEAWAY:
- The analysis showed selenium supplementation to be significantly associated with decreased TSH in patients who were not treated with thyroid hormone replacement therapy (standardized mean difference [SMD], −0.21 in seven cohorts, involving 869 participants).
- Improvements associated with selenium replacement were also observed regardless of whether patients were on thyroid hormone replacement therapy in terms of decreases in thyroid peroxidase antibodies (TPOAb) (SMD, −0.96 in 29 cohorts, involving 2358 participants) and malondialdehyde (SMD, −1.16 in three cohorts, involving 248 participants).
- Overall, selenium supplementation had no significant effects on other notable thyroid measures, including fT4, T4, fT3, T3, thyroglobulin antibody (TGAb), thyroid volume, interleukin 2, or interleukin 10. However, when the analysis only included adults aged 18 and older, the selenium supplementation was linked to reductions in TSH and TPOAb, as well as increases in fT4 levels.
- Importantly, no significant differences were observed in terms of adverse effects between the studies’ intervention and control groups at selenium supplementation doses ranging from 80 to 400 μg/d for up to 12 months (odds ratio, 0.89 in 16 cohorts, involving 1339 participants).
- The authors determined that the certainty of evidence, overall, was moderate.
IN PRACTICE:
The results regarding effects of selenium on TSH “add to the existing knowledge in this field by demonstrating an effect of selenium supplementation on lowering TSH levels exclusively in Hashimoto thyroiditis patients without thyroid hormone replacement therapy,” the authors wrote. Furthermore, “our study reaffirmed the results of six prior meta-analyses reporting an effect of selenium in reducing TPOAb levels,” they added. “The inclusion of 31 cohorts enhanced statistical power compared to the previous meta-analyses, which included a maximum of nine cohorts.” “Our study suggests that selenium supplementation is safe and holds potential as a disease-modifying factor for Hashimoto thyroiditis–associated hypothyroidism,” the authors reported. “Further research is needed to confirm its efficacy, fully understand its mechanism of action, and elucidate its cost-effectiveness.”
SOURCE:
The study’s first author was Valentina V. Huwiler, MSc, of the Department of Diabetes, Endocrinology, Nutritional Medicine and Metabolism, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland. The study was published in Thyroid.
LIMITATIONS:
Due to variations in assays used in the different studies for measures including TPOAb and TGAb, the authors used SMD instead of the mean difference typically recommended when varying assays are used; however, only the effect size can be interpreted and not the clinical significance, the authors noted. Serum selenium concentrations may vary based on the analytical technique. Data on participants’ dietary habits and compliance with study regimens were not available.
DISCLOSURES:
The authors had no disclosures to report.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
, research from a new meta-analysis showed.
METHODOLOGY:
- For the systematic review and meta-analysis, 35 randomized controlled trials were identified that included evaluation of selenium supplementation’s effects on thyroid function.
- The studies focused on a variety of key thyroid function measures, including thyroid-stimulating hormone (TSH), free and total thyroxine (fT4, T4), free and total triiodothyronine (fT3, T3), thyroid antibodies, safety, and other factors.
- Stratified analyses were conducted to evaluate key factors including the dose and duration of selenium supplementation; patients’ thyroid status, age, gender, treatment with hormone replacement, and selenium status, such as deficiency or sufficiency; and other factors.
- While patients’ selenium levels at baseline were reported in only about half of the studies, among those that did have the data, the vast majority — 89% of cohorts — were selenium deficient.
- The study populations ranged from 31 to 364 and included children, adolescents, and adults.
TAKEAWAY:
- The analysis showed selenium supplementation to be significantly associated with decreased TSH in patients who were not treated with thyroid hormone replacement therapy (standardized mean difference [SMD], −0.21 in seven cohorts, involving 869 participants).
- Improvements associated with selenium replacement were also observed regardless of whether patients were on thyroid hormone replacement therapy in terms of decreases in thyroid peroxidase antibodies (TPOAb) (SMD, −0.96 in 29 cohorts, involving 2358 participants) and malondialdehyde (SMD, −1.16 in three cohorts, involving 248 participants).
- Overall, selenium supplementation had no significant effects on other notable thyroid measures, including fT4, T4, fT3, T3, thyroglobulin antibody (TGAb), thyroid volume, interleukin 2, or interleukin 10. However, when the analysis only included adults aged 18 and older, the selenium supplementation was linked to reductions in TSH and TPOAb, as well as increases in fT4 levels.
- Importantly, no significant differences were observed in terms of adverse effects between the studies’ intervention and control groups at selenium supplementation doses ranging from 80 to 400 μg/d for up to 12 months (odds ratio, 0.89 in 16 cohorts, involving 1339 participants).
- The authors determined that the certainty of evidence, overall, was moderate.
IN PRACTICE:
The results regarding effects of selenium on TSH “add to the existing knowledge in this field by demonstrating an effect of selenium supplementation on lowering TSH levels exclusively in Hashimoto thyroiditis patients without thyroid hormone replacement therapy,” the authors wrote. Furthermore, “our study reaffirmed the results of six prior meta-analyses reporting an effect of selenium in reducing TPOAb levels,” they added. “The inclusion of 31 cohorts enhanced statistical power compared to the previous meta-analyses, which included a maximum of nine cohorts.” “Our study suggests that selenium supplementation is safe and holds potential as a disease-modifying factor for Hashimoto thyroiditis–associated hypothyroidism,” the authors reported. “Further research is needed to confirm its efficacy, fully understand its mechanism of action, and elucidate its cost-effectiveness.”
SOURCE:
The study’s first author was Valentina V. Huwiler, MSc, of the Department of Diabetes, Endocrinology, Nutritional Medicine and Metabolism, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland. The study was published in Thyroid.
LIMITATIONS:
Due to variations in assays used in the different studies for measures including TPOAb and TGAb, the authors used SMD instead of the mean difference typically recommended when varying assays are used; however, only the effect size can be interpreted and not the clinical significance, the authors noted. Serum selenium concentrations may vary based on the analytical technique. Data on participants’ dietary habits and compliance with study regimens were not available.
DISCLOSURES:
The authors had no disclosures to report.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
, research from a new meta-analysis showed.
METHODOLOGY:
- For the systematic review and meta-analysis, 35 randomized controlled trials were identified that included evaluation of selenium supplementation’s effects on thyroid function.
- The studies focused on a variety of key thyroid function measures, including thyroid-stimulating hormone (TSH), free and total thyroxine (fT4, T4), free and total triiodothyronine (fT3, T3), thyroid antibodies, safety, and other factors.
- Stratified analyses were conducted to evaluate key factors including the dose and duration of selenium supplementation; patients’ thyroid status, age, gender, treatment with hormone replacement, and selenium status, such as deficiency or sufficiency; and other factors.
- While patients’ selenium levels at baseline were reported in only about half of the studies, among those that did have the data, the vast majority — 89% of cohorts — were selenium deficient.
- The study populations ranged from 31 to 364 and included children, adolescents, and adults.
TAKEAWAY:
- The analysis showed selenium supplementation to be significantly associated with decreased TSH in patients who were not treated with thyroid hormone replacement therapy (standardized mean difference [SMD], −0.21 in seven cohorts, involving 869 participants).
- Improvements associated with selenium replacement were also observed regardless of whether patients were on thyroid hormone replacement therapy in terms of decreases in thyroid peroxidase antibodies (TPOAb) (SMD, −0.96 in 29 cohorts, involving 2358 participants) and malondialdehyde (SMD, −1.16 in three cohorts, involving 248 participants).
- Overall, selenium supplementation had no significant effects on other notable thyroid measures, including fT4, T4, fT3, T3, thyroglobulin antibody (TGAb), thyroid volume, interleukin 2, or interleukin 10. However, when the analysis only included adults aged 18 and older, the selenium supplementation was linked to reductions in TSH and TPOAb, as well as increases in fT4 levels.
- Importantly, no significant differences were observed in terms of adverse effects between the studies’ intervention and control groups at selenium supplementation doses ranging from 80 to 400 μg/d for up to 12 months (odds ratio, 0.89 in 16 cohorts, involving 1339 participants).
- The authors determined that the certainty of evidence, overall, was moderate.
IN PRACTICE:
The results regarding effects of selenium on TSH “add to the existing knowledge in this field by demonstrating an effect of selenium supplementation on lowering TSH levels exclusively in Hashimoto thyroiditis patients without thyroid hormone replacement therapy,” the authors wrote. Furthermore, “our study reaffirmed the results of six prior meta-analyses reporting an effect of selenium in reducing TPOAb levels,” they added. “The inclusion of 31 cohorts enhanced statistical power compared to the previous meta-analyses, which included a maximum of nine cohorts.” “Our study suggests that selenium supplementation is safe and holds potential as a disease-modifying factor for Hashimoto thyroiditis–associated hypothyroidism,” the authors reported. “Further research is needed to confirm its efficacy, fully understand its mechanism of action, and elucidate its cost-effectiveness.”
SOURCE:
The study’s first author was Valentina V. Huwiler, MSc, of the Department of Diabetes, Endocrinology, Nutritional Medicine and Metabolism, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland. The study was published in Thyroid.
LIMITATIONS:
Due to variations in assays used in the different studies for measures including TPOAb and TGAb, the authors used SMD instead of the mean difference typically recommended when varying assays are used; however, only the effect size can be interpreted and not the clinical significance, the authors noted. Serum selenium concentrations may vary based on the analytical technique. Data on participants’ dietary habits and compliance with study regimens were not available.
DISCLOSURES:
The authors had no disclosures to report.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
New Antibiotic Promising for Complicated UTIs
TOPLINE:
, according to a study published in The New England Journal of Medicine.
METHODOLOGY:
- Cefepime-taniborbactam is an antibiotic currently being explored as a treatment for antibiotic-resistant bacteria.
- The phase 3, double-blind, randomized trial included participants from 15 countries, including a safety group of 657 patients who were studied for adverse events and 436 in the micro intention-to-treat group who were studied for drug effectiveness.
- Each drug’s efficacy was measured as a combination of reduced bacteria levels and a resolution of symptoms and signs of infection.
- Patients in the study were over age 18; had a diagnosis of either complicated UTI or acute pyelonephritis; and had pyuria, at least one systemic sign, and at least one local sign or symptom. People were excluded if they had already received antibacterial drug therapy for more than 24 hours before randomization or had an infection with a meropenem-resistant pathogen.
TAKEAWAY:
- At days 19-23, 70.6% of patients in the cefepime-taniborbactam group showed a successful reduction in bacteria and symptoms compared with 58.0% in the meropenem group.
- Cefepime-taniborbactam was more effective than meropenem during follow-up, with 89.1% efficacy less than 24 hours after the last dose, compared to meropenem’s 86%. Cefepime-taniborbactam continued to have 63.8% efficacy up to 35 days after starting treatment, while meropenem was 51.7% during that timeframe.
- In the cefepime-taniborbactam group, 35.5% of patients experienced adverse effects that were mild to moderate, including headache, diarrhea, constipation, hypertension, and nausea, compared to 29% in the meropenem group.
- Overall, 3% of participants discontinued cefepime-taniborbactam and 1.8% discontinued meropenem, but reasons were heterogeneous.
IN PRACTICE:
“Cefepime-taniborbactam was superior to meropenem for the treatment of complicated UTI that included acute pyelonephritis, with a safety profile similar to that of meropenem,” the study authors wrote.
SOURCE:
Paul McGovern, MD, infectious disease specialist and senior vice president of Venatorx Pharmaceuticals, was the corresponding author of the study.
LIMITATIONS:
The authors reported no limitations.
DISCLOSURES:
The study was funded by Venatorx Pharmaceuticals, which received funding from the US Department of Health and Human Services, the Administration for Strategic Preparedness and Response, the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority, the Global Antibiotic Research and Development Partnership, and Everest Medicines.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
, according to a study published in The New England Journal of Medicine.
METHODOLOGY:
- Cefepime-taniborbactam is an antibiotic currently being explored as a treatment for antibiotic-resistant bacteria.
- The phase 3, double-blind, randomized trial included participants from 15 countries, including a safety group of 657 patients who were studied for adverse events and 436 in the micro intention-to-treat group who were studied for drug effectiveness.
- Each drug’s efficacy was measured as a combination of reduced bacteria levels and a resolution of symptoms and signs of infection.
- Patients in the study were over age 18; had a diagnosis of either complicated UTI or acute pyelonephritis; and had pyuria, at least one systemic sign, and at least one local sign or symptom. People were excluded if they had already received antibacterial drug therapy for more than 24 hours before randomization or had an infection with a meropenem-resistant pathogen.
TAKEAWAY:
- At days 19-23, 70.6% of patients in the cefepime-taniborbactam group showed a successful reduction in bacteria and symptoms compared with 58.0% in the meropenem group.
- Cefepime-taniborbactam was more effective than meropenem during follow-up, with 89.1% efficacy less than 24 hours after the last dose, compared to meropenem’s 86%. Cefepime-taniborbactam continued to have 63.8% efficacy up to 35 days after starting treatment, while meropenem was 51.7% during that timeframe.
- In the cefepime-taniborbactam group, 35.5% of patients experienced adverse effects that were mild to moderate, including headache, diarrhea, constipation, hypertension, and nausea, compared to 29% in the meropenem group.
- Overall, 3% of participants discontinued cefepime-taniborbactam and 1.8% discontinued meropenem, but reasons were heterogeneous.
IN PRACTICE:
“Cefepime-taniborbactam was superior to meropenem for the treatment of complicated UTI that included acute pyelonephritis, with a safety profile similar to that of meropenem,” the study authors wrote.
SOURCE:
Paul McGovern, MD, infectious disease specialist and senior vice president of Venatorx Pharmaceuticals, was the corresponding author of the study.
LIMITATIONS:
The authors reported no limitations.
DISCLOSURES:
The study was funded by Venatorx Pharmaceuticals, which received funding from the US Department of Health and Human Services, the Administration for Strategic Preparedness and Response, the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority, the Global Antibiotic Research and Development Partnership, and Everest Medicines.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
, according to a study published in The New England Journal of Medicine.
METHODOLOGY:
- Cefepime-taniborbactam is an antibiotic currently being explored as a treatment for antibiotic-resistant bacteria.
- The phase 3, double-blind, randomized trial included participants from 15 countries, including a safety group of 657 patients who were studied for adverse events and 436 in the micro intention-to-treat group who were studied for drug effectiveness.
- Each drug’s efficacy was measured as a combination of reduced bacteria levels and a resolution of symptoms and signs of infection.
- Patients in the study were over age 18; had a diagnosis of either complicated UTI or acute pyelonephritis; and had pyuria, at least one systemic sign, and at least one local sign or symptom. People were excluded if they had already received antibacterial drug therapy for more than 24 hours before randomization or had an infection with a meropenem-resistant pathogen.
TAKEAWAY:
- At days 19-23, 70.6% of patients in the cefepime-taniborbactam group showed a successful reduction in bacteria and symptoms compared with 58.0% in the meropenem group.
- Cefepime-taniborbactam was more effective than meropenem during follow-up, with 89.1% efficacy less than 24 hours after the last dose, compared to meropenem’s 86%. Cefepime-taniborbactam continued to have 63.8% efficacy up to 35 days after starting treatment, while meropenem was 51.7% during that timeframe.
- In the cefepime-taniborbactam group, 35.5% of patients experienced adverse effects that were mild to moderate, including headache, diarrhea, constipation, hypertension, and nausea, compared to 29% in the meropenem group.
- Overall, 3% of participants discontinued cefepime-taniborbactam and 1.8% discontinued meropenem, but reasons were heterogeneous.
IN PRACTICE:
“Cefepime-taniborbactam was superior to meropenem for the treatment of complicated UTI that included acute pyelonephritis, with a safety profile similar to that of meropenem,” the study authors wrote.
SOURCE:
Paul McGovern, MD, infectious disease specialist and senior vice president of Venatorx Pharmaceuticals, was the corresponding author of the study.
LIMITATIONS:
The authors reported no limitations.
DISCLOSURES:
The study was funded by Venatorx Pharmaceuticals, which received funding from the US Department of Health and Human Services, the Administration for Strategic Preparedness and Response, the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority, the Global Antibiotic Research and Development Partnership, and Everest Medicines.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
FDA Approves First Cellular Therapy for Metastatic Melanoma
The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved lifileucel (Amtagvi, Iovance Biotherapeutics) for the treatment of certain adults with unresectable or metastatic melanoma, marking the first approval of a cellular therapy in the solid tumor setting.
Specifically, the tumor-derived autologous T-cell immunotherapy is indicated for adult patients previously treated with a programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1)–blocking antibody, and if BRAF V600–positive, a BRAF inhibitor with or without an MEK inhibitor.
,” Samantha R. Guild, JD, president, AIM at Melanoma Foundation, stated in a press release. “This one-time cell therapy represents a promising innovation for the melanoma community, and we are excited by its potential to transform care for patients who are in dire need of additional therapeutic options.”
The approval was based on findings from the open-label single-arm global C-144-01 clinical trial, which showed an objective response rate of 31.5% in 73 patients treated within the recommended dosing rage of 7.5 x 109 to 72 x 109 viable cells. Complete responses occurred in three patients (4.1%) and partial responses occurred in 20 patients (27.4%)
Median duration of response was not reached at 18.6 months of follow-up. The median time to initial response to the therapy was 1.5 months, according to an FDA press release.
“Unresectable or metastatic melanoma is an aggressive form of cancer that can be fatal,” Peter Marks, MD, PhD, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research stated in the FDA release. “The approval of Amtagvi represents the culmination of scientific and clinical research efforts leading to a novel T cell immunotherapy for patients with limited treatment options.”
“The melanoma community is so grateful to the patients, caregivers, and clinicians who have made the clinical trials of this therapy possible and got lifileucel to approval,” Allison Betof Warner, MD, PhD, director of Melanoma Medical Oncology at Stanford Medicine, wrote on X. “We are very excited to bring this life-saving therapy to patients ASAP! Available immediately at @StanfordCancer!!!”
For the C-144-01 trial, lifileucel was administered after a lymphodepletion regimen of 60 mg/kg/d of cyclophosphamide for 2 days followed by 25 mg/m2/d of fludarabine for 5 days. Between 3 and 34 hours after infusion, patients received 600,000 IU/Kg of the interleukin 2 aldesleukin every 8-12 hours for up to six doses to support cell expansion in vivo.
The full prescribing information for lifileucel contains a boxed warning for treatment-related mortality, prolonged severe cytopenia, severe infection, cardiopulmonary, and renal impairment. The most common adverse reactions, which occurred in at least 20% of patients, were chills, pyrexia, fatigue, tachycardia, diarrhea, febrile neutropenia, edema, rash hypotension, alopecia, infection, hypoxia, and dyspnea.
“Patients receiving this product should be closely monitored before and after infusion for signs and symptoms of adverse reactions. Treatment should be withheld or discontinued in the presence of these symptoms, as indicated,” according to the FDA statement.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved lifileucel (Amtagvi, Iovance Biotherapeutics) for the treatment of certain adults with unresectable or metastatic melanoma, marking the first approval of a cellular therapy in the solid tumor setting.
Specifically, the tumor-derived autologous T-cell immunotherapy is indicated for adult patients previously treated with a programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1)–blocking antibody, and if BRAF V600–positive, a BRAF inhibitor with or without an MEK inhibitor.
,” Samantha R. Guild, JD, president, AIM at Melanoma Foundation, stated in a press release. “This one-time cell therapy represents a promising innovation for the melanoma community, and we are excited by its potential to transform care for patients who are in dire need of additional therapeutic options.”
The approval was based on findings from the open-label single-arm global C-144-01 clinical trial, which showed an objective response rate of 31.5% in 73 patients treated within the recommended dosing rage of 7.5 x 109 to 72 x 109 viable cells. Complete responses occurred in three patients (4.1%) and partial responses occurred in 20 patients (27.4%)
Median duration of response was not reached at 18.6 months of follow-up. The median time to initial response to the therapy was 1.5 months, according to an FDA press release.
“Unresectable or metastatic melanoma is an aggressive form of cancer that can be fatal,” Peter Marks, MD, PhD, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research stated in the FDA release. “The approval of Amtagvi represents the culmination of scientific and clinical research efforts leading to a novel T cell immunotherapy for patients with limited treatment options.”
“The melanoma community is so grateful to the patients, caregivers, and clinicians who have made the clinical trials of this therapy possible and got lifileucel to approval,” Allison Betof Warner, MD, PhD, director of Melanoma Medical Oncology at Stanford Medicine, wrote on X. “We are very excited to bring this life-saving therapy to patients ASAP! Available immediately at @StanfordCancer!!!”
For the C-144-01 trial, lifileucel was administered after a lymphodepletion regimen of 60 mg/kg/d of cyclophosphamide for 2 days followed by 25 mg/m2/d of fludarabine for 5 days. Between 3 and 34 hours after infusion, patients received 600,000 IU/Kg of the interleukin 2 aldesleukin every 8-12 hours for up to six doses to support cell expansion in vivo.
The full prescribing information for lifileucel contains a boxed warning for treatment-related mortality, prolonged severe cytopenia, severe infection, cardiopulmonary, and renal impairment. The most common adverse reactions, which occurred in at least 20% of patients, were chills, pyrexia, fatigue, tachycardia, diarrhea, febrile neutropenia, edema, rash hypotension, alopecia, infection, hypoxia, and dyspnea.
“Patients receiving this product should be closely monitored before and after infusion for signs and symptoms of adverse reactions. Treatment should be withheld or discontinued in the presence of these symptoms, as indicated,” according to the FDA statement.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved lifileucel (Amtagvi, Iovance Biotherapeutics) for the treatment of certain adults with unresectable or metastatic melanoma, marking the first approval of a cellular therapy in the solid tumor setting.
Specifically, the tumor-derived autologous T-cell immunotherapy is indicated for adult patients previously treated with a programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1)–blocking antibody, and if BRAF V600–positive, a BRAF inhibitor with or without an MEK inhibitor.
,” Samantha R. Guild, JD, president, AIM at Melanoma Foundation, stated in a press release. “This one-time cell therapy represents a promising innovation for the melanoma community, and we are excited by its potential to transform care for patients who are in dire need of additional therapeutic options.”
The approval was based on findings from the open-label single-arm global C-144-01 clinical trial, which showed an objective response rate of 31.5% in 73 patients treated within the recommended dosing rage of 7.5 x 109 to 72 x 109 viable cells. Complete responses occurred in three patients (4.1%) and partial responses occurred in 20 patients (27.4%)
Median duration of response was not reached at 18.6 months of follow-up. The median time to initial response to the therapy was 1.5 months, according to an FDA press release.
“Unresectable or metastatic melanoma is an aggressive form of cancer that can be fatal,” Peter Marks, MD, PhD, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research stated in the FDA release. “The approval of Amtagvi represents the culmination of scientific and clinical research efforts leading to a novel T cell immunotherapy for patients with limited treatment options.”
“The melanoma community is so grateful to the patients, caregivers, and clinicians who have made the clinical trials of this therapy possible and got lifileucel to approval,” Allison Betof Warner, MD, PhD, director of Melanoma Medical Oncology at Stanford Medicine, wrote on X. “We are very excited to bring this life-saving therapy to patients ASAP! Available immediately at @StanfordCancer!!!”
For the C-144-01 trial, lifileucel was administered after a lymphodepletion regimen of 60 mg/kg/d of cyclophosphamide for 2 days followed by 25 mg/m2/d of fludarabine for 5 days. Between 3 and 34 hours after infusion, patients received 600,000 IU/Kg of the interleukin 2 aldesleukin every 8-12 hours for up to six doses to support cell expansion in vivo.
The full prescribing information for lifileucel contains a boxed warning for treatment-related mortality, prolonged severe cytopenia, severe infection, cardiopulmonary, and renal impairment. The most common adverse reactions, which occurred in at least 20% of patients, were chills, pyrexia, fatigue, tachycardia, diarrhea, febrile neutropenia, edema, rash hypotension, alopecia, infection, hypoxia, and dyspnea.
“Patients receiving this product should be closely monitored before and after infusion for signs and symptoms of adverse reactions. Treatment should be withheld or discontinued in the presence of these symptoms, as indicated,” according to the FDA statement.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
FDA Approves Drug to Reduce Accidental Food Allergies
The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved omalizumab (Xolair, Genentech) for reducing allergic reactions to foods in adults and most children. The drug is meant to be taken regularly by patients with food allergies to reduce the risk for reactions, including anaphylaxis, in case of accidental exposure to one or more allergens. The injection is not approved for emergency treatment of an allergic reaction.
Omalizumab first was approved for persistent allergic asthma in 2003. It also is approved for chronic spontaneous urticaria and chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps.
, the FDA said. Peanut-allergen powder (Palforzia) can reduce reactions to peanut, but its benefits are limited to that allergy.
“While it will not eliminate food allergies or allow patients to consume food allergens freely, its repeated use will help reduce the health impact if accidental exposure occurs,” said Kelly Stone, MD, PhD, associate director of the division of pulmonology, allergy, and critical care in the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, in a news release.
The safety and efficacy of the monoclonal antibody in reducing allergic reactions was studied in a double-blind, placebo-controlled study of 168 children and adults who were allergic to peanut and at least two other foods, including milk, egg, wheat, cashew, hazelnut, or walnut. Patients received omalizumab or placebo for 16-20 weeks. At the end of the study, patients consumed peanut protein (equivalent to 2.5 peanuts). Of those who received the drug, 68% were able to consume peanut without moderate or severe allergic symptoms, versus 6% in the placebo group.
More patients who received the medication also avoided moderate or severe reactions to cashews (42% vs 3%), milk (66% vs 11%), and eggs (67% vs 0%).
The most common side effects of omalizumab included injection site reactions and fever. The drug’s label includes warnings and precautions about anaphylaxis, cancer, fever, joint pain, rash, parasitic (worm) infection, and abnormal laboratory tests. Omalizumab comes with a boxed warning for anaphylaxis and should be started only in a healthcare setting equipped to manage anaphylaxis, according to the FDA.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved omalizumab (Xolair, Genentech) for reducing allergic reactions to foods in adults and most children. The drug is meant to be taken regularly by patients with food allergies to reduce the risk for reactions, including anaphylaxis, in case of accidental exposure to one or more allergens. The injection is not approved for emergency treatment of an allergic reaction.
Omalizumab first was approved for persistent allergic asthma in 2003. It also is approved for chronic spontaneous urticaria and chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps.
, the FDA said. Peanut-allergen powder (Palforzia) can reduce reactions to peanut, but its benefits are limited to that allergy.
“While it will not eliminate food allergies or allow patients to consume food allergens freely, its repeated use will help reduce the health impact if accidental exposure occurs,” said Kelly Stone, MD, PhD, associate director of the division of pulmonology, allergy, and critical care in the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, in a news release.
The safety and efficacy of the monoclonal antibody in reducing allergic reactions was studied in a double-blind, placebo-controlled study of 168 children and adults who were allergic to peanut and at least two other foods, including milk, egg, wheat, cashew, hazelnut, or walnut. Patients received omalizumab or placebo for 16-20 weeks. At the end of the study, patients consumed peanut protein (equivalent to 2.5 peanuts). Of those who received the drug, 68% were able to consume peanut without moderate or severe allergic symptoms, versus 6% in the placebo group.
More patients who received the medication also avoided moderate or severe reactions to cashews (42% vs 3%), milk (66% vs 11%), and eggs (67% vs 0%).
The most common side effects of omalizumab included injection site reactions and fever. The drug’s label includes warnings and precautions about anaphylaxis, cancer, fever, joint pain, rash, parasitic (worm) infection, and abnormal laboratory tests. Omalizumab comes with a boxed warning for anaphylaxis and should be started only in a healthcare setting equipped to manage anaphylaxis, according to the FDA.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved omalizumab (Xolair, Genentech) for reducing allergic reactions to foods in adults and most children. The drug is meant to be taken regularly by patients with food allergies to reduce the risk for reactions, including anaphylaxis, in case of accidental exposure to one or more allergens. The injection is not approved for emergency treatment of an allergic reaction.
Omalizumab first was approved for persistent allergic asthma in 2003. It also is approved for chronic spontaneous urticaria and chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps.
, the FDA said. Peanut-allergen powder (Palforzia) can reduce reactions to peanut, but its benefits are limited to that allergy.
“While it will not eliminate food allergies or allow patients to consume food allergens freely, its repeated use will help reduce the health impact if accidental exposure occurs,” said Kelly Stone, MD, PhD, associate director of the division of pulmonology, allergy, and critical care in the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, in a news release.
The safety and efficacy of the monoclonal antibody in reducing allergic reactions was studied in a double-blind, placebo-controlled study of 168 children and adults who were allergic to peanut and at least two other foods, including milk, egg, wheat, cashew, hazelnut, or walnut. Patients received omalizumab or placebo for 16-20 weeks. At the end of the study, patients consumed peanut protein (equivalent to 2.5 peanuts). Of those who received the drug, 68% were able to consume peanut without moderate or severe allergic symptoms, versus 6% in the placebo group.
More patients who received the medication also avoided moderate or severe reactions to cashews (42% vs 3%), milk (66% vs 11%), and eggs (67% vs 0%).
The most common side effects of omalizumab included injection site reactions and fever. The drug’s label includes warnings and precautions about anaphylaxis, cancer, fever, joint pain, rash, parasitic (worm) infection, and abnormal laboratory tests. Omalizumab comes with a boxed warning for anaphylaxis and should be started only in a healthcare setting equipped to manage anaphylaxis, according to the FDA.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Prednisolone May Improve MOH Withdrawal
, an observational study out of South Korea has found.
The study, a post-hoc analysis of the RELEASE multicenter observational cohort study of MOH patients in South Korea, found that patients who took prednisolone as a bridge therapy in the early phase of withdrawal from headache medications, or detoxification, had statistically significant higher rates of MOH reversal at 3 months after enrollment than those who did not, 73.8% versus 57.8% (P = .034) 
The reversal trend also was noted at 1 month after treatment, the study authors, led by Mi Ji Lee, MD, PhD, an assistant professor at Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul, South Korea, wrote. “Although an observational study cannot draw a definitive conclusion, our study supports the use of prednisolone for the treatment of MOH in a real-world setting,” Dr. Lee and colleagues wrote.
Study methods
The study was a post hoc analysis of the RELEASE study, which stands for Registry for Load and Management of Medication Overuse Headache. RELEASE is a multicenter observational cohort study that has been ongoing in South Korea since April 2020. The post hoc analysis included 309 patients, 59 of whom received prednisolone at a varying dose of 10-40 mg a day, with a varying course of 5-14 days. About 74% of patients (228 of 309) completed the 3-month follow-up period, including 41 in the prednisolone group.
The study used three different forms of medication withdrawal before the patients started prednisolone therapy: abrupt discontinuation; gradual discontinuation concurrent with starting prednisolone; and no withdrawal.
Because of the observational nature of the RELEASE study, participating physicians prescribed prednisolone at their own discretion. The study authors noted prednisolone use was neither randomized nor controlled, which they acknowledged as a limitation.
Dr. Lee and colleagues also acknowledged that newer calcitonin gene–related peptide (CGRP) receptor antagonists may not require detoxification to reverse MOH, but that those therapies are not always available for a variety of reasons, such as reimbursement restrictions, regional distribution issues, and financial issues.
The study also evaluated a number of secondary outcomes. For example, 72% of prednisolone patients achieved MOH reversal 1 month after starting treatment versus 54.9% of the nonprednisolone patients. (P = .33). Prednisolone users also had greater reductions in acute medication days (AMD) at 1 month and scores on headache impact test-6 (HIT-6) at 6 months.
Dr. Lee and colleagues noted that the concept of detoxification, or discontinuing medication overuse, as a treatment for MOH has been controversial due to a lack of high-quality evidence to support the approach. “Nevertheless,” they wrote, “several experts still put withdrawal of medication overuse as an important step of MOH treatment in clinical practice despite limited evidence.”
Commentary
Alan Rapoport, MD, a clinical professor of neurology at the David Geffen School of Medicine at University of California, Los Angeles, noted a number of limitations with the study. “It wasn’t a unified population of patients,” he said, “which makes it a little harder to say this medicine worked — worked on whom?” The lack of a treatment regimen — the varied dosing and treatment durations, along with the different withdrawal approaches — are further limitations, Dr. Rapoport said.
Nonetheless, the study is an important addition to the evidence on how to manage medication withdrawal in MOH, said Dr. Rapoport, a past president of the International Headache Society and founder and director emeritus of the New England Center for Headache in Stamford, Connecticut, who has a keen interest in MOH research.
“I think this shows to some extent, although it doesn’t prove it because it’s a whole mixture of patients who were all treated differently by different doctors, but when you put them all together the patients who took steroids did better than the patients who did not,” he said. “The study authors did the best they could with the information they had.”
He termed the study “well-done by well-known authors in South Korea.” As medications such as CGRP receptor antagonists and monoclonal antibodies that target CGRP and its receptors become more available, MOH patients “may not need actual detoxification or steroids in their treatment,” Dr. Rapoport said.
Dr. Lee and co-authors have no disclosures. Dr. Rapoport is editor-in-chief of Neurology Reviews. He disclosed relationships with AbbVie, Biohaven, Cala Health, Dr. Reddy’s, Pfizer, Satsuma, Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, and Theranica.
, an observational study out of South Korea has found.
The study, a post-hoc analysis of the RELEASE multicenter observational cohort study of MOH patients in South Korea, found that patients who took prednisolone as a bridge therapy in the early phase of withdrawal from headache medications, or detoxification, had statistically significant higher rates of MOH reversal at 3 months after enrollment than those who did not, 73.8% versus 57.8% (P = .034)
The reversal trend also was noted at 1 month after treatment, the study authors, led by Mi Ji Lee, MD, PhD, an assistant professor at Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul, South Korea, wrote. “Although an observational study cannot draw a definitive conclusion, our study supports the use of prednisolone for the treatment of MOH in a real-world setting,” Dr. Lee and colleagues wrote.
Study methods
The study was a post hoc analysis of the RELEASE study, which stands for Registry for Load and Management of Medication Overuse Headache. RELEASE is a multicenter observational cohort study that has been ongoing in South Korea since April 2020. The post hoc analysis included 309 patients, 59 of whom received prednisolone at a varying dose of 10-40 mg a day, with a varying course of 5-14 days. About 74% of patients (228 of 309) completed the 3-month follow-up period, including 41 in the prednisolone group.
The study used three different forms of medication withdrawal before the patients started prednisolone therapy: abrupt discontinuation; gradual discontinuation concurrent with starting prednisolone; and no withdrawal.
Because of the observational nature of the RELEASE study, participating physicians prescribed prednisolone at their own discretion. The study authors noted prednisolone use was neither randomized nor controlled, which they acknowledged as a limitation.
Dr. Lee and colleagues also acknowledged that newer calcitonin gene–related peptide (CGRP) receptor antagonists may not require detoxification to reverse MOH, but that those therapies are not always available for a variety of reasons, such as reimbursement restrictions, regional distribution issues, and financial issues.
The study also evaluated a number of secondary outcomes. For example, 72% of prednisolone patients achieved MOH reversal 1 month after starting treatment versus 54.9% of the nonprednisolone patients. (P = .33). Prednisolone users also had greater reductions in acute medication days (AMD) at 1 month and scores on headache impact test-6 (HIT-6) at 6 months.
Dr. Lee and colleagues noted that the concept of detoxification, or discontinuing medication overuse, as a treatment for MOH has been controversial due to a lack of high-quality evidence to support the approach. “Nevertheless,” they wrote, “several experts still put withdrawal of medication overuse as an important step of MOH treatment in clinical practice despite limited evidence.”
Commentary
Alan Rapoport, MD, a clinical professor of neurology at the David Geffen School of Medicine at University of California, Los Angeles, noted a number of limitations with the study. “It wasn’t a unified population of patients,” he said, “which makes it a little harder to say this medicine worked — worked on whom?” The lack of a treatment regimen — the varied dosing and treatment durations, along with the different withdrawal approaches — are further limitations, Dr. Rapoport said.
Nonetheless, the study is an important addition to the evidence on how to manage medication withdrawal in MOH, said Dr. Rapoport, a past president of the International Headache Society and founder and director emeritus of the New England Center for Headache in Stamford, Connecticut, who has a keen interest in MOH research.
“I think this shows to some extent, although it doesn’t prove it because it’s a whole mixture of patients who were all treated differently by different doctors, but when you put them all together the patients who took steroids did better than the patients who did not,” he said. “The study authors did the best they could with the information they had.”
He termed the study “well-done by well-known authors in South Korea.” As medications such as CGRP receptor antagonists and monoclonal antibodies that target CGRP and its receptors become more available, MOH patients “may not need actual detoxification or steroids in their treatment,” Dr. Rapoport said.
Dr. Lee and co-authors have no disclosures. Dr. Rapoport is editor-in-chief of Neurology Reviews. He disclosed relationships with AbbVie, Biohaven, Cala Health, Dr. Reddy’s, Pfizer, Satsuma, Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, and Theranica.
, an observational study out of South Korea has found.
The study, a post-hoc analysis of the RELEASE multicenter observational cohort study of MOH patients in South Korea, found that patients who took prednisolone as a bridge therapy in the early phase of withdrawal from headache medications, or detoxification, had statistically significant higher rates of MOH reversal at 3 months after enrollment than those who did not, 73.8% versus 57.8% (P = .034)
The reversal trend also was noted at 1 month after treatment, the study authors, led by Mi Ji Lee, MD, PhD, an assistant professor at Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul, South Korea, wrote. “Although an observational study cannot draw a definitive conclusion, our study supports the use of prednisolone for the treatment of MOH in a real-world setting,” Dr. Lee and colleagues wrote.
Study methods
The study was a post hoc analysis of the RELEASE study, which stands for Registry for Load and Management of Medication Overuse Headache. RELEASE is a multicenter observational cohort study that has been ongoing in South Korea since April 2020. The post hoc analysis included 309 patients, 59 of whom received prednisolone at a varying dose of 10-40 mg a day, with a varying course of 5-14 days. About 74% of patients (228 of 309) completed the 3-month follow-up period, including 41 in the prednisolone group.
The study used three different forms of medication withdrawal before the patients started prednisolone therapy: abrupt discontinuation; gradual discontinuation concurrent with starting prednisolone; and no withdrawal.
Because of the observational nature of the RELEASE study, participating physicians prescribed prednisolone at their own discretion. The study authors noted prednisolone use was neither randomized nor controlled, which they acknowledged as a limitation.
Dr. Lee and colleagues also acknowledged that newer calcitonin gene–related peptide (CGRP) receptor antagonists may not require detoxification to reverse MOH, but that those therapies are not always available for a variety of reasons, such as reimbursement restrictions, regional distribution issues, and financial issues.
The study also evaluated a number of secondary outcomes. For example, 72% of prednisolone patients achieved MOH reversal 1 month after starting treatment versus 54.9% of the nonprednisolone patients. (P = .33). Prednisolone users also had greater reductions in acute medication days (AMD) at 1 month and scores on headache impact test-6 (HIT-6) at 6 months.
Dr. Lee and colleagues noted that the concept of detoxification, or discontinuing medication overuse, as a treatment for MOH has been controversial due to a lack of high-quality evidence to support the approach. “Nevertheless,” they wrote, “several experts still put withdrawal of medication overuse as an important step of MOH treatment in clinical practice despite limited evidence.”
Commentary
Alan Rapoport, MD, a clinical professor of neurology at the David Geffen School of Medicine at University of California, Los Angeles, noted a number of limitations with the study. “It wasn’t a unified population of patients,” he said, “which makes it a little harder to say this medicine worked — worked on whom?” The lack of a treatment regimen — the varied dosing and treatment durations, along with the different withdrawal approaches — are further limitations, Dr. Rapoport said.
Nonetheless, the study is an important addition to the evidence on how to manage medication withdrawal in MOH, said Dr. Rapoport, a past president of the International Headache Society and founder and director emeritus of the New England Center for Headache in Stamford, Connecticut, who has a keen interest in MOH research.
“I think this shows to some extent, although it doesn’t prove it because it’s a whole mixture of patients who were all treated differently by different doctors, but when you put them all together the patients who took steroids did better than the patients who did not,” he said. “The study authors did the best they could with the information they had.”
He termed the study “well-done by well-known authors in South Korea.” As medications such as CGRP receptor antagonists and monoclonal antibodies that target CGRP and its receptors become more available, MOH patients “may not need actual detoxification or steroids in their treatment,” Dr. Rapoport said.
Dr. Lee and co-authors have no disclosures. Dr. Rapoport is editor-in-chief of Neurology Reviews. He disclosed relationships with AbbVie, Biohaven, Cala Health, Dr. Reddy’s, Pfizer, Satsuma, Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, and Theranica.
FROM HEADACHE
Utility of NSAID Response Called Into Question for Longstanding AxSpA
TOPLINE:
Adults with axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) with longstanding back pain symptoms had response rates to nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) that were no different from patients with non-axSpA back pain of similar duration, according to findings from a prospective study.
METHODOLOGY:
The researchers recruited 233 consecutive outpatients with chronic back pain, including 68 with axSpA and 165 with non-axSpA back pain.
The mean ages of the participants in the axSpA and non-axSpA groups were 42.7 years and 49.3 years, respectively; symptom durations were approximately 15 years in both groups.
Participants were given NSAIDs and “any response” was defined as back pain improvement of more than two units on the Numerical Rating Scale, while “good response” was defined as an improvement of > 50% compared with baseline.
TAKEAWAY:
The proportion of patients showing improvement ranged from 19% to 31% in both groups after 4 weeks of treatment.
No significant differences in response appeared in subgroups of patients based on inflammatory back pain stage or in different axSpA stages.
IN PRACTICE:
“We think that this information has an effect on clinical practice since a response to NSAIDs is an important criterion in the ASAS [Assessment of SpondyloArthritis international Society]/European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology treatment recommendations that may influence decisions to initiate treatment with biologic or targeted-synthetic DMARDs [disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs]. Further, a good response to NSAIDs is also an important clinical feature in the ASAS classification criteria,” the researchers wrote.
SOURCE:
The lead author on the study was Xenofon Baraliakos, MD, of Ruhr University Bochum, Germany. The study was published online on January 15, 2024, in The Journal of Rheumatology.
LIMITATIONS:
The uneven sex match in the diagnoses and the history of NSAID treatment among patients in both groups were potential limiting factors. The researchers also noted that a similarly conducted study in patients with early disease could have findings that are “much different.”
DISCLOSURES:
The study was sponsored in part by Novartis. The researchers reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
Adults with axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) with longstanding back pain symptoms had response rates to nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) that were no different from patients with non-axSpA back pain of similar duration, according to findings from a prospective study.
METHODOLOGY:
The researchers recruited 233 consecutive outpatients with chronic back pain, including 68 with axSpA and 165 with non-axSpA back pain.
The mean ages of the participants in the axSpA and non-axSpA groups were 42.7 years and 49.3 years, respectively; symptom durations were approximately 15 years in both groups.
Participants were given NSAIDs and “any response” was defined as back pain improvement of more than two units on the Numerical Rating Scale, while “good response” was defined as an improvement of > 50% compared with baseline.
TAKEAWAY:
The proportion of patients showing improvement ranged from 19% to 31% in both groups after 4 weeks of treatment.
No significant differences in response appeared in subgroups of patients based on inflammatory back pain stage or in different axSpA stages.
IN PRACTICE:
“We think that this information has an effect on clinical practice since a response to NSAIDs is an important criterion in the ASAS [Assessment of SpondyloArthritis international Society]/European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology treatment recommendations that may influence decisions to initiate treatment with biologic or targeted-synthetic DMARDs [disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs]. Further, a good response to NSAIDs is also an important clinical feature in the ASAS classification criteria,” the researchers wrote.
SOURCE:
The lead author on the study was Xenofon Baraliakos, MD, of Ruhr University Bochum, Germany. The study was published online on January 15, 2024, in The Journal of Rheumatology.
LIMITATIONS:
The uneven sex match in the diagnoses and the history of NSAID treatment among patients in both groups were potential limiting factors. The researchers also noted that a similarly conducted study in patients with early disease could have findings that are “much different.”
DISCLOSURES:
The study was sponsored in part by Novartis. The researchers reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
Adults with axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) with longstanding back pain symptoms had response rates to nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) that were no different from patients with non-axSpA back pain of similar duration, according to findings from a prospective study.
METHODOLOGY:
The researchers recruited 233 consecutive outpatients with chronic back pain, including 68 with axSpA and 165 with non-axSpA back pain.
The mean ages of the participants in the axSpA and non-axSpA groups were 42.7 years and 49.3 years, respectively; symptom durations were approximately 15 years in both groups.
Participants were given NSAIDs and “any response” was defined as back pain improvement of more than two units on the Numerical Rating Scale, while “good response” was defined as an improvement of > 50% compared with baseline.
TAKEAWAY:
The proportion of patients showing improvement ranged from 19% to 31% in both groups after 4 weeks of treatment.
No significant differences in response appeared in subgroups of patients based on inflammatory back pain stage or in different axSpA stages.
IN PRACTICE:
“We think that this information has an effect on clinical practice since a response to NSAIDs is an important criterion in the ASAS [Assessment of SpondyloArthritis international Society]/European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology treatment recommendations that may influence decisions to initiate treatment with biologic or targeted-synthetic DMARDs [disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs]. Further, a good response to NSAIDs is also an important clinical feature in the ASAS classification criteria,” the researchers wrote.
SOURCE:
The lead author on the study was Xenofon Baraliakos, MD, of Ruhr University Bochum, Germany. The study was published online on January 15, 2024, in The Journal of Rheumatology.
LIMITATIONS:
The uneven sex match in the diagnoses and the history of NSAID treatment among patients in both groups were potential limiting factors. The researchers also noted that a similarly conducted study in patients with early disease could have findings that are “much different.”
DISCLOSURES:
The study was sponsored in part by Novartis. The researchers reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Gabapentinoids Increase Exacerbation in COPD
TOPLINE:
Gabapentinoid use significantly increased the risk for exacerbations in adults with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).
METHODOLOGY:
- Previous research has prompted warnings from North American and European health agencies of severe exacerbations associated with gabapentinoid use by patients with COPD.
- The researchers compared data from patients with COPD in Canadian databases between 1994 and 2015 who were new to gabapentinoids and matched them to patients who did not use gabapentinoids.
- The primary outcome was exacerbation of COPD that required hospitalization in a propensity score-matched study.
TAKEAWAY:
- The study population included 356 epilepsy patients, 9411 neuropathic pain patients, and 3737 patients with other chronic pain.
- Use of gabapentinoids was significantly associated with an overall increased risk for severe COPD exacerbation (hazard ratio, 1.49) compared with nonuse.
- Gabapentinoid use was associated with a significantly increased COPD exacerbation risk for each group of users compared with nonusers, with hazard ratios of 1.58, 1.35, and 1.49 for epilepsy, neuropathic pain, and other chronic pain, respectively.
IN PRACTICE:
“This study supports the warnings from regulatory agencies and highlights the importance of considering this potential risk when prescribing gabapentin and pregabalin to patients with COPD,” the researchers wrote.
SOURCE:
The lead author on the study was Alvi A. Rahman, MSc, of Jewish General Hospital, Montreal. The study was published online on January 16, 2024, in Annals of Internal Medicine.
LIMITATIONS:
A lack of data on smoking status and other residual confounding factors limited the study findings.
DISCLOSURES:
The study was supported by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and the Canadian Lung Association. Mr. Rahman had no financial conflicts to disclose, but some coauthors disclosed consulting and advisory relationships with various companies, including Merck, Pfizer, Seqirus, Boehringer-Ingelheim, and Novartis outside of the current work.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
Gabapentinoid use significantly increased the risk for exacerbations in adults with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).
METHODOLOGY:
- Previous research has prompted warnings from North American and European health agencies of severe exacerbations associated with gabapentinoid use by patients with COPD.
- The researchers compared data from patients with COPD in Canadian databases between 1994 and 2015 who were new to gabapentinoids and matched them to patients who did not use gabapentinoids.
- The primary outcome was exacerbation of COPD that required hospitalization in a propensity score-matched study.
TAKEAWAY:
- The study population included 356 epilepsy patients, 9411 neuropathic pain patients, and 3737 patients with other chronic pain.
- Use of gabapentinoids was significantly associated with an overall increased risk for severe COPD exacerbation (hazard ratio, 1.49) compared with nonuse.
- Gabapentinoid use was associated with a significantly increased COPD exacerbation risk for each group of users compared with nonusers, with hazard ratios of 1.58, 1.35, and 1.49 for epilepsy, neuropathic pain, and other chronic pain, respectively.
IN PRACTICE:
“This study supports the warnings from regulatory agencies and highlights the importance of considering this potential risk when prescribing gabapentin and pregabalin to patients with COPD,” the researchers wrote.
SOURCE:
The lead author on the study was Alvi A. Rahman, MSc, of Jewish General Hospital, Montreal. The study was published online on January 16, 2024, in Annals of Internal Medicine.
LIMITATIONS:
A lack of data on smoking status and other residual confounding factors limited the study findings.
DISCLOSURES:
The study was supported by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and the Canadian Lung Association. Mr. Rahman had no financial conflicts to disclose, but some coauthors disclosed consulting and advisory relationships with various companies, including Merck, Pfizer, Seqirus, Boehringer-Ingelheim, and Novartis outside of the current work.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
Gabapentinoid use significantly increased the risk for exacerbations in adults with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).
METHODOLOGY:
- Previous research has prompted warnings from North American and European health agencies of severe exacerbations associated with gabapentinoid use by patients with COPD.
- The researchers compared data from patients with COPD in Canadian databases between 1994 and 2015 who were new to gabapentinoids and matched them to patients who did not use gabapentinoids.
- The primary outcome was exacerbation of COPD that required hospitalization in a propensity score-matched study.
TAKEAWAY:
- The study population included 356 epilepsy patients, 9411 neuropathic pain patients, and 3737 patients with other chronic pain.
- Use of gabapentinoids was significantly associated with an overall increased risk for severe COPD exacerbation (hazard ratio, 1.49) compared with nonuse.
- Gabapentinoid use was associated with a significantly increased COPD exacerbation risk for each group of users compared with nonusers, with hazard ratios of 1.58, 1.35, and 1.49 for epilepsy, neuropathic pain, and other chronic pain, respectively.
IN PRACTICE:
“This study supports the warnings from regulatory agencies and highlights the importance of considering this potential risk when prescribing gabapentin and pregabalin to patients with COPD,” the researchers wrote.
SOURCE:
The lead author on the study was Alvi A. Rahman, MSc, of Jewish General Hospital, Montreal. The study was published online on January 16, 2024, in Annals of Internal Medicine.
LIMITATIONS:
A lack of data on smoking status and other residual confounding factors limited the study findings.
DISCLOSURES:
The study was supported by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and the Canadian Lung Association. Mr. Rahman had no financial conflicts to disclose, but some coauthors disclosed consulting and advisory relationships with various companies, including Merck, Pfizer, Seqirus, Boehringer-Ingelheim, and Novartis outside of the current work.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Top US Oncology Regulator Seeks Changes in Drug Studies
Richard Pazdur, MD, who leads the cancer division at the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), said there’s a need to simplify the paperwork involved in clinical trials. Before joining the FDA in 1999, Dr. Pazdur participated in and published cancer research. He says the informed consent forms used for studies have grown too elaborate over the years, such that they can intimidate even experts.
“When I read informed consents now in clinical trials, folks, it gives me a headache. Okay, I can’t follow them,” Dr. Pazdur said.
Dr. Pazdur said informed consent forms can be “mind-boggling” these days.
“They’re so damn complicated with so many damn questions being answered,” he said. “So our point is what’s the essential question that you need answered and what’s the quickest way of answering that question with the least amount of data that can be collected?”
Dr. Pazdur made these comments during a joint meeting of the FDA and the European Medicines Agency (EMA).
The meeting was a broad discussion about how to build on the successes seen in treatment of blood cancers in the past two decades. No formal recommendations were introduced or considered at the meeting. Instead, the meeting served as a chance for oncologists and patients to discuss ways to more quickly and efficiently address the key questions in drug research: Do medicines deliver a significant benefit to patients?
Dr. Pazdur also said at the meeting that there needs to be a way to attract more people to enroll in clinical trials.
“When I started in oncology, it was about 5%. When I’m sitting here now, 40 years later, it’s 5%. Basically it hasn’t moved,” he said at the discussion, held on February 1.
Ellin Berman, MD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York, spoke at the meeting about the changes she has witnessed in her career in oncology. Until 2001, there were limited drug options, and physicians tried to get patients to transplant teams as possible. Then the FDA in 2001 approved imatinib to treat patients with chronic myelogenous leukemia (CML) that has the Philadelphia chromosome. That set the stage, Dr. Berman said, for a sea change in treatment of CML.
“The fellows now have no idea what it is like to talk to a CML patient about transplant and the question is which among the treasures we have of drugs do we start people on? And that’s always a conversation,” Dr. Berman said.
She noted that advances in treatment have also let some female patients get pregnant and have children.
“We have at least half a dozen women who bring their kids to clinic. And boy, if that doesn’t bring tears to our eyes, our collective eyes, I don’t know what does,” she said.
Dr. Pazdur also recalled his experience treating patients in the 1970s and 1980s for cancers for which “you had nothing so to speak” in terms of effective treatment.
“So then ask yourself the question, what would their stories be now?” with the many options available, Dr. Pazdur said.
Seeking clinician feedback
To try to improve the development and testing of cancer drugs, the FDA is seeking to get more feedback from clinicians about which questions trials should address, Dr. Pazdur said.
The agency is considering a way to poll clinicians on what their most crucial questions are about the medicines, he said. Better design of trial questions might serve to improve enrollment in studies.
“What we’re thinking of doing is taking the common disease areas and asking clinicians what are the five basic questions that you want answered in the next 5 years,” he said.
He cited PD-1 drugs as a possible example of a class where regulators could consider new approaches. There could be a discussion about the safety data collection for this class of drugs, which has been used by millions of patients.
Dr. Pazdur said he has been discussing these kinds of themes with his European and Japanese counterparts, who also are interested in simplifying clinical trials.
The goal is to have trials better represent real-world experiences rather than “artificial” ones created when patients must meet extensive eligibility requirements. Improved use of emerging technologies could aid in the needed streamlining, Dr. Pazdur said.
“As an oncology community, we have made our lives somewhat too complicated and need to draw back and ask the basic questions,” Dr. Pazdur said.
Richard Pazdur, MD, who leads the cancer division at the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), said there’s a need to simplify the paperwork involved in clinical trials. Before joining the FDA in 1999, Dr. Pazdur participated in and published cancer research. He says the informed consent forms used for studies have grown too elaborate over the years, such that they can intimidate even experts.
“When I read informed consents now in clinical trials, folks, it gives me a headache. Okay, I can’t follow them,” Dr. Pazdur said.
Dr. Pazdur said informed consent forms can be “mind-boggling” these days.
“They’re so damn complicated with so many damn questions being answered,” he said. “So our point is what’s the essential question that you need answered and what’s the quickest way of answering that question with the least amount of data that can be collected?”
Dr. Pazdur made these comments during a joint meeting of the FDA and the European Medicines Agency (EMA).
The meeting was a broad discussion about how to build on the successes seen in treatment of blood cancers in the past two decades. No formal recommendations were introduced or considered at the meeting. Instead, the meeting served as a chance for oncologists and patients to discuss ways to more quickly and efficiently address the key questions in drug research: Do medicines deliver a significant benefit to patients?
Dr. Pazdur also said at the meeting that there needs to be a way to attract more people to enroll in clinical trials.
“When I started in oncology, it was about 5%. When I’m sitting here now, 40 years later, it’s 5%. Basically it hasn’t moved,” he said at the discussion, held on February 1.
Ellin Berman, MD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York, spoke at the meeting about the changes she has witnessed in her career in oncology. Until 2001, there were limited drug options, and physicians tried to get patients to transplant teams as possible. Then the FDA in 2001 approved imatinib to treat patients with chronic myelogenous leukemia (CML) that has the Philadelphia chromosome. That set the stage, Dr. Berman said, for a sea change in treatment of CML.
“The fellows now have no idea what it is like to talk to a CML patient about transplant and the question is which among the treasures we have of drugs do we start people on? And that’s always a conversation,” Dr. Berman said.
She noted that advances in treatment have also let some female patients get pregnant and have children.
“We have at least half a dozen women who bring their kids to clinic. And boy, if that doesn’t bring tears to our eyes, our collective eyes, I don’t know what does,” she said.
Dr. Pazdur also recalled his experience treating patients in the 1970s and 1980s for cancers for which “you had nothing so to speak” in terms of effective treatment.
“So then ask yourself the question, what would their stories be now?” with the many options available, Dr. Pazdur said.
Seeking clinician feedback
To try to improve the development and testing of cancer drugs, the FDA is seeking to get more feedback from clinicians about which questions trials should address, Dr. Pazdur said.
The agency is considering a way to poll clinicians on what their most crucial questions are about the medicines, he said. Better design of trial questions might serve to improve enrollment in studies.
“What we’re thinking of doing is taking the common disease areas and asking clinicians what are the five basic questions that you want answered in the next 5 years,” he said.
He cited PD-1 drugs as a possible example of a class where regulators could consider new approaches. There could be a discussion about the safety data collection for this class of drugs, which has been used by millions of patients.
Dr. Pazdur said he has been discussing these kinds of themes with his European and Japanese counterparts, who also are interested in simplifying clinical trials.
The goal is to have trials better represent real-world experiences rather than “artificial” ones created when patients must meet extensive eligibility requirements. Improved use of emerging technologies could aid in the needed streamlining, Dr. Pazdur said.
“As an oncology community, we have made our lives somewhat too complicated and need to draw back and ask the basic questions,” Dr. Pazdur said.
Richard Pazdur, MD, who leads the cancer division at the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), said there’s a need to simplify the paperwork involved in clinical trials. Before joining the FDA in 1999, Dr. Pazdur participated in and published cancer research. He says the informed consent forms used for studies have grown too elaborate over the years, such that they can intimidate even experts.
“When I read informed consents now in clinical trials, folks, it gives me a headache. Okay, I can’t follow them,” Dr. Pazdur said.
Dr. Pazdur said informed consent forms can be “mind-boggling” these days.
“They’re so damn complicated with so many damn questions being answered,” he said. “So our point is what’s the essential question that you need answered and what’s the quickest way of answering that question with the least amount of data that can be collected?”
Dr. Pazdur made these comments during a joint meeting of the FDA and the European Medicines Agency (EMA).
The meeting was a broad discussion about how to build on the successes seen in treatment of blood cancers in the past two decades. No formal recommendations were introduced or considered at the meeting. Instead, the meeting served as a chance for oncologists and patients to discuss ways to more quickly and efficiently address the key questions in drug research: Do medicines deliver a significant benefit to patients?
Dr. Pazdur also said at the meeting that there needs to be a way to attract more people to enroll in clinical trials.
“When I started in oncology, it was about 5%. When I’m sitting here now, 40 years later, it’s 5%. Basically it hasn’t moved,” he said at the discussion, held on February 1.
Ellin Berman, MD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York, spoke at the meeting about the changes she has witnessed in her career in oncology. Until 2001, there were limited drug options, and physicians tried to get patients to transplant teams as possible. Then the FDA in 2001 approved imatinib to treat patients with chronic myelogenous leukemia (CML) that has the Philadelphia chromosome. That set the stage, Dr. Berman said, for a sea change in treatment of CML.
“The fellows now have no idea what it is like to talk to a CML patient about transplant and the question is which among the treasures we have of drugs do we start people on? And that’s always a conversation,” Dr. Berman said.
She noted that advances in treatment have also let some female patients get pregnant and have children.
“We have at least half a dozen women who bring their kids to clinic. And boy, if that doesn’t bring tears to our eyes, our collective eyes, I don’t know what does,” she said.
Dr. Pazdur also recalled his experience treating patients in the 1970s and 1980s for cancers for which “you had nothing so to speak” in terms of effective treatment.
“So then ask yourself the question, what would their stories be now?” with the many options available, Dr. Pazdur said.
Seeking clinician feedback
To try to improve the development and testing of cancer drugs, the FDA is seeking to get more feedback from clinicians about which questions trials should address, Dr. Pazdur said.
The agency is considering a way to poll clinicians on what their most crucial questions are about the medicines, he said. Better design of trial questions might serve to improve enrollment in studies.
“What we’re thinking of doing is taking the common disease areas and asking clinicians what are the five basic questions that you want answered in the next 5 years,” he said.
He cited PD-1 drugs as a possible example of a class where regulators could consider new approaches. There could be a discussion about the safety data collection for this class of drugs, which has been used by millions of patients.
Dr. Pazdur said he has been discussing these kinds of themes with his European and Japanese counterparts, who also are interested in simplifying clinical trials.
The goal is to have trials better represent real-world experiences rather than “artificial” ones created when patients must meet extensive eligibility requirements. Improved use of emerging technologies could aid in the needed streamlining, Dr. Pazdur said.
“As an oncology community, we have made our lives somewhat too complicated and need to draw back and ask the basic questions,” Dr. Pazdur said.