Pharmacology

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No study funding was received.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No study funding was received.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No study funding was received.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What to do when a patient presents with resectable disease?

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

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

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

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

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

Hopefully, ASCO 2023 will provide more answers.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What to do when a patient presents with resectable disease?

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

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

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

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

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

Hopefully, ASCO 2023 will provide more answers.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What to do when a patient presents with resectable disease?

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

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

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

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

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

Hopefully, ASCO 2023 will provide more answers.

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

Three billion dollars: It’s enough to finance the annual out-of-pocket costs for 1 in 7 patients with cancer. It would cover almost half of the National Cancer Institute’s annual budget. And it could fund President Biden’s entire Cancer Moonshot program, with more than a billion to spare.

It’s also how much the United States spends on unused cancer drugs each year, some experts estimate.

Every year in the United States, hospitals and practices discard substantial quantities of expensive oncology drugs.

The reason boils down to inefficient drug packaging. Drug companies typically sell infused drugs in one or two single-dose vial sizes, but patients don’t come in such neat packages. A patient may need 300 mg of a drug that is only sold as 200 mg vials, which means half of a vial will go to waste.

Although most oncology drugs don’t incur substantial waste, even small volumes can translate to millions of dollars a year.

But can this money be saved or reallocated, if only we delivered drugs more efficiently?

Some experts don’t believe that’s possible.

“Attempts to recoup money for discarded drugs wouldn’t happen in a vacuum,” said Robin Yabroff, PhD, MBA, an epidemiologist and scientific vice president of Health Services Research at the American Cancer Society, who was part of a committee commissioned to evaluate the costs associated with discarded drugs.

The potential catch of any widespread effort to seek repayment or reduce the amount of discarded drugs, Dr. Yabroff and colleagues note, is that manufacturers would “simply increase the price of the vial.”

In other words, attempting to fix one problem may lead to another — essentially a whack-a-mole of cancer costs, which are projected to balloon to $246 billion by 2030.  

What this means is without sweeping policies to rein in cancer care costs, oncologists can only do so much. And every little bit counts.

“We are left chipping away at this monster of cancer care costs,” said Adam Binder, MD, a medical oncologist at the Sidney Kimmel Cancer Center at Jefferson Health in Philadelphia.
 

Millions spent on “reasonable amount” of waste

Michal Sarfaty, MD, was excited when enfortumab vedotin came on the market to treat advanced urothelial cancer in late 2019.

The cost of the drug, however, tempered her enthusiasm.

Enfortumab vedotin is a “great drug,” said Dr. Sarfaty, an oncologist at the Sheba Medical Center, Ramat Gan, Israel. But it can cost upwards of $500,000 a year for an average-weight man.

Given the expense, Dr. Sarfaty wanted to understand how much of the drug gets thrown away. During a fellowship at Memorial Sloan Kettering (MSK) Cancer Center in New York, Dr. Sarfaty explored the amount of unused enfortumab vedotin among the 64 patients who received the drug in 2020. She, along with a team at MSK, calculated the price tag of that waste and extrapolated those estimates for patients across the country.

Although waste occurred in almost half of administered doses (367 of 793), only a small volume got discarded — 2.9% per dose, on average.

Multiplying unused milligrams by the cost per milligram, Dr. Sarfaty and colleagues estimated that, for each patient, $3,127 of the drug got discarded. When calculated over the year, the cost came to just over $200,000 at MSK, and nearly $15 million when projected across the approved patient population in the United States.

“Ultimately, we did not see a lot of waste with this specific drug,” Dr. Sarfaty said. “Under 2.9% is considered a reasonable amount, below the 3% threshold Peter Bach, MD, and colleagues recommend. But even with this small amount of waste, the cost per patient and to the system remains notable.”
 

The problem with recouping drug waste

Estimates from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), which tracks costs associated with discarded weight-based drugs covered under Medicare Part B, support the notion that small quantities of discarded drugs can still translate to big bucks.

Since 2017, CMS has required healthcare providers to report the volume of drugs discarded from a single-dose vial using a code, known as the JW modifier. The JW modifier means that providers can be reimbursed for the entire vial amount, not just the quantity the patient used.

In 2019, claims data from Medicare Part B showed that 1.85% of discarded rituximab came to $33.3 million. For infliximab, the 1.55% of discarded liquid translated to $15 million, and just 0.36% of discarded pembrolizumab reached $10 million.

However, experts question whether the JW modifier accurately reflects the quantity of drugs discarded.

According to the 2021 report from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM), most physicians don’t use the JW modifier. Among Medicare claims, 16.2% included the JW modifier in 2017 and 16.9% did in 2018.

The rate was significantly lower for private insurance. Of more than 4 million private insurance claims on 77 drugs made in 2017 and 2018, only 3.6% included the JW modifier; 15 of these drugs had no JW claims.

“Although we found that most physicians don’t use the JW modifier, even those who do, don’t use it consistently, even for the same patient,” said Dr. Yabroff, a co-author on the report.

Going a step further, Dr. Yabroff and colleagues argue that even if everyone used the JW modifier as intended, manufacturers would probably increase the price of drugs to compensate for any loss, potentially eliminating savings for payers.

That’s because, in the United States, manufacturers typically base drug prices on a patient and payers’ “willingness to pay for better health,” not on the volume of liquid used. Take a patient who pays $2,000 to receive the dose they need. If that dose is 600 mg but requires using two vials of 400 mg, then “to the patient, the 600-mg dose is worth $2,000, and the remainder has no value whatsoever,” the NASEM authors argue.

The authors parallel this scenario to purchasing a designer coat or dress. If that item requires alterations that remove a section of material, “the customer does not typically get a rebate because all the fabric was not needed,” the NASEM team writes.

But there’s a flaw in this rationale, argues Daniel Goldstein, MD, a medical oncologist at the Rabin Medical Center, Petah Tikva, Israel. A person’s willingness to pay for better health assumes that the price of a drug is based on proper market forces, where a drug’s cost and its effectiveness are in harmony.

“The problem is we’re operating in a broken market where the prices of oncology drugs have no real bearing on their efficacy,” said Dr. Goldstein.

And, as Dr. Bach noted in a 2021 Health Affairs piece, willingness to pay also requires that consumers know what they’re paying and allows them to walk away from an excessively high price.

But neither is a reality.

For one, Dr. Bach explains, companies may lowball the monthly price of a drug. In 2020, GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) announced that its new drug Blenrep would carry a list price of $8,277 per vial, or about $23,900 per month for an average 79 kg (175 lb) patient. That price accounts for two vials of the drug. But, according to Dr. Bach, “what GSK left out is that 44% of U.S. adults weigh more than 80 kg, and above that weight, three vials are needed per dose.” That would raise the average monthly cost to $30,479.

Perhaps more importantly, consumers can’t easily walk away.

“Medicare can’t negotiate prices and is forced to pay what a drug company says,” Dr. Goldstein said. “This is very different to when I buy a coat. If the price is too high, I can walk away.”
 

Fixed dosing: A solution or a new problem?

Efforts to reduce the financial impact of discarded cancer drugs can blow back on physicians, patients, and payers in other unanticipated ways. Take fixed dosing. Although chemotherapy dosing remains weight-based, many targeted therapies — such as nivolumab and pembrolizumab — recently transitioned to a fixed dosing regimen.

Administering a fixed, instead of weight-based, dose eliminates waste but can create new problems.

“Patients with cancer not only tend to get too high a dose of the drug, but costs go up significantly,” said Dr. Goldstein. In a 2017 analysis, Dr. Goldstein and colleagues compared dosing strategies in patients with metastatic non–small cell lung cancer who received pembrolizumab. The team found that the total annual cost of weight-based dosing was $2.6 billion, whereas the cost of the fixed dosing strategy was $3.44 billion — 24% more. In other words, personalized weight-based dosing would save more than $825 million dollars in the United States each year.

A 2020 analysis based in France found a similar cost increase of 26% for fixed dosing of pembrolizumab as well as nivolumab.

“I’ve argued we should go back to weight-based dosing,” Dr. Goldstein said. “Why should we give a higher dose with the same efficacy when that dose will cost significantly more and has the potential to increase adverse events?”
 

Does dose rounding work?

Rose DiMarco, PharmD, BCPS, BCOP, keeps a tight watch on patients being treated at the Sidney Kimmel Cancer Center at Jefferson Health in Philadelphia.

Dr. DiMarco educates patients about their treatment plan, reviews their lab results, and monitors them for side effects and drug interactions.

She also thinks a lot about costs.

“We spend about $100,000 a day on oncology drugs, and we want to make sure we’re not being wasteful,” Dr. DiMarco said in an interview.

One major initiative to curb waste and reduce costs at Jefferson has centered on dose rounding, which calculates whether a specific dose can be altered slightly to conserve vials and prevent waste. According to the Hematology/Oncology Pharmacy Association, a patient can receive up to 10% more or less of a weight-based dose without impacting treatment efficacy.

If, for instance, a patient requires 380 mg, but two vials come to 400 mg, rounding up that dose by approximately 5% means eliminating 20 mg that would go unused. But if that patient requires 420 mg, rounding down about 5% means substantial savings from not opening a new vial.

At Jefferson, Dr. DiMarco and her pharmacy colleagues map out dose ranges for all patients. Anyone who falls inside the 10% may be eligible for dose rounding. Anyone who doesn’t will receive the usual dose.

Although it is a challenge to implement, dose rounding has become standard of care at many cancer centers across the United States and is linked to substantial savings.

A 2018 analysis projected annual savings of $865,000 associated with rounding down eight monoclonal antibodies for patients with metastatic disease at a community cancer center. A more recent analysis from the Mayo Clinic found that dose rounding saved a total of 9,814 drug vials — 4485 of which were cancer drugs and 5329 of which were biologics — and resulted in $7.3 million in savings over 6 months in 2019 — $1.56 million from oncology agents and $5.7 from biologics.

And in a small 2019 analysis, researchers at Jefferson showed dose rounding of one monoclonal antibody saved approximately $30,000 in just 3 months, Dr. DiMarco noted.

“Not only does this process reduce costs and waste, but it also standardizes the preparation of hazardous medications, which can help prevent medication errors,” Dr. DiMarco said.
 

Nibbling around the edges

Despite estimates that scale into the billions of dollars, “drug wastage is just a small part of overall cancer costs,” Dr. Sarfaty said.

Fumiko Chino, MD, a radiation oncologist at MSK, agrees. “When we talk about affordability and cost, we can nibble around the edges of what’s really important,” Dr. Chino said. “Discarded drugs may cost a lot when you consider them in aggregate, but they are not as important as negotiated drug prices, which could substantially reduce overall costs.”

And until drug prices are addressed on a broader policy level, the cost of cancer care likely won’t improve in a meaningful way.

“But for the patient sitting in front of me, my focus will always be to provide the best care possible,” Dr. Binder said.

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

Three billion dollars: It’s enough to finance the annual out-of-pocket costs for 1 in 7 patients with cancer. It would cover almost half of the National Cancer Institute’s annual budget. And it could fund President Biden’s entire Cancer Moonshot program, with more than a billion to spare.

It’s also how much the United States spends on unused cancer drugs each year, some experts estimate.

Every year in the United States, hospitals and practices discard substantial quantities of expensive oncology drugs.

The reason boils down to inefficient drug packaging. Drug companies typically sell infused drugs in one or two single-dose vial sizes, but patients don’t come in such neat packages. A patient may need 300 mg of a drug that is only sold as 200 mg vials, which means half of a vial will go to waste.

Although most oncology drugs don’t incur substantial waste, even small volumes can translate to millions of dollars a year.

But can this money be saved or reallocated, if only we delivered drugs more efficiently?

Some experts don’t believe that’s possible.

“Attempts to recoup money for discarded drugs wouldn’t happen in a vacuum,” said Robin Yabroff, PhD, MBA, an epidemiologist and scientific vice president of Health Services Research at the American Cancer Society, who was part of a committee commissioned to evaluate the costs associated with discarded drugs.

The potential catch of any widespread effort to seek repayment or reduce the amount of discarded drugs, Dr. Yabroff and colleagues note, is that manufacturers would “simply increase the price of the vial.”

In other words, attempting to fix one problem may lead to another — essentially a whack-a-mole of cancer costs, which are projected to balloon to $246 billion by 2030.  

What this means is without sweeping policies to rein in cancer care costs, oncologists can only do so much. And every little bit counts.

“We are left chipping away at this monster of cancer care costs,” said Adam Binder, MD, a medical oncologist at the Sidney Kimmel Cancer Center at Jefferson Health in Philadelphia.
 

Millions spent on “reasonable amount” of waste

Michal Sarfaty, MD, was excited when enfortumab vedotin came on the market to treat advanced urothelial cancer in late 2019.

The cost of the drug, however, tempered her enthusiasm.

Enfortumab vedotin is a “great drug,” said Dr. Sarfaty, an oncologist at the Sheba Medical Center, Ramat Gan, Israel. But it can cost upwards of $500,000 a year for an average-weight man.

Given the expense, Dr. Sarfaty wanted to understand how much of the drug gets thrown away. During a fellowship at Memorial Sloan Kettering (MSK) Cancer Center in New York, Dr. Sarfaty explored the amount of unused enfortumab vedotin among the 64 patients who received the drug in 2020. She, along with a team at MSK, calculated the price tag of that waste and extrapolated those estimates for patients across the country.

Although waste occurred in almost half of administered doses (367 of 793), only a small volume got discarded — 2.9% per dose, on average.

Multiplying unused milligrams by the cost per milligram, Dr. Sarfaty and colleagues estimated that, for each patient, $3,127 of the drug got discarded. When calculated over the year, the cost came to just over $200,000 at MSK, and nearly $15 million when projected across the approved patient population in the United States.

“Ultimately, we did not see a lot of waste with this specific drug,” Dr. Sarfaty said. “Under 2.9% is considered a reasonable amount, below the 3% threshold Peter Bach, MD, and colleagues recommend. But even with this small amount of waste, the cost per patient and to the system remains notable.”
 

The problem with recouping drug waste

Estimates from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), which tracks costs associated with discarded weight-based drugs covered under Medicare Part B, support the notion that small quantities of discarded drugs can still translate to big bucks.

Since 2017, CMS has required healthcare providers to report the volume of drugs discarded from a single-dose vial using a code, known as the JW modifier. The JW modifier means that providers can be reimbursed for the entire vial amount, not just the quantity the patient used.

In 2019, claims data from Medicare Part B showed that 1.85% of discarded rituximab came to $33.3 million. For infliximab, the 1.55% of discarded liquid translated to $15 million, and just 0.36% of discarded pembrolizumab reached $10 million.

However, experts question whether the JW modifier accurately reflects the quantity of drugs discarded.

According to the 2021 report from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM), most physicians don’t use the JW modifier. Among Medicare claims, 16.2% included the JW modifier in 2017 and 16.9% did in 2018.

The rate was significantly lower for private insurance. Of more than 4 million private insurance claims on 77 drugs made in 2017 and 2018, only 3.6% included the JW modifier; 15 of these drugs had no JW claims.

“Although we found that most physicians don’t use the JW modifier, even those who do, don’t use it consistently, even for the same patient,” said Dr. Yabroff, a co-author on the report.

Going a step further, Dr. Yabroff and colleagues argue that even if everyone used the JW modifier as intended, manufacturers would probably increase the price of drugs to compensate for any loss, potentially eliminating savings for payers.

That’s because, in the United States, manufacturers typically base drug prices on a patient and payers’ “willingness to pay for better health,” not on the volume of liquid used. Take a patient who pays $2,000 to receive the dose they need. If that dose is 600 mg but requires using two vials of 400 mg, then “to the patient, the 600-mg dose is worth $2,000, and the remainder has no value whatsoever,” the NASEM authors argue.

The authors parallel this scenario to purchasing a designer coat or dress. If that item requires alterations that remove a section of material, “the customer does not typically get a rebate because all the fabric was not needed,” the NASEM team writes.

But there’s a flaw in this rationale, argues Daniel Goldstein, MD, a medical oncologist at the Rabin Medical Center, Petah Tikva, Israel. A person’s willingness to pay for better health assumes that the price of a drug is based on proper market forces, where a drug’s cost and its effectiveness are in harmony.

“The problem is we’re operating in a broken market where the prices of oncology drugs have no real bearing on their efficacy,” said Dr. Goldstein.

And, as Dr. Bach noted in a 2021 Health Affairs piece, willingness to pay also requires that consumers know what they’re paying and allows them to walk away from an excessively high price.

But neither is a reality.

For one, Dr. Bach explains, companies may lowball the monthly price of a drug. In 2020, GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) announced that its new drug Blenrep would carry a list price of $8,277 per vial, or about $23,900 per month for an average 79 kg (175 lb) patient. That price accounts for two vials of the drug. But, according to Dr. Bach, “what GSK left out is that 44% of U.S. adults weigh more than 80 kg, and above that weight, three vials are needed per dose.” That would raise the average monthly cost to $30,479.

Perhaps more importantly, consumers can’t easily walk away.

“Medicare can’t negotiate prices and is forced to pay what a drug company says,” Dr. Goldstein said. “This is very different to when I buy a coat. If the price is too high, I can walk away.”
 

Fixed dosing: A solution or a new problem?

Efforts to reduce the financial impact of discarded cancer drugs can blow back on physicians, patients, and payers in other unanticipated ways. Take fixed dosing. Although chemotherapy dosing remains weight-based, many targeted therapies — such as nivolumab and pembrolizumab — recently transitioned to a fixed dosing regimen.

Administering a fixed, instead of weight-based, dose eliminates waste but can create new problems.

“Patients with cancer not only tend to get too high a dose of the drug, but costs go up significantly,” said Dr. Goldstein. In a 2017 analysis, Dr. Goldstein and colleagues compared dosing strategies in patients with metastatic non–small cell lung cancer who received pembrolizumab. The team found that the total annual cost of weight-based dosing was $2.6 billion, whereas the cost of the fixed dosing strategy was $3.44 billion — 24% more. In other words, personalized weight-based dosing would save more than $825 million dollars in the United States each year.

A 2020 analysis based in France found a similar cost increase of 26% for fixed dosing of pembrolizumab as well as nivolumab.

“I’ve argued we should go back to weight-based dosing,” Dr. Goldstein said. “Why should we give a higher dose with the same efficacy when that dose will cost significantly more and has the potential to increase adverse events?”
 

Does dose rounding work?

Rose DiMarco, PharmD, BCPS, BCOP, keeps a tight watch on patients being treated at the Sidney Kimmel Cancer Center at Jefferson Health in Philadelphia.

Dr. DiMarco educates patients about their treatment plan, reviews their lab results, and monitors them for side effects and drug interactions.

She also thinks a lot about costs.

“We spend about $100,000 a day on oncology drugs, and we want to make sure we’re not being wasteful,” Dr. DiMarco said in an interview.

One major initiative to curb waste and reduce costs at Jefferson has centered on dose rounding, which calculates whether a specific dose can be altered slightly to conserve vials and prevent waste. According to the Hematology/Oncology Pharmacy Association, a patient can receive up to 10% more or less of a weight-based dose without impacting treatment efficacy.

If, for instance, a patient requires 380 mg, but two vials come to 400 mg, rounding up that dose by approximately 5% means eliminating 20 mg that would go unused. But if that patient requires 420 mg, rounding down about 5% means substantial savings from not opening a new vial.

At Jefferson, Dr. DiMarco and her pharmacy colleagues map out dose ranges for all patients. Anyone who falls inside the 10% may be eligible for dose rounding. Anyone who doesn’t will receive the usual dose.

Although it is a challenge to implement, dose rounding has become standard of care at many cancer centers across the United States and is linked to substantial savings.

A 2018 analysis projected annual savings of $865,000 associated with rounding down eight monoclonal antibodies for patients with metastatic disease at a community cancer center. A more recent analysis from the Mayo Clinic found that dose rounding saved a total of 9,814 drug vials — 4485 of which were cancer drugs and 5329 of which were biologics — and resulted in $7.3 million in savings over 6 months in 2019 — $1.56 million from oncology agents and $5.7 from biologics.

And in a small 2019 analysis, researchers at Jefferson showed dose rounding of one monoclonal antibody saved approximately $30,000 in just 3 months, Dr. DiMarco noted.

“Not only does this process reduce costs and waste, but it also standardizes the preparation of hazardous medications, which can help prevent medication errors,” Dr. DiMarco said.
 

Nibbling around the edges

Despite estimates that scale into the billions of dollars, “drug wastage is just a small part of overall cancer costs,” Dr. Sarfaty said.

Fumiko Chino, MD, a radiation oncologist at MSK, agrees. “When we talk about affordability and cost, we can nibble around the edges of what’s really important,” Dr. Chino said. “Discarded drugs may cost a lot when you consider them in aggregate, but they are not as important as negotiated drug prices, which could substantially reduce overall costs.”

And until drug prices are addressed on a broader policy level, the cost of cancer care likely won’t improve in a meaningful way.

“But for the patient sitting in front of me, my focus will always be to provide the best care possible,” Dr. Binder said.

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

Three billion dollars: It’s enough to finance the annual out-of-pocket costs for 1 in 7 patients with cancer. It would cover almost half of the National Cancer Institute’s annual budget. And it could fund President Biden’s entire Cancer Moonshot program, with more than a billion to spare.

It’s also how much the United States spends on unused cancer drugs each year, some experts estimate.

Every year in the United States, hospitals and practices discard substantial quantities of expensive oncology drugs.

The reason boils down to inefficient drug packaging. Drug companies typically sell infused drugs in one or two single-dose vial sizes, but patients don’t come in such neat packages. A patient may need 300 mg of a drug that is only sold as 200 mg vials, which means half of a vial will go to waste.

Although most oncology drugs don’t incur substantial waste, even small volumes can translate to millions of dollars a year.

But can this money be saved or reallocated, if only we delivered drugs more efficiently?

Some experts don’t believe that’s possible.

“Attempts to recoup money for discarded drugs wouldn’t happen in a vacuum,” said Robin Yabroff, PhD, MBA, an epidemiologist and scientific vice president of Health Services Research at the American Cancer Society, who was part of a committee commissioned to evaluate the costs associated with discarded drugs.

The potential catch of any widespread effort to seek repayment or reduce the amount of discarded drugs, Dr. Yabroff and colleagues note, is that manufacturers would “simply increase the price of the vial.”

In other words, attempting to fix one problem may lead to another — essentially a whack-a-mole of cancer costs, which are projected to balloon to $246 billion by 2030.  

What this means is without sweeping policies to rein in cancer care costs, oncologists can only do so much. And every little bit counts.

“We are left chipping away at this monster of cancer care costs,” said Adam Binder, MD, a medical oncologist at the Sidney Kimmel Cancer Center at Jefferson Health in Philadelphia.
 

Millions spent on “reasonable amount” of waste

Michal Sarfaty, MD, was excited when enfortumab vedotin came on the market to treat advanced urothelial cancer in late 2019.

The cost of the drug, however, tempered her enthusiasm.

Enfortumab vedotin is a “great drug,” said Dr. Sarfaty, an oncologist at the Sheba Medical Center, Ramat Gan, Israel. But it can cost upwards of $500,000 a year for an average-weight man.

Given the expense, Dr. Sarfaty wanted to understand how much of the drug gets thrown away. During a fellowship at Memorial Sloan Kettering (MSK) Cancer Center in New York, Dr. Sarfaty explored the amount of unused enfortumab vedotin among the 64 patients who received the drug in 2020. She, along with a team at MSK, calculated the price tag of that waste and extrapolated those estimates for patients across the country.

Although waste occurred in almost half of administered doses (367 of 793), only a small volume got discarded — 2.9% per dose, on average.

Multiplying unused milligrams by the cost per milligram, Dr. Sarfaty and colleagues estimated that, for each patient, $3,127 of the drug got discarded. When calculated over the year, the cost came to just over $200,000 at MSK, and nearly $15 million when projected across the approved patient population in the United States.

“Ultimately, we did not see a lot of waste with this specific drug,” Dr. Sarfaty said. “Under 2.9% is considered a reasonable amount, below the 3% threshold Peter Bach, MD, and colleagues recommend. But even with this small amount of waste, the cost per patient and to the system remains notable.”
 

The problem with recouping drug waste

Estimates from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), which tracks costs associated with discarded weight-based drugs covered under Medicare Part B, support the notion that small quantities of discarded drugs can still translate to big bucks.

Since 2017, CMS has required healthcare providers to report the volume of drugs discarded from a single-dose vial using a code, known as the JW modifier. The JW modifier means that providers can be reimbursed for the entire vial amount, not just the quantity the patient used.

In 2019, claims data from Medicare Part B showed that 1.85% of discarded rituximab came to $33.3 million. For infliximab, the 1.55% of discarded liquid translated to $15 million, and just 0.36% of discarded pembrolizumab reached $10 million.

However, experts question whether the JW modifier accurately reflects the quantity of drugs discarded.

According to the 2021 report from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM), most physicians don’t use the JW modifier. Among Medicare claims, 16.2% included the JW modifier in 2017 and 16.9% did in 2018.

The rate was significantly lower for private insurance. Of more than 4 million private insurance claims on 77 drugs made in 2017 and 2018, only 3.6% included the JW modifier; 15 of these drugs had no JW claims.

“Although we found that most physicians don’t use the JW modifier, even those who do, don’t use it consistently, even for the same patient,” said Dr. Yabroff, a co-author on the report.

Going a step further, Dr. Yabroff and colleagues argue that even if everyone used the JW modifier as intended, manufacturers would probably increase the price of drugs to compensate for any loss, potentially eliminating savings for payers.

That’s because, in the United States, manufacturers typically base drug prices on a patient and payers’ “willingness to pay for better health,” not on the volume of liquid used. Take a patient who pays $2,000 to receive the dose they need. If that dose is 600 mg but requires using two vials of 400 mg, then “to the patient, the 600-mg dose is worth $2,000, and the remainder has no value whatsoever,” the NASEM authors argue.

The authors parallel this scenario to purchasing a designer coat or dress. If that item requires alterations that remove a section of material, “the customer does not typically get a rebate because all the fabric was not needed,” the NASEM team writes.

But there’s a flaw in this rationale, argues Daniel Goldstein, MD, a medical oncologist at the Rabin Medical Center, Petah Tikva, Israel. A person’s willingness to pay for better health assumes that the price of a drug is based on proper market forces, where a drug’s cost and its effectiveness are in harmony.

“The problem is we’re operating in a broken market where the prices of oncology drugs have no real bearing on their efficacy,” said Dr. Goldstein.

And, as Dr. Bach noted in a 2021 Health Affairs piece, willingness to pay also requires that consumers know what they’re paying and allows them to walk away from an excessively high price.

But neither is a reality.

For one, Dr. Bach explains, companies may lowball the monthly price of a drug. In 2020, GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) announced that its new drug Blenrep would carry a list price of $8,277 per vial, or about $23,900 per month for an average 79 kg (175 lb) patient. That price accounts for two vials of the drug. But, according to Dr. Bach, “what GSK left out is that 44% of U.S. adults weigh more than 80 kg, and above that weight, three vials are needed per dose.” That would raise the average monthly cost to $30,479.

Perhaps more importantly, consumers can’t easily walk away.

“Medicare can’t negotiate prices and is forced to pay what a drug company says,” Dr. Goldstein said. “This is very different to when I buy a coat. If the price is too high, I can walk away.”
 

Fixed dosing: A solution or a new problem?

Efforts to reduce the financial impact of discarded cancer drugs can blow back on physicians, patients, and payers in other unanticipated ways. Take fixed dosing. Although chemotherapy dosing remains weight-based, many targeted therapies — such as nivolumab and pembrolizumab — recently transitioned to a fixed dosing regimen.

Administering a fixed, instead of weight-based, dose eliminates waste but can create new problems.

“Patients with cancer not only tend to get too high a dose of the drug, but costs go up significantly,” said Dr. Goldstein. In a 2017 analysis, Dr. Goldstein and colleagues compared dosing strategies in patients with metastatic non–small cell lung cancer who received pembrolizumab. The team found that the total annual cost of weight-based dosing was $2.6 billion, whereas the cost of the fixed dosing strategy was $3.44 billion — 24% more. In other words, personalized weight-based dosing would save more than $825 million dollars in the United States each year.

A 2020 analysis based in France found a similar cost increase of 26% for fixed dosing of pembrolizumab as well as nivolumab.

“I’ve argued we should go back to weight-based dosing,” Dr. Goldstein said. “Why should we give a higher dose with the same efficacy when that dose will cost significantly more and has the potential to increase adverse events?”
 

Does dose rounding work?

Rose DiMarco, PharmD, BCPS, BCOP, keeps a tight watch on patients being treated at the Sidney Kimmel Cancer Center at Jefferson Health in Philadelphia.

Dr. DiMarco educates patients about their treatment plan, reviews their lab results, and monitors them for side effects and drug interactions.

She also thinks a lot about costs.

“We spend about $100,000 a day on oncology drugs, and we want to make sure we’re not being wasteful,” Dr. DiMarco said in an interview.

One major initiative to curb waste and reduce costs at Jefferson has centered on dose rounding, which calculates whether a specific dose can be altered slightly to conserve vials and prevent waste. According to the Hematology/Oncology Pharmacy Association, a patient can receive up to 10% more or less of a weight-based dose without impacting treatment efficacy.

If, for instance, a patient requires 380 mg, but two vials come to 400 mg, rounding up that dose by approximately 5% means eliminating 20 mg that would go unused. But if that patient requires 420 mg, rounding down about 5% means substantial savings from not opening a new vial.

At Jefferson, Dr. DiMarco and her pharmacy colleagues map out dose ranges for all patients. Anyone who falls inside the 10% may be eligible for dose rounding. Anyone who doesn’t will receive the usual dose.

Although it is a challenge to implement, dose rounding has become standard of care at many cancer centers across the United States and is linked to substantial savings.

A 2018 analysis projected annual savings of $865,000 associated with rounding down eight monoclonal antibodies for patients with metastatic disease at a community cancer center. A more recent analysis from the Mayo Clinic found that dose rounding saved a total of 9,814 drug vials — 4485 of which were cancer drugs and 5329 of which were biologics — and resulted in $7.3 million in savings over 6 months in 2019 — $1.56 million from oncology agents and $5.7 from biologics.

And in a small 2019 analysis, researchers at Jefferson showed dose rounding of one monoclonal antibody saved approximately $30,000 in just 3 months, Dr. DiMarco noted.

“Not only does this process reduce costs and waste, but it also standardizes the preparation of hazardous medications, which can help prevent medication errors,” Dr. DiMarco said.
 

Nibbling around the edges

Despite estimates that scale into the billions of dollars, “drug wastage is just a small part of overall cancer costs,” Dr. Sarfaty said.

Fumiko Chino, MD, a radiation oncologist at MSK, agrees. “When we talk about affordability and cost, we can nibble around the edges of what’s really important,” Dr. Chino said. “Discarded drugs may cost a lot when you consider them in aggregate, but they are not as important as negotiated drug prices, which could substantially reduce overall costs.”

And until drug prices are addressed on a broader policy level, the cost of cancer care likely won’t improve in a meaningful way.

“But for the patient sitting in front of me, my focus will always be to provide the best care possible,” Dr. Binder said.

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

DENVER – Monoclonal antibodies, antivirals, immunomodulators, and pulmonary arterial vasodilators top the list of drugs that were most frequently implicated as causes of headaches in a federal side effect database that anyone can contribute to, according to a new study presented at the annual meeting of the American Headache Society.

“Surprising findings included the significant number of immunosuppressants and immunomodulators present in the data,” study lead author Brett Musialowicz, a medical student at Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswich, N.J., said in an interview. “Additionally, our data provides evidence that suggests that several medications belonging to these drug classes were less likely to be associated with medication-induced headaches,” raising questions about the mechanism.

Drugs most frequently linked to headaches

The researchers launched their study to better understand headache as a side effect of medication use, Mr. Musialowicz said. They analyzed entries from the Food and Drug Administration’s Adverse Event Reporting System for the period from July 2018 to March 2020 and listed the top 30 most commonly reported medications linked to headaches and their reported odds ratio. According to a website devoted to pharmacovigilance training, ROR refers to “the odds of a certain event occurring with your medicinal product, compared with the odds of the same event occurring with all other medicinal products in the database.”

After generic and brand name data was consolidated, the drug most frequently linked to headaches was apremilast with 8,672 reports, followed by adalimumab (5,357), tofacitinib (4,276), fingolimod (4,123), and etanercept (4,111). These drugs treat autoimmune disorders such as psoriasis, multiple sclerosis, and Crohn’s disease.

The other drugs in the top 15 ranked by frequency are treatments for hepatitis C (4 drugs), pulmonary arterial hypertension (4 drugs), arthritis (1 drug), and asthma (1 drug).

Of the top 30 drugs most frequently linked to headaches, the pulmonary hypertension drug epoprostenol – ranked 23rd – had the highest ROR at 12.8. The next highest were the hepatitis C drugs glecaprevir and pibrentasvir, tied at 10th in the frequency analysis and both with an ROR of 9.4.

“Pulmonary arterial dilators and vasodilators are believed to cause headaches by sensitizing extracranial arteries. Clinical evidence suggests there a vascular component to some types of headache,” Mr. Musialowicz said. “Monoclonal antibodies are suggested to cause headache by means of an immune response. Several monoclonal antibodies are in trials targeting [the calcitonin gene-related peptide] receptor, which is believed to be involved in migraine headache. These trials will help further elucidate the mechanisms of headache and potential drugs to treat these conditions.”
 

Is the data useful?

Stewart Tepper, MD, a neurologist at Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Hanover, N.H., who’s familiar with the study findings, discounted the new research in an interview. He noted that any member of the public can contribute to the federal database of adverse effects (drug manufacturers are required to contribute to it), and the data says nothing about denominators.

“It’s not a reasonable way to evaluate adverse effects, to just have everyone and their uncle saying ‘This particular drug did this to me.’ It’s not in any way useful,” he said. However, he added that the database sometimes “gives you a bit of a signal so you can go back and try to get scientifically collected data.”

When asked to respond, study coauthor and neurologist Pengfei (Phil) Zhang, MD, of Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, noted that the FDA created the database “for a reason.” He also noted that the researchers used a statistical analysis technique – ROR – that was invented to adjust for weaknesses in databases.

No study funding is reported. Mr. Musialowicz reported no disclosures. Dr. Zhang has received honorarium from Alder Biopharmaceuticals, Board Vitals, and Fieve Clinical Research. He collaborates with Headache Science Incorporated without receiving financial support, and he has ownership interest in Cymbeline. Another author reports research grant support from the American Epilepsy Society and the New Jersey Health Foundation. Dr. Tepper reported multiple disclosures.
 

DENVER – Monoclonal antibodies, antivirals, immunomodulators, and pulmonary arterial vasodilators top the list of drugs that were most frequently implicated as causes of headaches in a federal side effect database that anyone can contribute to, according to a new study presented at the annual meeting of the American Headache Society.

“Surprising findings included the significant number of immunosuppressants and immunomodulators present in the data,” study lead author Brett Musialowicz, a medical student at Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswich, N.J., said in an interview. “Additionally, our data provides evidence that suggests that several medications belonging to these drug classes were less likely to be associated with medication-induced headaches,” raising questions about the mechanism.

Drugs most frequently linked to headaches

The researchers launched their study to better understand headache as a side effect of medication use, Mr. Musialowicz said. They analyzed entries from the Food and Drug Administration’s Adverse Event Reporting System for the period from July 2018 to March 2020 and listed the top 30 most commonly reported medications linked to headaches and their reported odds ratio. According to a website devoted to pharmacovigilance training, ROR refers to “the odds of a certain event occurring with your medicinal product, compared with the odds of the same event occurring with all other medicinal products in the database.”

After generic and brand name data was consolidated, the drug most frequently linked to headaches was apremilast with 8,672 reports, followed by adalimumab (5,357), tofacitinib (4,276), fingolimod (4,123), and etanercept (4,111). These drugs treat autoimmune disorders such as psoriasis, multiple sclerosis, and Crohn’s disease.

The other drugs in the top 15 ranked by frequency are treatments for hepatitis C (4 drugs), pulmonary arterial hypertension (4 drugs), arthritis (1 drug), and asthma (1 drug).

Of the top 30 drugs most frequently linked to headaches, the pulmonary hypertension drug epoprostenol – ranked 23rd – had the highest ROR at 12.8. The next highest were the hepatitis C drugs glecaprevir and pibrentasvir, tied at 10th in the frequency analysis and both with an ROR of 9.4.

“Pulmonary arterial dilators and vasodilators are believed to cause headaches by sensitizing extracranial arteries. Clinical evidence suggests there a vascular component to some types of headache,” Mr. Musialowicz said. “Monoclonal antibodies are suggested to cause headache by means of an immune response. Several monoclonal antibodies are in trials targeting [the calcitonin gene-related peptide] receptor, which is believed to be involved in migraine headache. These trials will help further elucidate the mechanisms of headache and potential drugs to treat these conditions.”
 

Is the data useful?

Stewart Tepper, MD, a neurologist at Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Hanover, N.H., who’s familiar with the study findings, discounted the new research in an interview. He noted that any member of the public can contribute to the federal database of adverse effects (drug manufacturers are required to contribute to it), and the data says nothing about denominators.

“It’s not a reasonable way to evaluate adverse effects, to just have everyone and their uncle saying ‘This particular drug did this to me.’ It’s not in any way useful,” he said. However, he added that the database sometimes “gives you a bit of a signal so you can go back and try to get scientifically collected data.”

When asked to respond, study coauthor and neurologist Pengfei (Phil) Zhang, MD, of Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, noted that the FDA created the database “for a reason.” He also noted that the researchers used a statistical analysis technique – ROR – that was invented to adjust for weaknesses in databases.

No study funding is reported. Mr. Musialowicz reported no disclosures. Dr. Zhang has received honorarium from Alder Biopharmaceuticals, Board Vitals, and Fieve Clinical Research. He collaborates with Headache Science Incorporated without receiving financial support, and he has ownership interest in Cymbeline. Another author reports research grant support from the American Epilepsy Society and the New Jersey Health Foundation. Dr. Tepper reported multiple disclosures.
 

DENVER – Monoclonal antibodies, antivirals, immunomodulators, and pulmonary arterial vasodilators top the list of drugs that were most frequently implicated as causes of headaches in a federal side effect database that anyone can contribute to, according to a new study presented at the annual meeting of the American Headache Society.

“Surprising findings included the significant number of immunosuppressants and immunomodulators present in the data,” study lead author Brett Musialowicz, a medical student at Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswich, N.J., said in an interview. “Additionally, our data provides evidence that suggests that several medications belonging to these drug classes were less likely to be associated with medication-induced headaches,” raising questions about the mechanism.

Drugs most frequently linked to headaches

The researchers launched their study to better understand headache as a side effect of medication use, Mr. Musialowicz said. They analyzed entries from the Food and Drug Administration’s Adverse Event Reporting System for the period from July 2018 to March 2020 and listed the top 30 most commonly reported medications linked to headaches and their reported odds ratio. According to a website devoted to pharmacovigilance training, ROR refers to “the odds of a certain event occurring with your medicinal product, compared with the odds of the same event occurring with all other medicinal products in the database.”

After generic and brand name data was consolidated, the drug most frequently linked to headaches was apremilast with 8,672 reports, followed by adalimumab (5,357), tofacitinib (4,276), fingolimod (4,123), and etanercept (4,111). These drugs treat autoimmune disorders such as psoriasis, multiple sclerosis, and Crohn’s disease.

The other drugs in the top 15 ranked by frequency are treatments for hepatitis C (4 drugs), pulmonary arterial hypertension (4 drugs), arthritis (1 drug), and asthma (1 drug).

Of the top 30 drugs most frequently linked to headaches, the pulmonary hypertension drug epoprostenol – ranked 23rd – had the highest ROR at 12.8. The next highest were the hepatitis C drugs glecaprevir and pibrentasvir, tied at 10th in the frequency analysis and both with an ROR of 9.4.

“Pulmonary arterial dilators and vasodilators are believed to cause headaches by sensitizing extracranial arteries. Clinical evidence suggests there a vascular component to some types of headache,” Mr. Musialowicz said. “Monoclonal antibodies are suggested to cause headache by means of an immune response. Several monoclonal antibodies are in trials targeting [the calcitonin gene-related peptide] receptor, which is believed to be involved in migraine headache. These trials will help further elucidate the mechanisms of headache and potential drugs to treat these conditions.”
 

Is the data useful?

Stewart Tepper, MD, a neurologist at Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Hanover, N.H., who’s familiar with the study findings, discounted the new research in an interview. He noted that any member of the public can contribute to the federal database of adverse effects (drug manufacturers are required to contribute to it), and the data says nothing about denominators.

“It’s not a reasonable way to evaluate adverse effects, to just have everyone and their uncle saying ‘This particular drug did this to me.’ It’s not in any way useful,” he said. However, he added that the database sometimes “gives you a bit of a signal so you can go back and try to get scientifically collected data.”

When asked to respond, study coauthor and neurologist Pengfei (Phil) Zhang, MD, of Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, noted that the FDA created the database “for a reason.” He also noted that the researchers used a statistical analysis technique – ROR – that was invented to adjust for weaknesses in databases.

No study funding is reported. Mr. Musialowicz reported no disclosures. Dr. Zhang has received honorarium from Alder Biopharmaceuticals, Board Vitals, and Fieve Clinical Research. He collaborates with Headache Science Incorporated without receiving financial support, and he has ownership interest in Cymbeline. Another author reports research grant support from the American Epilepsy Society and the New Jersey Health Foundation. Dr. Tepper reported multiple disclosures.
 

NATIONAL HARBOR, MD. – The latest updates on COVID-19 vaccination response among patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) who are treated with disease-modifying therapy (DMT) show that, if patients do contract the virus, cases are mild and serious infections are rare.

However, vaccine antibody response remains lower with anti-CD20 therapies.

One of several late-breaking studies on these issues that were presented at the annual meeting of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers included more than 100 patients with MS who were treated with a variety of DMTs.

Results showed that the rate of antibody response was just 55% among those treated with anti-CD20 therapies versus 83% for those treated with other DMTs, including sphingosine-1-phosphate receptor modulators (S1Ps).

Consistent with what has been observed in other studies, “vaccine antibody responses were slightly lower in B cell–depleted patients than with other therapies,” senior author Rahul Dave, MD, director of the INOVA MS and Neuroimmunology Center, Inova Neurosciences Institute, the University of Virginia, Fairfax, said in an interview.
 

Vaccine response

The investigators sought to assess detailed vaccine responses in 134 patients with MS. Serum COVID antibody measures were conducted approximately 3 weeks to 4 months after vaccination – and mostly after the initial vaccination.

The antibody response rate was significantly lower with anti-CD20 treatments (55%) than with all other DMTs examined (83%), including S1Ps, immunomodulators, immunosuppressive drugs, interferon B, anti-CD52, and natalizumab (P < .01).

The highest prevalence of antibody response was observed among those taking immunomodulators; responses occurred among 91% of patients taking teriflunomide and among 93% of those taking fumarates.

Among those treated with anti-CD20 therapy, antibody responses correlated with higher baseline immunoglobulin levels (P = .01) and shorter durations of therapy.

“We found that longer total duration of therapy and lower immunoglobulin levels tended to correlate with decreases in immune responses,” said Dr. Dave.

“Interestingly, the timing between vaccination versus administration of [anti-CD20 drug] ocrelizumab did not seem to be impactful with regards to antibody responses,” Dr. Dave noted. He added that this is contrary to some past studies that showed benefits if the vaccination could be completed prior to starting ocrelizumab.

Sixteen participants tested polymerase chain reaction positive for COVID during the previous 12 months. Although most infections were described as mild and self-limited, four of the patients received outpatient monoclonal antibody therapy, and one required hospitalization because of COVID.

“I think it is notable and reassuring that, overall, our patients had mild courses. This is consistent with the vaccines ‘working,’ and is true even in patients on high-efficacy immunosuppressants that partially abrogate antibody responses,” Dr. Dave said.

He added that he reassures patients who need high-efficacy therapies that “they should use them.”

That being said, as in the general population, even vaccinated patients can get COVID. “You can be sick and feel terrible, but in general, hospitalization numbers are way down compared to 2 years ago. We are seeing the same trends in MS patients, including the B cell–depleted patients,” he said.

“To get at the question whether B cell–depleted patients behave exactly the same as the general population, or even [with] other DMTs, we will need large, multicenter, prospective datasets,” said Dr. Dave.
 

Favorable findings

Two other late-breaking posters at the meeting provided updates regarding antibody responses among patients receiving S1Ps. There has been concern that S1Ps may blunt antibody responses to COVID vaccinations.

The concern is in regard to their unique mechanisms of sequestering circulating lymphocytes, particularly the older, nonselective S1P receptor modulator fingolimod, said the author of one of the studies, Daniel Kantor, MD, president emeritus of the Florida Society of Neurology and founding president of the Medical Partnership 4 MS+.

“It appears the issues with fingolimod might relate to the level of white blood cell sequestration, [which is] greater in fingolimod than the newer S1P receptor modulators, and/or the result of S1P4 receptor modulation, which is not seen with the newer, selective medications,” Dr. Kantor said in an interview.

In a prospective observational trial of patients with relapsing MS, among 30 participants who were treated with ozanimod, the mean increase in IgG antibody titer 4 weeks after either of the two available mRNA vaccines was 232.73 AU/mL versus a mean increase of 526.59 AU/mL among 30 non–ozanimod/DMT-treated patients.

To date, only three patients in the study were taking ocrelizumab; for those patients, the mean increase in IgG titers was 0.633.

Despite the lower antibody titers in the ozanimod-treated patients, which Dr. Kantor noted are generally regarded as protective, all but one of the patients had positive results on T-Detect, which was indicative of vaccine protection.

“In this study, [relapsing] MS patients treated with ozanimod had an antibody and T-cell response to the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines,” he reported. “This trial is ongoing, with 48 weeks of follow-up expected in December 2022.”
 

Ponesimod results

In the other S1P modulator-related late-breaking study, Janssen Research and Development reported on antibody responses of patients who were treated with the S1P drug ponesimod in the phase 2 AC-058B202 study.

The median exposure to ponesimod at time of vaccination was 10.7 years (range, 9.8-11.8 years). There were 134 patients in the study. Of those, both prevaccination and postvaccination blood samples from 49 patients were tested for spike antibody concentrations.

Among those participants, 40 (81.6%) met the definition of response to the COVID-19 vaccination, defined as seroconversion in the case of negative prevaccination antibody testing or a fourfold antibody concentration increase in the case of a positive prevaccination antibody result.

Of the 38 antibody-negative participants, 33 (86.8%) achieved seroconversion post vaccination.

A total of 20 participants reported having had prevaccine COVID, while 17 had postvaccination COVID.

None of the cases were serious, severe, or fatal, and none led to permanent treatment discontinuation.

“In patients with RMS on ponesimod, the majority (> 80%) appear to develop a measurable SARS-CoV-2 humoral response after COVID-19 vaccination,” the authors, led by Janice Wong, of Janssen Research and Development, wrote.

“Further investigations on the efficacy and safety of COVID-19 vaccination in MS patients on ponesimod are warranted,” they added.

In a final study from Genentech, of 4848 patients with MS who were fully vaccinated during the Delta and Omicron waves, 1.3% had a COVID-related hospitalization. In addition, rate of severe SARS-CoV-2 infections was very low (0.6%); there were fewer than 10 infections in each subgroup of DMTs. These patients included 585 (17%) who were treated with ocrelizumab, 238 (7%) who were treated with S1P receptor modulators, 33 (1%) who were treated with interferons, 1,004 (29%) who were treated with other DMTs, and 1,574 (46%) for whom no DMTs were recorded.

“We can conclude from this study that the characteristics of people with MS with more severe COVID-19 outcomes resemble those observed in the general population,” such as in those who are older or have higher rates of comorbidities, Preeti Bajaj, team lead of HEOR, Neuroscience, at Genentech, said in an interview. “We believe [ocrelizumab] treatment decisions should be made between a patient and their treating neurologist or other medical professional based on a benefit-risk assessment specific to the individual patient.”
 

Concerns remain

In a comment, Bruce A. C. Cree, MD, PhD, professor of clinical neurology and clinical research director at the Weill Institute for Neurosciences, University of California, San Francisco, described the overall data on vaccine efficacy on anti-CD20s as “discouraging” and said he is adjusting his own recommendations for these patients.

“Repeated vaccinations do not seem to stimulate humoral responses in B cell–depleted patients,” said Dr. Cree, who was not involved with the research.

“In my personal practice, I have been suspending dosing in my patients to allow for B-cell reconstitution to occur followed by revaccination,” he added.

Regarding the S1P drugs, he noted that, aside from fingolimod, “the antibody response frequency seems to be better than initial reports. However, the index values are low and may not be protective.”

Overall, the take-home message for patients with MS who are taking DMTs should be, “all patients treated with S1P modulators or anti-C20 antibodies should be vaccinated and boosted,” Dr. Cree said.

“In some cases, temporary interruption of treatment might be useful to help develop robust responses to vaccinations,” he added.

Dr. Dave reported no financial relationships regarding the poster but is a paid speaker/consultant for Novartis, Bristol-Myers Squibb, EMD Serono, Biogen, Alexion, Genentech, Horizon, and Sanofi for their MS & NMO therapies. Dr. Kantor’s research was supported by a grant from BMS; he is a consultant for Biogen, BMS, and Janssen. Dr. Cree reported that he is an unpaid consultant for BMS, the manufacturer of ozanimod.

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

NATIONAL HARBOR, MD. – The latest updates on COVID-19 vaccination response among patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) who are treated with disease-modifying therapy (DMT) show that, if patients do contract the virus, cases are mild and serious infections are rare.

However, vaccine antibody response remains lower with anti-CD20 therapies.

One of several late-breaking studies on these issues that were presented at the annual meeting of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers included more than 100 patients with MS who were treated with a variety of DMTs.

Results showed that the rate of antibody response was just 55% among those treated with anti-CD20 therapies versus 83% for those treated with other DMTs, including sphingosine-1-phosphate receptor modulators (S1Ps).

Consistent with what has been observed in other studies, “vaccine antibody responses were slightly lower in B cell–depleted patients than with other therapies,” senior author Rahul Dave, MD, director of the INOVA MS and Neuroimmunology Center, Inova Neurosciences Institute, the University of Virginia, Fairfax, said in an interview.
 

Vaccine response

The investigators sought to assess detailed vaccine responses in 134 patients with MS. Serum COVID antibody measures were conducted approximately 3 weeks to 4 months after vaccination – and mostly after the initial vaccination.

The antibody response rate was significantly lower with anti-CD20 treatments (55%) than with all other DMTs examined (83%), including S1Ps, immunomodulators, immunosuppressive drugs, interferon B, anti-CD52, and natalizumab (P < .01).

The highest prevalence of antibody response was observed among those taking immunomodulators; responses occurred among 91% of patients taking teriflunomide and among 93% of those taking fumarates.

Among those treated with anti-CD20 therapy, antibody responses correlated with higher baseline immunoglobulin levels (P = .01) and shorter durations of therapy.

“We found that longer total duration of therapy and lower immunoglobulin levels tended to correlate with decreases in immune responses,” said Dr. Dave.

“Interestingly, the timing between vaccination versus administration of [anti-CD20 drug] ocrelizumab did not seem to be impactful with regards to antibody responses,” Dr. Dave noted. He added that this is contrary to some past studies that showed benefits if the vaccination could be completed prior to starting ocrelizumab.

Sixteen participants tested polymerase chain reaction positive for COVID during the previous 12 months. Although most infections were described as mild and self-limited, four of the patients received outpatient monoclonal antibody therapy, and one required hospitalization because of COVID.

“I think it is notable and reassuring that, overall, our patients had mild courses. This is consistent with the vaccines ‘working,’ and is true even in patients on high-efficacy immunosuppressants that partially abrogate antibody responses,” Dr. Dave said.

He added that he reassures patients who need high-efficacy therapies that “they should use them.”

That being said, as in the general population, even vaccinated patients can get COVID. “You can be sick and feel terrible, but in general, hospitalization numbers are way down compared to 2 years ago. We are seeing the same trends in MS patients, including the B cell–depleted patients,” he said.

“To get at the question whether B cell–depleted patients behave exactly the same as the general population, or even [with] other DMTs, we will need large, multicenter, prospective datasets,” said Dr. Dave.
 

Favorable findings

Two other late-breaking posters at the meeting provided updates regarding antibody responses among patients receiving S1Ps. There has been concern that S1Ps may blunt antibody responses to COVID vaccinations.

The concern is in regard to their unique mechanisms of sequestering circulating lymphocytes, particularly the older, nonselective S1P receptor modulator fingolimod, said the author of one of the studies, Daniel Kantor, MD, president emeritus of the Florida Society of Neurology and founding president of the Medical Partnership 4 MS+.

“It appears the issues with fingolimod might relate to the level of white blood cell sequestration, [which is] greater in fingolimod than the newer S1P receptor modulators, and/or the result of S1P4 receptor modulation, which is not seen with the newer, selective medications,” Dr. Kantor said in an interview.

In a prospective observational trial of patients with relapsing MS, among 30 participants who were treated with ozanimod, the mean increase in IgG antibody titer 4 weeks after either of the two available mRNA vaccines was 232.73 AU/mL versus a mean increase of 526.59 AU/mL among 30 non–ozanimod/DMT-treated patients.

To date, only three patients in the study were taking ocrelizumab; for those patients, the mean increase in IgG titers was 0.633.

Despite the lower antibody titers in the ozanimod-treated patients, which Dr. Kantor noted are generally regarded as protective, all but one of the patients had positive results on T-Detect, which was indicative of vaccine protection.

“In this study, [relapsing] MS patients treated with ozanimod had an antibody and T-cell response to the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines,” he reported. “This trial is ongoing, with 48 weeks of follow-up expected in December 2022.”
 

Ponesimod results

In the other S1P modulator-related late-breaking study, Janssen Research and Development reported on antibody responses of patients who were treated with the S1P drug ponesimod in the phase 2 AC-058B202 study.

The median exposure to ponesimod at time of vaccination was 10.7 years (range, 9.8-11.8 years). There were 134 patients in the study. Of those, both prevaccination and postvaccination blood samples from 49 patients were tested for spike antibody concentrations.

Among those participants, 40 (81.6%) met the definition of response to the COVID-19 vaccination, defined as seroconversion in the case of negative prevaccination antibody testing or a fourfold antibody concentration increase in the case of a positive prevaccination antibody result.

Of the 38 antibody-negative participants, 33 (86.8%) achieved seroconversion post vaccination.

A total of 20 participants reported having had prevaccine COVID, while 17 had postvaccination COVID.

None of the cases were serious, severe, or fatal, and none led to permanent treatment discontinuation.

“In patients with RMS on ponesimod, the majority (> 80%) appear to develop a measurable SARS-CoV-2 humoral response after COVID-19 vaccination,” the authors, led by Janice Wong, of Janssen Research and Development, wrote.

“Further investigations on the efficacy and safety of COVID-19 vaccination in MS patients on ponesimod are warranted,” they added.

In a final study from Genentech, of 4848 patients with MS who were fully vaccinated during the Delta and Omicron waves, 1.3% had a COVID-related hospitalization. In addition, rate of severe SARS-CoV-2 infections was very low (0.6%); there were fewer than 10 infections in each subgroup of DMTs. These patients included 585 (17%) who were treated with ocrelizumab, 238 (7%) who were treated with S1P receptor modulators, 33 (1%) who were treated with interferons, 1,004 (29%) who were treated with other DMTs, and 1,574 (46%) for whom no DMTs were recorded.

“We can conclude from this study that the characteristics of people with MS with more severe COVID-19 outcomes resemble those observed in the general population,” such as in those who are older or have higher rates of comorbidities, Preeti Bajaj, team lead of HEOR, Neuroscience, at Genentech, said in an interview. “We believe [ocrelizumab] treatment decisions should be made between a patient and their treating neurologist or other medical professional based on a benefit-risk assessment specific to the individual patient.”
 

Concerns remain

In a comment, Bruce A. C. Cree, MD, PhD, professor of clinical neurology and clinical research director at the Weill Institute for Neurosciences, University of California, San Francisco, described the overall data on vaccine efficacy on anti-CD20s as “discouraging” and said he is adjusting his own recommendations for these patients.

“Repeated vaccinations do not seem to stimulate humoral responses in B cell–depleted patients,” said Dr. Cree, who was not involved with the research.

“In my personal practice, I have been suspending dosing in my patients to allow for B-cell reconstitution to occur followed by revaccination,” he added.

Regarding the S1P drugs, he noted that, aside from fingolimod, “the antibody response frequency seems to be better than initial reports. However, the index values are low and may not be protective.”

Overall, the take-home message for patients with MS who are taking DMTs should be, “all patients treated with S1P modulators or anti-C20 antibodies should be vaccinated and boosted,” Dr. Cree said.

“In some cases, temporary interruption of treatment might be useful to help develop robust responses to vaccinations,” he added.

Dr. Dave reported no financial relationships regarding the poster but is a paid speaker/consultant for Novartis, Bristol-Myers Squibb, EMD Serono, Biogen, Alexion, Genentech, Horizon, and Sanofi for their MS & NMO therapies. Dr. Kantor’s research was supported by a grant from BMS; he is a consultant for Biogen, BMS, and Janssen. Dr. Cree reported that he is an unpaid consultant for BMS, the manufacturer of ozanimod.

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

NATIONAL HARBOR, MD. – The latest updates on COVID-19 vaccination response among patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) who are treated with disease-modifying therapy (DMT) show that, if patients do contract the virus, cases are mild and serious infections are rare.

However, vaccine antibody response remains lower with anti-CD20 therapies.

One of several late-breaking studies on these issues that were presented at the annual meeting of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers included more than 100 patients with MS who were treated with a variety of DMTs.

Results showed that the rate of antibody response was just 55% among those treated with anti-CD20 therapies versus 83% for those treated with other DMTs, including sphingosine-1-phosphate receptor modulators (S1Ps).

Consistent with what has been observed in other studies, “vaccine antibody responses were slightly lower in B cell–depleted patients than with other therapies,” senior author Rahul Dave, MD, director of the INOVA MS and Neuroimmunology Center, Inova Neurosciences Institute, the University of Virginia, Fairfax, said in an interview.
 

Vaccine response

The investigators sought to assess detailed vaccine responses in 134 patients with MS. Serum COVID antibody measures were conducted approximately 3 weeks to 4 months after vaccination – and mostly after the initial vaccination.

The antibody response rate was significantly lower with anti-CD20 treatments (55%) than with all other DMTs examined (83%), including S1Ps, immunomodulators, immunosuppressive drugs, interferon B, anti-CD52, and natalizumab (P < .01).

The highest prevalence of antibody response was observed among those taking immunomodulators; responses occurred among 91% of patients taking teriflunomide and among 93% of those taking fumarates.

Among those treated with anti-CD20 therapy, antibody responses correlated with higher baseline immunoglobulin levels (P = .01) and shorter durations of therapy.

“We found that longer total duration of therapy and lower immunoglobulin levels tended to correlate with decreases in immune responses,” said Dr. Dave.

“Interestingly, the timing between vaccination versus administration of [anti-CD20 drug] ocrelizumab did not seem to be impactful with regards to antibody responses,” Dr. Dave noted. He added that this is contrary to some past studies that showed benefits if the vaccination could be completed prior to starting ocrelizumab.

Sixteen participants tested polymerase chain reaction positive for COVID during the previous 12 months. Although most infections were described as mild and self-limited, four of the patients received outpatient monoclonal antibody therapy, and one required hospitalization because of COVID.

“I think it is notable and reassuring that, overall, our patients had mild courses. This is consistent with the vaccines ‘working,’ and is true even in patients on high-efficacy immunosuppressants that partially abrogate antibody responses,” Dr. Dave said.

He added that he reassures patients who need high-efficacy therapies that “they should use them.”

That being said, as in the general population, even vaccinated patients can get COVID. “You can be sick and feel terrible, but in general, hospitalization numbers are way down compared to 2 years ago. We are seeing the same trends in MS patients, including the B cell–depleted patients,” he said.

“To get at the question whether B cell–depleted patients behave exactly the same as the general population, or even [with] other DMTs, we will need large, multicenter, prospective datasets,” said Dr. Dave.
 

Favorable findings

Two other late-breaking posters at the meeting provided updates regarding antibody responses among patients receiving S1Ps. There has been concern that S1Ps may blunt antibody responses to COVID vaccinations.

The concern is in regard to their unique mechanisms of sequestering circulating lymphocytes, particularly the older, nonselective S1P receptor modulator fingolimod, said the author of one of the studies, Daniel Kantor, MD, president emeritus of the Florida Society of Neurology and founding president of the Medical Partnership 4 MS+.

“It appears the issues with fingolimod might relate to the level of white blood cell sequestration, [which is] greater in fingolimod than the newer S1P receptor modulators, and/or the result of S1P4 receptor modulation, which is not seen with the newer, selective medications,” Dr. Kantor said in an interview.

In a prospective observational trial of patients with relapsing MS, among 30 participants who were treated with ozanimod, the mean increase in IgG antibody titer 4 weeks after either of the two available mRNA vaccines was 232.73 AU/mL versus a mean increase of 526.59 AU/mL among 30 non–ozanimod/DMT-treated patients.

To date, only three patients in the study were taking ocrelizumab; for those patients, the mean increase in IgG titers was 0.633.

Despite the lower antibody titers in the ozanimod-treated patients, which Dr. Kantor noted are generally regarded as protective, all but one of the patients had positive results on T-Detect, which was indicative of vaccine protection.

“In this study, [relapsing] MS patients treated with ozanimod had an antibody and T-cell response to the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines,” he reported. “This trial is ongoing, with 48 weeks of follow-up expected in December 2022.”
 

Ponesimod results

In the other S1P modulator-related late-breaking study, Janssen Research and Development reported on antibody responses of patients who were treated with the S1P drug ponesimod in the phase 2 AC-058B202 study.

The median exposure to ponesimod at time of vaccination was 10.7 years (range, 9.8-11.8 years). There were 134 patients in the study. Of those, both prevaccination and postvaccination blood samples from 49 patients were tested for spike antibody concentrations.

Among those participants, 40 (81.6%) met the definition of response to the COVID-19 vaccination, defined as seroconversion in the case of negative prevaccination antibody testing or a fourfold antibody concentration increase in the case of a positive prevaccination antibody result.

Of the 38 antibody-negative participants, 33 (86.8%) achieved seroconversion post vaccination.

A total of 20 participants reported having had prevaccine COVID, while 17 had postvaccination COVID.

None of the cases were serious, severe, or fatal, and none led to permanent treatment discontinuation.

“In patients with RMS on ponesimod, the majority (> 80%) appear to develop a measurable SARS-CoV-2 humoral response after COVID-19 vaccination,” the authors, led by Janice Wong, of Janssen Research and Development, wrote.

“Further investigations on the efficacy and safety of COVID-19 vaccination in MS patients on ponesimod are warranted,” they added.

In a final study from Genentech, of 4848 patients with MS who were fully vaccinated during the Delta and Omicron waves, 1.3% had a COVID-related hospitalization. In addition, rate of severe SARS-CoV-2 infections was very low (0.6%); there were fewer than 10 infections in each subgroup of DMTs. These patients included 585 (17%) who were treated with ocrelizumab, 238 (7%) who were treated with S1P receptor modulators, 33 (1%) who were treated with interferons, 1,004 (29%) who were treated with other DMTs, and 1,574 (46%) for whom no DMTs were recorded.

“We can conclude from this study that the characteristics of people with MS with more severe COVID-19 outcomes resemble those observed in the general population,” such as in those who are older or have higher rates of comorbidities, Preeti Bajaj, team lead of HEOR, Neuroscience, at Genentech, said in an interview. “We believe [ocrelizumab] treatment decisions should be made between a patient and their treating neurologist or other medical professional based on a benefit-risk assessment specific to the individual patient.”
 

Concerns remain

In a comment, Bruce A. C. Cree, MD, PhD, professor of clinical neurology and clinical research director at the Weill Institute for Neurosciences, University of California, San Francisco, described the overall data on vaccine efficacy on anti-CD20s as “discouraging” and said he is adjusting his own recommendations for these patients.

“Repeated vaccinations do not seem to stimulate humoral responses in B cell–depleted patients,” said Dr. Cree, who was not involved with the research.

“In my personal practice, I have been suspending dosing in my patients to allow for B-cell reconstitution to occur followed by revaccination,” he added.

Regarding the S1P drugs, he noted that, aside from fingolimod, “the antibody response frequency seems to be better than initial reports. However, the index values are low and may not be protective.”

Overall, the take-home message for patients with MS who are taking DMTs should be, “all patients treated with S1P modulators or anti-C20 antibodies should be vaccinated and boosted,” Dr. Cree said.

“In some cases, temporary interruption of treatment might be useful to help develop robust responses to vaccinations,” he added.

Dr. Dave reported no financial relationships regarding the poster but is a paid speaker/consultant for Novartis, Bristol-Myers Squibb, EMD Serono, Biogen, Alexion, Genentech, Horizon, and Sanofi for their MS & NMO therapies. Dr. Kantor’s research was supported by a grant from BMS; he is a consultant for Biogen, BMS, and Janssen. Dr. Cree reported that he is an unpaid consultant for BMS, the manufacturer of ozanimod.

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

Patients with type 2 diabetes who received empagliflozin, a sodium glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitor, were almost 40% less likely to have a kidney stone than patients who received placebo during a median 1.5 years of treatment.

These findings are from an analysis of pooled data from phase 1-4 clinical trials of empagliflozin for blood glucose control in 15,081 patients with type 2 diabetes.  

Priyadarshini Balasubramanian, MD, presented the study as a poster at the annual meeting of the Endocrine Society; the study also was published online in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism.

The researchers acknowledge this was a retrospective, post-hoc analysis and that urolithiasis – a stone in the urinary tract, which includes nephrolithiasis, a kidney stone – was an adverse event, not a primary or secondary outcome.

Also, the stone composition, which might help explain how the drug may affect stone formation, is unknown.

Therefore, “dedicated randomized prospective clinical trials are needed to confirm these initial observations in patients both with and without type 2 diabetes,” said Dr. Balasubramanian, a clinical fellow in the section of endocrinology & metabolism, department of internal medicine at Yale University, New Haven, Conn.

However, “if this association is proven, empagliflozin may be used to decrease the risk of kidney stones at least in those with type 2 diabetes, but maybe also in those without diabetes,” Dr. Balasubramanian said in an interview.

Further trials are also needed to determine if this is a class effect, which is likely, she speculated, and to unravel the potential mechanism.

This is important because of the prevalence of kidney stones, which affect up to 15% of the general population and 15%-20% of patients with diabetes, she explained.
 

‘Provocative’ earlier findings

The current study was prompted by a recent observational study by Kasper B. Kristensen, MD, PhD, and colleagues.

Because SGLT2 inhibitors increase urinary glucose excretion through reduced renal reabsorption of glucose leading to osmotic diuresis and increased urinary flow, they hypothesized that these therapies “may reduce the risk of upper urinary tract stones (nephrolithiasis) by reducing the concentration of lithogenic substances in urine.” 

Using data from Danish Health registries, they matched 12,325 individuals newly prescribed an SGLT2 inhibitor 1:1 with patients newly prescribed a glucagonlike peptide-1 (GLP1) agonist, another new class of drugs for treating type 2 diabetes.

They found a hazard ratio of 0.51 (95% confidence interval, 0.37-0.71) for incident nephrolithiasis and a hazard ratio of 0.68 (95% CI, 0.48-0.97) for recurrent nephrolithiasis for patients taking SGLT2 inhibitors versus GLP-1 agonists.

These findings are “striking,” according to Dr. Balasubramanian and colleagues. However, “these data, while provocative, were entirely retrospective and therefore possibly prone to bias,” they add.
 

Pooled data from 20 trials

The current study analyzed data from 20 randomized controlled trials of glycemic control in type 2 diabetes, in which 10,177 patients had received empagliflozin 10 mg or 25 mg and 4,904 patients had received placebo.

Most patients (46.5%) had participated in the EMPA-REG OUTCOMES trial, which also had the longest follow-up (2.6 years).

The researchers identified patients with a new stone from the urinary tract (including the kidney, ureter, and urethra). Patients had received either the study drug for a median of 543 days or placebo for a median of 549 days.

During treatment, 104 of 10,177 patients in the pooled empagliflozin groups and 79 of 4,904 patients in the pooled placebo groups developed a stone in the urinary tract.

This was equivalent to 0.63 new urinary-tract stones per 100 patient-years in the pooled empagliflozin groups versus 1.01 new urinary-tract stones per 100 patient-years in the pooled placebo groups.

The incidence rate ratio was 0.64 (95% CI, 0.48-0.86), in favor of empagliflozin.

When the analysis was restricted to new kidney stones, the results were similar: 75 of 10,177 patients in the pooled empagliflozin groups and 57 of 4,904 patients in the pooled placebo groups developed a kidney stone.

This was equivalent to 0.45 new kidney stones per 100 patient-years in the pooled empagliflozin groups versus 0.72 new kidney stones per 100 patient-years in the pooled placebo groups.

The IRR was 0.65 (95% CI, 0.46-0.92), in favor of empagliflozin.
 

Upcoming small RCT in adults without diabetes

Invited to comment on the new study, Dr. Kristensen said: “The reduced risk of SGLT2 inhibitors towards nephrolithiasis is now reported in at least two studies with different methodology, different populations, and different exposure and outcome definitions.”

“I agree that randomized clinical trials designed specifically to confirm these findings appear warranted,” added Dr. Kristensen, from the Institute of Public Health, Clinical Pharmacology, Pharmacy, and Environmental Medicine, University of Southern Denmark in Odense.

There is a need for studies in patients with and without diabetes, he added, especially ones that focus on prevention of nephrolithiasis in patients with kidney stone disease.

A new trial should shed further light on this.

Results are expected by the end of 2022 for SWEETSTONE (Impact of the SGLT2 Inhibitor Empagliflozin on Urinary Supersaturations in Kidney Stone Formers), a randomized, double-blind crossover exploratory study in 46 patients without diabetes.

This should provide preliminary data to “establish the relevance for larger trials assessing the prophylactic potential of empagliflozin in kidney stone disease,” according to an article on the trial protocol recently published in BMJ.

The trials included in the pooled dataset were funded by Boehringer Ingelheim or the Boehringer Ingelheim and Eli Lilly Diabetes Alliance. Dr. Balasubramanian has reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Patients with type 2 diabetes who received empagliflozin, a sodium glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitor, were almost 40% less likely to have a kidney stone than patients who received placebo during a median 1.5 years of treatment.

These findings are from an analysis of pooled data from phase 1-4 clinical trials of empagliflozin for blood glucose control in 15,081 patients with type 2 diabetes.  

Priyadarshini Balasubramanian, MD, presented the study as a poster at the annual meeting of the Endocrine Society; the study also was published online in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism.

The researchers acknowledge this was a retrospective, post-hoc analysis and that urolithiasis – a stone in the urinary tract, which includes nephrolithiasis, a kidney stone – was an adverse event, not a primary or secondary outcome.

Also, the stone composition, which might help explain how the drug may affect stone formation, is unknown.

Therefore, “dedicated randomized prospective clinical trials are needed to confirm these initial observations in patients both with and without type 2 diabetes,” said Dr. Balasubramanian, a clinical fellow in the section of endocrinology & metabolism, department of internal medicine at Yale University, New Haven, Conn.

However, “if this association is proven, empagliflozin may be used to decrease the risk of kidney stones at least in those with type 2 diabetes, but maybe also in those without diabetes,” Dr. Balasubramanian said in an interview.

Further trials are also needed to determine if this is a class effect, which is likely, she speculated, and to unravel the potential mechanism.

This is important because of the prevalence of kidney stones, which affect up to 15% of the general population and 15%-20% of patients with diabetes, she explained.
 

‘Provocative’ earlier findings

The current study was prompted by a recent observational study by Kasper B. Kristensen, MD, PhD, and colleagues.

Because SGLT2 inhibitors increase urinary glucose excretion through reduced renal reabsorption of glucose leading to osmotic diuresis and increased urinary flow, they hypothesized that these therapies “may reduce the risk of upper urinary tract stones (nephrolithiasis) by reducing the concentration of lithogenic substances in urine.” 

Using data from Danish Health registries, they matched 12,325 individuals newly prescribed an SGLT2 inhibitor 1:1 with patients newly prescribed a glucagonlike peptide-1 (GLP1) agonist, another new class of drugs for treating type 2 diabetes.

They found a hazard ratio of 0.51 (95% confidence interval, 0.37-0.71) for incident nephrolithiasis and a hazard ratio of 0.68 (95% CI, 0.48-0.97) for recurrent nephrolithiasis for patients taking SGLT2 inhibitors versus GLP-1 agonists.

These findings are “striking,” according to Dr. Balasubramanian and colleagues. However, “these data, while provocative, were entirely retrospective and therefore possibly prone to bias,” they add.
 

Pooled data from 20 trials

The current study analyzed data from 20 randomized controlled trials of glycemic control in type 2 diabetes, in which 10,177 patients had received empagliflozin 10 mg or 25 mg and 4,904 patients had received placebo.

Most patients (46.5%) had participated in the EMPA-REG OUTCOMES trial, which also had the longest follow-up (2.6 years).

The researchers identified patients with a new stone from the urinary tract (including the kidney, ureter, and urethra). Patients had received either the study drug for a median of 543 days or placebo for a median of 549 days.

During treatment, 104 of 10,177 patients in the pooled empagliflozin groups and 79 of 4,904 patients in the pooled placebo groups developed a stone in the urinary tract.

This was equivalent to 0.63 new urinary-tract stones per 100 patient-years in the pooled empagliflozin groups versus 1.01 new urinary-tract stones per 100 patient-years in the pooled placebo groups.

The incidence rate ratio was 0.64 (95% CI, 0.48-0.86), in favor of empagliflozin.

When the analysis was restricted to new kidney stones, the results were similar: 75 of 10,177 patients in the pooled empagliflozin groups and 57 of 4,904 patients in the pooled placebo groups developed a kidney stone.

This was equivalent to 0.45 new kidney stones per 100 patient-years in the pooled empagliflozin groups versus 0.72 new kidney stones per 100 patient-years in the pooled placebo groups.

The IRR was 0.65 (95% CI, 0.46-0.92), in favor of empagliflozin.
 

Upcoming small RCT in adults without diabetes

Invited to comment on the new study, Dr. Kristensen said: “The reduced risk of SGLT2 inhibitors towards nephrolithiasis is now reported in at least two studies with different methodology, different populations, and different exposure and outcome definitions.”

“I agree that randomized clinical trials designed specifically to confirm these findings appear warranted,” added Dr. Kristensen, from the Institute of Public Health, Clinical Pharmacology, Pharmacy, and Environmental Medicine, University of Southern Denmark in Odense.

There is a need for studies in patients with and without diabetes, he added, especially ones that focus on prevention of nephrolithiasis in patients with kidney stone disease.

A new trial should shed further light on this.

Results are expected by the end of 2022 for SWEETSTONE (Impact of the SGLT2 Inhibitor Empagliflozin on Urinary Supersaturations in Kidney Stone Formers), a randomized, double-blind crossover exploratory study in 46 patients without diabetes.

This should provide preliminary data to “establish the relevance for larger trials assessing the prophylactic potential of empagliflozin in kidney stone disease,” according to an article on the trial protocol recently published in BMJ.

The trials included in the pooled dataset were funded by Boehringer Ingelheim or the Boehringer Ingelheim and Eli Lilly Diabetes Alliance. Dr. Balasubramanian has reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Patients with type 2 diabetes who received empagliflozin, a sodium glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitor, were almost 40% less likely to have a kidney stone than patients who received placebo during a median 1.5 years of treatment.

These findings are from an analysis of pooled data from phase 1-4 clinical trials of empagliflozin for blood glucose control in 15,081 patients with type 2 diabetes.  

Priyadarshini Balasubramanian, MD, presented the study as a poster at the annual meeting of the Endocrine Society; the study also was published online in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism.

The researchers acknowledge this was a retrospective, post-hoc analysis and that urolithiasis – a stone in the urinary tract, which includes nephrolithiasis, a kidney stone – was an adverse event, not a primary or secondary outcome.

Also, the stone composition, which might help explain how the drug may affect stone formation, is unknown.

Therefore, “dedicated randomized prospective clinical trials are needed to confirm these initial observations in patients both with and without type 2 diabetes,” said Dr. Balasubramanian, a clinical fellow in the section of endocrinology & metabolism, department of internal medicine at Yale University, New Haven, Conn.

However, “if this association is proven, empagliflozin may be used to decrease the risk of kidney stones at least in those with type 2 diabetes, but maybe also in those without diabetes,” Dr. Balasubramanian said in an interview.

Further trials are also needed to determine if this is a class effect, which is likely, she speculated, and to unravel the potential mechanism.

This is important because of the prevalence of kidney stones, which affect up to 15% of the general population and 15%-20% of patients with diabetes, she explained.
 

‘Provocative’ earlier findings

The current study was prompted by a recent observational study by Kasper B. Kristensen, MD, PhD, and colleagues.

Because SGLT2 inhibitors increase urinary glucose excretion through reduced renal reabsorption of glucose leading to osmotic diuresis and increased urinary flow, they hypothesized that these therapies “may reduce the risk of upper urinary tract stones (nephrolithiasis) by reducing the concentration of lithogenic substances in urine.” 

Using data from Danish Health registries, they matched 12,325 individuals newly prescribed an SGLT2 inhibitor 1:1 with patients newly prescribed a glucagonlike peptide-1 (GLP1) agonist, another new class of drugs for treating type 2 diabetes.

They found a hazard ratio of 0.51 (95% confidence interval, 0.37-0.71) for incident nephrolithiasis and a hazard ratio of 0.68 (95% CI, 0.48-0.97) for recurrent nephrolithiasis for patients taking SGLT2 inhibitors versus GLP-1 agonists.

These findings are “striking,” according to Dr. Balasubramanian and colleagues. However, “these data, while provocative, were entirely retrospective and therefore possibly prone to bias,” they add.
 

Pooled data from 20 trials

The current study analyzed data from 20 randomized controlled trials of glycemic control in type 2 diabetes, in which 10,177 patients had received empagliflozin 10 mg or 25 mg and 4,904 patients had received placebo.

Most patients (46.5%) had participated in the EMPA-REG OUTCOMES trial, which also had the longest follow-up (2.6 years).

The researchers identified patients with a new stone from the urinary tract (including the kidney, ureter, and urethra). Patients had received either the study drug for a median of 543 days or placebo for a median of 549 days.

During treatment, 104 of 10,177 patients in the pooled empagliflozin groups and 79 of 4,904 patients in the pooled placebo groups developed a stone in the urinary tract.

This was equivalent to 0.63 new urinary-tract stones per 100 patient-years in the pooled empagliflozin groups versus 1.01 new urinary-tract stones per 100 patient-years in the pooled placebo groups.

The incidence rate ratio was 0.64 (95% CI, 0.48-0.86), in favor of empagliflozin.

When the analysis was restricted to new kidney stones, the results were similar: 75 of 10,177 patients in the pooled empagliflozin groups and 57 of 4,904 patients in the pooled placebo groups developed a kidney stone.

This was equivalent to 0.45 new kidney stones per 100 patient-years in the pooled empagliflozin groups versus 0.72 new kidney stones per 100 patient-years in the pooled placebo groups.

The IRR was 0.65 (95% CI, 0.46-0.92), in favor of empagliflozin.
 

Upcoming small RCT in adults without diabetes

Invited to comment on the new study, Dr. Kristensen said: “The reduced risk of SGLT2 inhibitors towards nephrolithiasis is now reported in at least two studies with different methodology, different populations, and different exposure and outcome definitions.”

“I agree that randomized clinical trials designed specifically to confirm these findings appear warranted,” added Dr. Kristensen, from the Institute of Public Health, Clinical Pharmacology, Pharmacy, and Environmental Medicine, University of Southern Denmark in Odense.

There is a need for studies in patients with and without diabetes, he added, especially ones that focus on prevention of nephrolithiasis in patients with kidney stone disease.

A new trial should shed further light on this.

Results are expected by the end of 2022 for SWEETSTONE (Impact of the SGLT2 Inhibitor Empagliflozin on Urinary Supersaturations in Kidney Stone Formers), a randomized, double-blind crossover exploratory study in 46 patients without diabetes.

This should provide preliminary data to “establish the relevance for larger trials assessing the prophylactic potential of empagliflozin in kidney stone disease,” according to an article on the trial protocol recently published in BMJ.

The trials included in the pooled dataset were funded by Boehringer Ingelheim or the Boehringer Ingelheim and Eli Lilly Diabetes Alliance. Dr. Balasubramanian has reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

A U.S. Food and Drug Administration advisory panel has rejected the atypical antipsychotic pimavanserin (Nuplazid, Acadia Pharmaceuticals) for the treatment of Alzheimer’s disease psychosis (ADP).

In a 9-3 vote, the Psychopharmacologic Drugs Advisory Committee (PDAC) found that the drug’s manufacturer failed to offer convincing evidence of its efficacy in patients with ADP.

The June 17 rejection was the second rejection in as many years for a new indication for pimavanserin, which was approved in 2016 for Parkinson’s disease psychosis (PDP).

In April 2021, the FDA denied Acadia’s supplemental new drug application to expand the drug’s indication to include the treatment of all dementia-related psychosis, regardless of the underlying cause of dementia, citing issues with two studies the company presented as evidence of efficacy.

Waldemarus/iStock/Getty Images Plus

Lack of efficacy

Pimavanserin is a selective serotonin inverse agonist and antagonist preferentially targeting 5-HT2A receptors, which are thought to play an important role in psychosis, schizophrenia, depression, and other neuropsychiatric disorders.

When it rejected Acadia’s original, broader application for pimavanserin for all dementia-related psychosis, the FDA found that the HARMONY phase 3 trial, previously covered by this news organization, was underpowered to assess efficacy in specific dementia patient subgroups and lacked statistical significance of efficacy in patients with AD. In addition, it noted that overall findings appeared to be driven by results in patients with Parkinson’s disease dementia, a condition already covered by the approved indication.

The FDA found that the second study, referred to in the June 17 hearing as Study 019, which was also previously reported by this news organization, was not “an adequate and well-controlled study.”

Specifically, the agency raised concerns about “protocol deviations,” such as the inclusion of patients who lacked clear documentation that psychotic symptoms developed after an AD diagnosis had been established and patients who received exclusionary medications at the time of randomization.

Discussions between Acadia and the FDA continued over the past year, with the company submitting new analyses and responses. An FDA briefing document published in advance of the committee meeting seemed to suggest the agency was satisfied with Acadia’s response.
 

Lack of diversity

The advisory committee disagreed, pointing to the same concerns raised last year. Members raised concerns about patient diversity in the HARMONY trial, which included an almost entirely White and mostly male study population.

In addition, although the findings at 26 weeks did demonstrate a marked improvement in psychosis symptoms overall, committee members noted that, again, those findings were largely driven by efficacy in patients with Parkinson’s disease dementia, for which the drug is already approved.

When discussing the phase 2 Study 019, the committee noted that while the study met the primary outcome of improvement in psychosis at 6 weeks, those positive responses were not found at any other timepoint in the 12-week study.  

“While it might have had a positive numerical effect in the study, the evidence is really not there to support it,” Dr. Follmann said.

Dr. Follmann and other committee members called for additional trials that focus on patients with Alzheimer’s disease, have a longer follow-up, and include more gender and racial diversity in the study population. They also called for more information about any off-label use of pimavanserin for ADP since it was approved for PDP in 2016.
 

An unmet need

Most individuals who testified during the public comment period pleaded with the committee to vote in favor of the new indication, sharing stories of family members and patients with ADP.

“I have been caring for and studying patients with Alzheimer’s disease and other dementias for more than 30 years, and I can tell you very simply that if left untreated, psychosis has significant and sometimes devastating consequences for our patients,” said Pierre Tariot, MD, director of the Banner Alzheimer’s Institute and a research professor of psychiatry at the University of Arizona College of Medicine, Tucson, and an investigator on the HARMONY trial.

Those on the committee who voted against the application were quick to agree that lack of an approved treatment for ADP presents a hardship.

“I’m a neurologist who has cared for patients for more than 20 years,” said Madhav R. Thambisetty, MD, PhD, senior investigator for the National Institute on Aging and an adjunct professor of neurology at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore. “I recognize the unmet need in the field, I just think that the unmet need should not be a justification to cut corners.”

The committee did not focus on drug safety or unmet need in its deliberations, although information on both were presented during the meeting.

Commenting on his “no” vote, PDAC member Walter S. Dunn, MD, PhD, assistant clinical professor of psychiatry at the University of California, Los Angeles, and director of Interventional Psychiatry Service at West Los Angeles Veterans Affairs Medical Center, said he hopes that the FDA will consider those issues more broadly as they complete their review.

“The questions before the committee have been narrow and precise, so I trust the agency will take a broader approach in their final decision about approval,” Dr. Dunn said.

Commenting on the decision, Howard Fillit, MD, cofounder and chief science officer, Alzheimer’s Drug Discovery Foundation, called the news disappointing, “but while the unmet need for a treatment for ADP is clear, it is vital that approved treatments meet stringent safety and efficacy criteria so we can offer patients medications with clear benefits.”

The FDA will make its final decision by August 4.

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

A U.S. Food and Drug Administration advisory panel has rejected the atypical antipsychotic pimavanserin (Nuplazid, Acadia Pharmaceuticals) for the treatment of Alzheimer’s disease psychosis (ADP).

In a 9-3 vote, the Psychopharmacologic Drugs Advisory Committee (PDAC) found that the drug’s manufacturer failed to offer convincing evidence of its efficacy in patients with ADP.

The June 17 rejection was the second rejection in as many years for a new indication for pimavanserin, which was approved in 2016 for Parkinson’s disease psychosis (PDP).

In April 2021, the FDA denied Acadia’s supplemental new drug application to expand the drug’s indication to include the treatment of all dementia-related psychosis, regardless of the underlying cause of dementia, citing issues with two studies the company presented as evidence of efficacy.

Waldemarus/iStock/Getty Images Plus

Lack of efficacy

Pimavanserin is a selective serotonin inverse agonist and antagonist preferentially targeting 5-HT2A receptors, which are thought to play an important role in psychosis, schizophrenia, depression, and other neuropsychiatric disorders.

When it rejected Acadia’s original, broader application for pimavanserin for all dementia-related psychosis, the FDA found that the HARMONY phase 3 trial, previously covered by this news organization, was underpowered to assess efficacy in specific dementia patient subgroups and lacked statistical significance of efficacy in patients with AD. In addition, it noted that overall findings appeared to be driven by results in patients with Parkinson’s disease dementia, a condition already covered by the approved indication.

The FDA found that the second study, referred to in the June 17 hearing as Study 019, which was also previously reported by this news organization, was not “an adequate and well-controlled study.”

Specifically, the agency raised concerns about “protocol deviations,” such as the inclusion of patients who lacked clear documentation that psychotic symptoms developed after an AD diagnosis had been established and patients who received exclusionary medications at the time of randomization.

Discussions between Acadia and the FDA continued over the past year, with the company submitting new analyses and responses. An FDA briefing document published in advance of the committee meeting seemed to suggest the agency was satisfied with Acadia’s response.
 

Lack of diversity

The advisory committee disagreed, pointing to the same concerns raised last year. Members raised concerns about patient diversity in the HARMONY trial, which included an almost entirely White and mostly male study population.

In addition, although the findings at 26 weeks did demonstrate a marked improvement in psychosis symptoms overall, committee members noted that, again, those findings were largely driven by efficacy in patients with Parkinson’s disease dementia, for which the drug is already approved.

When discussing the phase 2 Study 019, the committee noted that while the study met the primary outcome of improvement in psychosis at 6 weeks, those positive responses were not found at any other timepoint in the 12-week study.  

“While it might have had a positive numerical effect in the study, the evidence is really not there to support it,” Dr. Follmann said.

Dr. Follmann and other committee members called for additional trials that focus on patients with Alzheimer’s disease, have a longer follow-up, and include more gender and racial diversity in the study population. They also called for more information about any off-label use of pimavanserin for ADP since it was approved for PDP in 2016.
 

An unmet need

Most individuals who testified during the public comment period pleaded with the committee to vote in favor of the new indication, sharing stories of family members and patients with ADP.

“I have been caring for and studying patients with Alzheimer’s disease and other dementias for more than 30 years, and I can tell you very simply that if left untreated, psychosis has significant and sometimes devastating consequences for our patients,” said Pierre Tariot, MD, director of the Banner Alzheimer’s Institute and a research professor of psychiatry at the University of Arizona College of Medicine, Tucson, and an investigator on the HARMONY trial.

Those on the committee who voted against the application were quick to agree that lack of an approved treatment for ADP presents a hardship.

“I’m a neurologist who has cared for patients for more than 20 years,” said Madhav R. Thambisetty, MD, PhD, senior investigator for the National Institute on Aging and an adjunct professor of neurology at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore. “I recognize the unmet need in the field, I just think that the unmet need should not be a justification to cut corners.”

The committee did not focus on drug safety or unmet need in its deliberations, although information on both were presented during the meeting.

Commenting on his “no” vote, PDAC member Walter S. Dunn, MD, PhD, assistant clinical professor of psychiatry at the University of California, Los Angeles, and director of Interventional Psychiatry Service at West Los Angeles Veterans Affairs Medical Center, said he hopes that the FDA will consider those issues more broadly as they complete their review.

“The questions before the committee have been narrow and precise, so I trust the agency will take a broader approach in their final decision about approval,” Dr. Dunn said.

Commenting on the decision, Howard Fillit, MD, cofounder and chief science officer, Alzheimer’s Drug Discovery Foundation, called the news disappointing, “but while the unmet need for a treatment for ADP is clear, it is vital that approved treatments meet stringent safety and efficacy criteria so we can offer patients medications with clear benefits.”

The FDA will make its final decision by August 4.

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

A U.S. Food and Drug Administration advisory panel has rejected the atypical antipsychotic pimavanserin (Nuplazid, Acadia Pharmaceuticals) for the treatment of Alzheimer’s disease psychosis (ADP).

In a 9-3 vote, the Psychopharmacologic Drugs Advisory Committee (PDAC) found that the drug’s manufacturer failed to offer convincing evidence of its efficacy in patients with ADP.

The June 17 rejection was the second rejection in as many years for a new indication for pimavanserin, which was approved in 2016 for Parkinson’s disease psychosis (PDP).

In April 2021, the FDA denied Acadia’s supplemental new drug application to expand the drug’s indication to include the treatment of all dementia-related psychosis, regardless of the underlying cause of dementia, citing issues with two studies the company presented as evidence of efficacy.

Waldemarus/iStock/Getty Images Plus

Lack of efficacy

Pimavanserin is a selective serotonin inverse agonist and antagonist preferentially targeting 5-HT2A receptors, which are thought to play an important role in psychosis, schizophrenia, depression, and other neuropsychiatric disorders.

When it rejected Acadia’s original, broader application for pimavanserin for all dementia-related psychosis, the FDA found that the HARMONY phase 3 trial, previously covered by this news organization, was underpowered to assess efficacy in specific dementia patient subgroups and lacked statistical significance of efficacy in patients with AD. In addition, it noted that overall findings appeared to be driven by results in patients with Parkinson’s disease dementia, a condition already covered by the approved indication.

The FDA found that the second study, referred to in the June 17 hearing as Study 019, which was also previously reported by this news organization, was not “an adequate and well-controlled study.”

Specifically, the agency raised concerns about “protocol deviations,” such as the inclusion of patients who lacked clear documentation that psychotic symptoms developed after an AD diagnosis had been established and patients who received exclusionary medications at the time of randomization.

Discussions between Acadia and the FDA continued over the past year, with the company submitting new analyses and responses. An FDA briefing document published in advance of the committee meeting seemed to suggest the agency was satisfied with Acadia’s response.
 

Lack of diversity

The advisory committee disagreed, pointing to the same concerns raised last year. Members raised concerns about patient diversity in the HARMONY trial, which included an almost entirely White and mostly male study population.

In addition, although the findings at 26 weeks did demonstrate a marked improvement in psychosis symptoms overall, committee members noted that, again, those findings were largely driven by efficacy in patients with Parkinson’s disease dementia, for which the drug is already approved.

When discussing the phase 2 Study 019, the committee noted that while the study met the primary outcome of improvement in psychosis at 6 weeks, those positive responses were not found at any other timepoint in the 12-week study.  

“While it might have had a positive numerical effect in the study, the evidence is really not there to support it,” Dr. Follmann said.

Dr. Follmann and other committee members called for additional trials that focus on patients with Alzheimer’s disease, have a longer follow-up, and include more gender and racial diversity in the study population. They also called for more information about any off-label use of pimavanserin for ADP since it was approved for PDP in 2016.
 

An unmet need

Most individuals who testified during the public comment period pleaded with the committee to vote in favor of the new indication, sharing stories of family members and patients with ADP.

“I have been caring for and studying patients with Alzheimer’s disease and other dementias for more than 30 years, and I can tell you very simply that if left untreated, psychosis has significant and sometimes devastating consequences for our patients,” said Pierre Tariot, MD, director of the Banner Alzheimer’s Institute and a research professor of psychiatry at the University of Arizona College of Medicine, Tucson, and an investigator on the HARMONY trial.

Those on the committee who voted against the application were quick to agree that lack of an approved treatment for ADP presents a hardship.

“I’m a neurologist who has cared for patients for more than 20 years,” said Madhav R. Thambisetty, MD, PhD, senior investigator for the National Institute on Aging and an adjunct professor of neurology at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore. “I recognize the unmet need in the field, I just think that the unmet need should not be a justification to cut corners.”

The committee did not focus on drug safety or unmet need in its deliberations, although information on both were presented during the meeting.

Commenting on his “no” vote, PDAC member Walter S. Dunn, MD, PhD, assistant clinical professor of psychiatry at the University of California, Los Angeles, and director of Interventional Psychiatry Service at West Los Angeles Veterans Affairs Medical Center, said he hopes that the FDA will consider those issues more broadly as they complete their review.

“The questions before the committee have been narrow and precise, so I trust the agency will take a broader approach in their final decision about approval,” Dr. Dunn said.

Commenting on the decision, Howard Fillit, MD, cofounder and chief science officer, Alzheimer’s Drug Discovery Foundation, called the news disappointing, “but while the unmet need for a treatment for ADP is clear, it is vital that approved treatments meet stringent safety and efficacy criteria so we can offer patients medications with clear benefits.”

The FDA will make its final decision by August 4.

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

The following highlights are a brief overview of guideline updates, drug approvals, and diagnostics relevant to geriatric medicine from June 2021 to April 2022, some of which were discussed at the American Geriatrics Society conference in May. I selected these topics as they were among the most discussed by my colleagues in geriatric medicine and inquired about by my primary care patients in geriatric medicine clinic. I hope that these updates provide primary care clinicians who care for older adults with more context and background information regarding new Alzheimer’s disease therapy to better answer patient inquiries, and to feel empowered to deprescribe aspirin and reframe the diagnostic criteria of chronic kidney disease (CKD).

Aspirin for primary prevention

It was welcome news in the geriatrics community when the United States Preventive Services Task Force updated their guidelines in April 2022 to recommend against the initiation of aspirin for primary prevention in adults aged 60 or older. This recommendation was based on studies that found that net benefits of CVD prevention in older adults are outweighed by risk of bleeding.¹

The risk of bleeding increases with age and can occur in individuals without common risk factors for bleeding, such as prior gastrointestinal bleeding, peptic ulcer disease, concurrent NSAID use, or corticosteroid use.

While it may be easier to not initiate aspirin for primary prevention, deprescribing aspirin for patients who have been on aspirin long term for primary prevention presents more of a challenge. Modeling data from the USPTSF suggest stopping aspirin at age 75 for those taking aspirin for primary prevention.²

Behavioral change, particularly for patients who have been on aspirin for decades, can be difficult. A 2021 study by Green et al. found that language that resonates the most with older adults when deprescribing emphasized the side effects rather than statements such as “this will not help you” or “do not need anymore.”3
 

Aducanumab for mild cognitive impairment and mild Alzheimer’s dementia

One of the most discussed topics this past year is the Food and Drug Administration approval of aducanumab (brand name Aduhelm) in June 2021. Aducanumab is the first approved disease-modifying therapy for Alzheimer’s disease and the first drug approved for the treatment of Alzheimer’s disease since 2003. Aducanumab is an antiamyloid monoclonal antibody that was developed to reduce amyloid plaque in the brain, one of the features of Alzheimer’s disease pathology.

Uptake of aducanumab by dementia providers has been limited for several reasons. Firstly, the clinical significance of the drug remains in question. ENGAGE and EMERGE were the two main randomized clinical trials that studied the effect of aducanumab on amyloid burden and clinical stages of dementia over 18 months. While both studies demonstrated that aducanumab reduced amyloid burden based on neuroimaging and in cerebrospinal fluid, the ENGAGE trial found no difference in the stage of dementia. The EMERGE trial did note a small, statistically significant difference in stage of dementia, however the participants of the EMERGE trial had a faster rate of progression of dementia than the placebo participants in the ENGAGE trial, which could have contributed to the difference detected.⁴

Additionally, exclusion criteria for both trials call into question the generalizability of this study. Participants over age 85, with CKD, prior stroke, or transient ischemic attacks, or on anticoagulation were excluded. One of the drivers for the exclusion criteria is the increased risk of macro and microhemorrhages.

Thirty-five percent of research participants were incidentally noted to have brain edema, an abnormality called amyloid-related imaging abnormality or ARIA-E, that necessitated serial monitoring with brain MRIs. It is also important to highlight that inclusion of African American, Hispanic, and Latinx participants in these studies was less than 5%, despite a higher incidence of Alzheimer’s disease in these populations.⁵

Lastly, economic implications for the U.S. health care system with increased uptake of aducanumab could be enormous. Originally quoted at $56,000 yearly, Biogen, the maker of aducanumab, recently reduced annual costs to $28,200 per patient.

In April 2022, CMS released a statement that antiamyloid monoclonal antibodies and related services, including PET scans, would be covered under Medicare for those with mild cognitive impairment and mild Alzheimer’s dementia with confirmed presence of amyloid. A study by Mafi et al. estimated that aducanumab could cost Medicare between $7 billion and $37.4 billion annually based on lower and upper bound estimates of eligible Medicare beneficiaries.⁶
 

Overdiagnosis of CKD in older adults

The current diagnostic criteria of CKD, which is based on an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) of less than 60, has been up for debate, as glomerular filtration rate (GFR) physiologically decreases with age. Fixed thresholds can lead to underdiagnosis of CKD in younger adults and overdiagnosis of CKD in older adults. Age-adapted thresholds for the diagnosis of CKD have been proposed, with the suggestion of an eGFR threshold of 45mL/min/1.73 m² for adults aged 65 and older.⁷

The clinical implication of using an age-adapted eGFR threshold definition was investigated in a 2021 cohort study by Liu et al.⁸ In this study, outcomes of adults diagnosed with CKD using a fixed threshold versus age-adapted threshold were compared with a healthy cohort.

A fixed threshold led to a 60% higher incidence of CKD diagnosis. However, incidence of renal failure and all-cause mortality in older adults with an eGFR between 45-59 /min/1.73 m2 with normal or mild albuminuria was of similar magnitude to the healthy cohort at 5 years of follow-up.

These findings support the use of age-adapted thresholds for the diagnosis of CKD in older adults, as an earlier diagnosis of mild CKD does not equate to clinical benefits, but could lead to harms of unnecessary interventions and patient anxiety.
 

Dr. Mengru “Ruru” Wang is a geriatrician and internist at the University of Washington, Seattle. She practices full-spectrum medicine, seeing patients in primary care, nursing homes, and acute care. Dr. Wang has no disclosures related to this piece.

References

1. Selak Vet al. Predicting bleeding risk to guide aspirin use for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease: A cohort study. Ann Intern Med. 2019;170(6):357-68. doi: 10.7326/M18-2808.

2. US Preventive Services Task Force. Aspirin Use to Prevent Cardiovascular Disease: US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement. JAMA. 2022;327(16):1577-84. doi: 10.1001/jama.2022.4983.

3. Green AR et al. Assessment of patient-preferred language to achieve goal-aligned deprescribing in older adults. JAMA Netw Open. 2021;4(4):e212633. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.2633.

4. Oh ES. Use of anti-amyloid therapy for Alzheimer’s disease in clinical practice. An update on Alzheimer’s disease diagnosis and therapeutics. Presentation at American Geriatrics Society Meeting, 2022. Orlando.

5. Amjad H. Issues of Access and Marginalization. An update on Alzheimer’s disease diagnosis and therapeutics. Presentation at: American Geriatrics Society Meeting, 2022. Orlando.

6. Mafi JN et al. Estimated annual spending on aducanumab in the U.S. Medicare program. JAMA Health Forum. 2022;3(1):e214495. doi: 10.1001/jamahealthforum.2021.4495.

7. Delanaye P et al. CKD: A call for an age-adapted definition. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2019;30(10):1785-1805. doi: 10.1681/ASN.2019030238.

8. Liu Pet al. Accounting for age in the definition of chronic kidney disease. JAMA Intern Med. 2021;181(10):1359-66. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2021.4813.

The following highlights are a brief overview of guideline updates, drug approvals, and diagnostics relevant to geriatric medicine from June 2021 to April 2022, some of which were discussed at the American Geriatrics Society conference in May. I selected these topics as they were among the most discussed by my colleagues in geriatric medicine and inquired about by my primary care patients in geriatric medicine clinic. I hope that these updates provide primary care clinicians who care for older adults with more context and background information regarding new Alzheimer’s disease therapy to better answer patient inquiries, and to feel empowered to deprescribe aspirin and reframe the diagnostic criteria of chronic kidney disease (CKD).

Aspirin for primary prevention

It was welcome news in the geriatrics community when the United States Preventive Services Task Force updated their guidelines in April 2022 to recommend against the initiation of aspirin for primary prevention in adults aged 60 or older. This recommendation was based on studies that found that net benefits of CVD prevention in older adults are outweighed by risk of bleeding.¹

The risk of bleeding increases with age and can occur in individuals without common risk factors for bleeding, such as prior gastrointestinal bleeding, peptic ulcer disease, concurrent NSAID use, or corticosteroid use.

While it may be easier to not initiate aspirin for primary prevention, deprescribing aspirin for patients who have been on aspirin long term for primary prevention presents more of a challenge. Modeling data from the USPTSF suggest stopping aspirin at age 75 for those taking aspirin for primary prevention.²

Behavioral change, particularly for patients who have been on aspirin for decades, can be difficult. A 2021 study by Green et al. found that language that resonates the most with older adults when deprescribing emphasized the side effects rather than statements such as “this will not help you” or “do not need anymore.”3
 

Aducanumab for mild cognitive impairment and mild Alzheimer’s dementia

One of the most discussed topics this past year is the Food and Drug Administration approval of aducanumab (brand name Aduhelm) in June 2021. Aducanumab is the first approved disease-modifying therapy for Alzheimer’s disease and the first drug approved for the treatment of Alzheimer’s disease since 2003. Aducanumab is an antiamyloid monoclonal antibody that was developed to reduce amyloid plaque in the brain, one of the features of Alzheimer’s disease pathology.

Uptake of aducanumab by dementia providers has been limited for several reasons. Firstly, the clinical significance of the drug remains in question. ENGAGE and EMERGE were the two main randomized clinical trials that studied the effect of aducanumab on amyloid burden and clinical stages of dementia over 18 months. While both studies demonstrated that aducanumab reduced amyloid burden based on neuroimaging and in cerebrospinal fluid, the ENGAGE trial found no difference in the stage of dementia. The EMERGE trial did note a small, statistically significant difference in stage of dementia, however the participants of the EMERGE trial had a faster rate of progression of dementia than the placebo participants in the ENGAGE trial, which could have contributed to the difference detected.⁴

Additionally, exclusion criteria for both trials call into question the generalizability of this study. Participants over age 85, with CKD, prior stroke, or transient ischemic attacks, or on anticoagulation were excluded. One of the drivers for the exclusion criteria is the increased risk of macro and microhemorrhages.

Thirty-five percent of research participants were incidentally noted to have brain edema, an abnormality called amyloid-related imaging abnormality or ARIA-E, that necessitated serial monitoring with brain MRIs. It is also important to highlight that inclusion of African American, Hispanic, and Latinx participants in these studies was less than 5%, despite a higher incidence of Alzheimer’s disease in these populations.⁵

Lastly, economic implications for the U.S. health care system with increased uptake of aducanumab could be enormous. Originally quoted at $56,000 yearly, Biogen, the maker of aducanumab, recently reduced annual costs to $28,200 per patient.

In April 2022, CMS released a statement that antiamyloid monoclonal antibodies and related services, including PET scans, would be covered under Medicare for those with mild cognitive impairment and mild Alzheimer’s dementia with confirmed presence of amyloid. A study by Mafi et al. estimated that aducanumab could cost Medicare between $7 billion and $37.4 billion annually based on lower and upper bound estimates of eligible Medicare beneficiaries.⁶
 

Overdiagnosis of CKD in older adults

The current diagnostic criteria of CKD, which is based on an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) of less than 60, has been up for debate, as glomerular filtration rate (GFR) physiologically decreases with age. Fixed thresholds can lead to underdiagnosis of CKD in younger adults and overdiagnosis of CKD in older adults. Age-adapted thresholds for the diagnosis of CKD have been proposed, with the suggestion of an eGFR threshold of 45mL/min/1.73 m² for adults aged 65 and older.⁷

The clinical implication of using an age-adapted eGFR threshold definition was investigated in a 2021 cohort study by Liu et al.⁸ In this study, outcomes of adults diagnosed with CKD using a fixed threshold versus age-adapted threshold were compared with a healthy cohort.

A fixed threshold led to a 60% higher incidence of CKD diagnosis. However, incidence of renal failure and all-cause mortality in older adults with an eGFR between 45-59 /min/1.73 m2 with normal or mild albuminuria was of similar magnitude to the healthy cohort at 5 years of follow-up.

These findings support the use of age-adapted thresholds for the diagnosis of CKD in older adults, as an earlier diagnosis of mild CKD does not equate to clinical benefits, but could lead to harms of unnecessary interventions and patient anxiety.
 

Dr. Mengru “Ruru” Wang is a geriatrician and internist at the University of Washington, Seattle. She practices full-spectrum medicine, seeing patients in primary care, nursing homes, and acute care. Dr. Wang has no disclosures related to this piece.

References

1. Selak Vet al. Predicting bleeding risk to guide aspirin use for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease: A cohort study. Ann Intern Med. 2019;170(6):357-68. doi: 10.7326/M18-2808.

2. US Preventive Services Task Force. Aspirin Use to Prevent Cardiovascular Disease: US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement. JAMA. 2022;327(16):1577-84. doi: 10.1001/jama.2022.4983.

3. Green AR et al. Assessment of patient-preferred language to achieve goal-aligned deprescribing in older adults. JAMA Netw Open. 2021;4(4):e212633. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.2633.

4. Oh ES. Use of anti-amyloid therapy for Alzheimer’s disease in clinical practice. An update on Alzheimer’s disease diagnosis and therapeutics. Presentation at American Geriatrics Society Meeting, 2022. Orlando.

5. Amjad H. Issues of Access and Marginalization. An update on Alzheimer’s disease diagnosis and therapeutics. Presentation at: American Geriatrics Society Meeting, 2022. Orlando.

6. Mafi JN et al. Estimated annual spending on aducanumab in the U.S. Medicare program. JAMA Health Forum. 2022;3(1):e214495. doi: 10.1001/jamahealthforum.2021.4495.

7. Delanaye P et al. CKD: A call for an age-adapted definition. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2019;30(10):1785-1805. doi: 10.1681/ASN.2019030238.

8. Liu Pet al. Accounting for age in the definition of chronic kidney disease. JAMA Intern Med. 2021;181(10):1359-66. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2021.4813.

The following highlights are a brief overview of guideline updates, drug approvals, and diagnostics relevant to geriatric medicine from June 2021 to April 2022, some of which were discussed at the American Geriatrics Society conference in May. I selected these topics as they were among the most discussed by my colleagues in geriatric medicine and inquired about by my primary care patients in geriatric medicine clinic. I hope that these updates provide primary care clinicians who care for older adults with more context and background information regarding new Alzheimer’s disease therapy to better answer patient inquiries, and to feel empowered to deprescribe aspirin and reframe the diagnostic criteria of chronic kidney disease (CKD).

Aspirin for primary prevention

It was welcome news in the geriatrics community when the United States Preventive Services Task Force updated their guidelines in April 2022 to recommend against the initiation of aspirin for primary prevention in adults aged 60 or older. This recommendation was based on studies that found that net benefits of CVD prevention in older adults are outweighed by risk of bleeding.¹

The risk of bleeding increases with age and can occur in individuals without common risk factors for bleeding, such as prior gastrointestinal bleeding, peptic ulcer disease, concurrent NSAID use, or corticosteroid use.

While it may be easier to not initiate aspirin for primary prevention, deprescribing aspirin for patients who have been on aspirin long term for primary prevention presents more of a challenge. Modeling data from the USPTSF suggest stopping aspirin at age 75 for those taking aspirin for primary prevention.²

Behavioral change, particularly for patients who have been on aspirin for decades, can be difficult. A 2021 study by Green et al. found that language that resonates the most with older adults when deprescribing emphasized the side effects rather than statements such as “this will not help you” or “do not need anymore.”3
 

Aducanumab for mild cognitive impairment and mild Alzheimer’s dementia

One of the most discussed topics this past year is the Food and Drug Administration approval of aducanumab (brand name Aduhelm) in June 2021. Aducanumab is the first approved disease-modifying therapy for Alzheimer’s disease and the first drug approved for the treatment of Alzheimer’s disease since 2003. Aducanumab is an antiamyloid monoclonal antibody that was developed to reduce amyloid plaque in the brain, one of the features of Alzheimer’s disease pathology.

Uptake of aducanumab by dementia providers has been limited for several reasons. Firstly, the clinical significance of the drug remains in question. ENGAGE and EMERGE were the two main randomized clinical trials that studied the effect of aducanumab on amyloid burden and clinical stages of dementia over 18 months. While both studies demonstrated that aducanumab reduced amyloid burden based on neuroimaging and in cerebrospinal fluid, the ENGAGE trial found no difference in the stage of dementia. The EMERGE trial did note a small, statistically significant difference in stage of dementia, however the participants of the EMERGE trial had a faster rate of progression of dementia than the placebo participants in the ENGAGE trial, which could have contributed to the difference detected.⁴

Additionally, exclusion criteria for both trials call into question the generalizability of this study. Participants over age 85, with CKD, prior stroke, or transient ischemic attacks, or on anticoagulation were excluded. One of the drivers for the exclusion criteria is the increased risk of macro and microhemorrhages.

Thirty-five percent of research participants were incidentally noted to have brain edema, an abnormality called amyloid-related imaging abnormality or ARIA-E, that necessitated serial monitoring with brain MRIs. It is also important to highlight that inclusion of African American, Hispanic, and Latinx participants in these studies was less than 5%, despite a higher incidence of Alzheimer’s disease in these populations.⁵

Lastly, economic implications for the U.S. health care system with increased uptake of aducanumab could be enormous. Originally quoted at $56,000 yearly, Biogen, the maker of aducanumab, recently reduced annual costs to $28,200 per patient.

In April 2022, CMS released a statement that antiamyloid monoclonal antibodies and related services, including PET scans, would be covered under Medicare for those with mild cognitive impairment and mild Alzheimer’s dementia with confirmed presence of amyloid. A study by Mafi et al. estimated that aducanumab could cost Medicare between $7 billion and $37.4 billion annually based on lower and upper bound estimates of eligible Medicare beneficiaries.⁶
 

Overdiagnosis of CKD in older adults

The current diagnostic criteria of CKD, which is based on an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) of less than 60, has been up for debate, as glomerular filtration rate (GFR) physiologically decreases with age. Fixed thresholds can lead to underdiagnosis of CKD in younger adults and overdiagnosis of CKD in older adults. Age-adapted thresholds for the diagnosis of CKD have been proposed, with the suggestion of an eGFR threshold of 45mL/min/1.73 m² for adults aged 65 and older.⁷

The clinical implication of using an age-adapted eGFR threshold definition was investigated in a 2021 cohort study by Liu et al.⁸ In this study, outcomes of adults diagnosed with CKD using a fixed threshold versus age-adapted threshold were compared with a healthy cohort.

A fixed threshold led to a 60% higher incidence of CKD diagnosis. However, incidence of renal failure and all-cause mortality in older adults with an eGFR between 45-59 /min/1.73 m2 with normal or mild albuminuria was of similar magnitude to the healthy cohort at 5 years of follow-up.

These findings support the use of age-adapted thresholds for the diagnosis of CKD in older adults, as an earlier diagnosis of mild CKD does not equate to clinical benefits, but could lead to harms of unnecessary interventions and patient anxiety.
 

Dr. Mengru “Ruru” Wang is a geriatrician and internist at the University of Washington, Seattle. She practices full-spectrum medicine, seeing patients in primary care, nursing homes, and acute care. Dr. Wang has no disclosures related to this piece.

References

1. Selak Vet al. Predicting bleeding risk to guide aspirin use for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease: A cohort study. Ann Intern Med. 2019;170(6):357-68. doi: 10.7326/M18-2808.

2. US Preventive Services Task Force. Aspirin Use to Prevent Cardiovascular Disease: US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement. JAMA. 2022;327(16):1577-84. doi: 10.1001/jama.2022.4983.

3. Green AR et al. Assessment of patient-preferred language to achieve goal-aligned deprescribing in older adults. JAMA Netw Open. 2021;4(4):e212633. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.2633.

4. Oh ES. Use of anti-amyloid therapy for Alzheimer’s disease in clinical practice. An update on Alzheimer’s disease diagnosis and therapeutics. Presentation at American Geriatrics Society Meeting, 2022. Orlando.

5. Amjad H. Issues of Access and Marginalization. An update on Alzheimer’s disease diagnosis and therapeutics. Presentation at: American Geriatrics Society Meeting, 2022. Orlando.

6. Mafi JN et al. Estimated annual spending on aducanumab in the U.S. Medicare program. JAMA Health Forum. 2022;3(1):e214495. doi: 10.1001/jamahealthforum.2021.4495.

7. Delanaye P et al. CKD: A call for an age-adapted definition. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2019;30(10):1785-1805. doi: 10.1681/ASN.2019030238.

8. Liu Pet al. Accounting for age in the definition of chronic kidney disease. JAMA Intern Med. 2021;181(10):1359-66. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2021.4813.

Diversity is an omnipresent element in clinical practice: in the genome, in the environment, in patients’ lifestyles and habits. Precision medicine addresses the variability of the individual to improve diagnosis and treatment. It is increasingly used in specialties such as oncology, neurology, and cardiology. A personalized approach has many objectives, including to optimize treatment, minimize the risk of adverse effects, facilitate early diagnosis, and determine predisposition to disease. Genomic technologies, such as massive sequencing techniques, and tools such as CRISPR-Cas9 are key to the future of personalized medicine.

Jesús Oteo Iglesias, MD, PhD, a specialist in microbiology and director of Spain’s National Center for Microbiology, spoke at the Spanish Association of Infectious Diseases and Clinical Microbiology’s recent conference. He discussed various precision medicine projects aimed at reinforcing the fight against antibiotic resistance.

Infectious diseases are complex because the diversity of the pathogenic microorganism combines with the patient’s own diversity, which influences the interaction between the two, said Dr. Oteo. Thus, the antibiogram and targeted antibiotic treatments (which are chosen according to the species, sensitivity to antimicrobials, type of infection, and patient characteristics) have been established applications of precision medicine for decades. However, multiple tools could further strengthen personalized medicine against multiresistant pathogens.

Therapeutic drug monitoring, in which multiple pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic factors are considered, is a strategy with great potential to increase the effectiveness of antibiotics and minimize toxicity. Owing to its costs and the need for trained staff, this tool would be especially indicated in the treatment of patients with more complex conditions, such as those suffering from obesity, complex infections, or infections with multiresistant bacteria, as well as those in critical condition. Multiple computer programs are available to help determine the dosage of antibiotics by estimating drug exposure and to provide recommendations. However, clinical trials are needed to assess the pros and cons of applying therapeutic monitoring for types of antibiotics other than those for which a given type is already used (for example, aminoglycosides and glycopeptides).

One technology that could help in antibiotic use optimization programs is microneedle-based biosensors, which could be implanted in the skin for real-time antibiotic monitoring. This tool “could be the first step in establishing automated antibiotic administration systems, with infusion pumps and feedback systems, like those already used in diabetes for insulin administration,” said Dr. Oteo.

Artificial intelligence could also be a valuable technology for optimization programs. “We should go a step further in the implementation of artificial intelligence through clinical decision support systems,” said Dr. Oteo. This technology would guide the administration of antimicrobials using data extracted from the electronic medical record. However, there are great challenges to overcome in creating these tools, such as the risk of entering erroneous data; the difficulty in entering complex data, such as data relevant to antibiotic resistance; and the variability at the geographic and institutional levels.

Genomics is also a tool with great potential for identifying bacteria’s degree of resistance to antibiotics by studying mutations in chromosomal and acquired genes. A proof-of-concept study evaluated the sensitivity of different Pseudomonas aeruginosa strains to several antibiotics by analyzing genome sequences associated with resistance, said Dr. Otero. The researchers found that this system was effective at predicting the sensitivity of bacteria from genomic data.

In the United States, the PATRIC bioinformatics center, which is financed by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, works with automated learning models to predict the antimicrobial resistance of different species of bacteria, including Staphylococcus aureus, Streptococcus pneumoniae, and Mycobacterium tuberculosis. These models, which work with genomic data associated with antibiotic resistance phenotypes, are able to identify resistance without prior knowledge of the underlying mechanisms.

Another factor to consider with regard to the use of precision medicine for infectious diseases is the microbiota. Dr. Oteo explained that the pathogenic microorganism interacts not only with the host but also with its microbiota, “which can be diverse, is manifold, and can be very different, depending on the circumstances. These interactions can be translated into ecological and evolutionary pressures that may have clinical significance.” One of the best-known examples is the possibility that a beta-lactamase–producing bacterium benefits other bacteria around it by secreting these enzymes. Furthermore, some known forms of bacterial interaction (such as plasmid transfer) are directly related to antibiotic resistance. Metagenomics, which involves the genetic study of communities of microbes, could provide more information for predicting and avoiding infections by multiresistant pathogens by monitoring the microbiome.

The CRISPR-Cas9 gene editing tool could also be an ally in the fight against antibiotic resistance by eliminating resistance genes and thus making bacteria sensitive to certain antibiotics. Several published preliminary studies indicate that this is possible in vitro. The main challenge for the clinical application of CRISPR is in introducing it into the target microbial population. Use of conjugative plasmids and bacteriophages could perhaps be an option for overcoming this obstacle in the future.

Exploiting the possibilities of precision medicine through use of the most innovative tools in addressing antibiotic resistance is a great challenge, said Dr. Oteo, but the situation demands it, and it is necessary to take small steps to achieve this goal.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com. This article was translated from Univadis Spain.

Diversity is an omnipresent element in clinical practice: in the genome, in the environment, in patients’ lifestyles and habits. Precision medicine addresses the variability of the individual to improve diagnosis and treatment. It is increasingly used in specialties such as oncology, neurology, and cardiology. A personalized approach has many objectives, including to optimize treatment, minimize the risk of adverse effects, facilitate early diagnosis, and determine predisposition to disease. Genomic technologies, such as massive sequencing techniques, and tools such as CRISPR-Cas9 are key to the future of personalized medicine.

Jesús Oteo Iglesias, MD, PhD, a specialist in microbiology and director of Spain’s National Center for Microbiology, spoke at the Spanish Association of Infectious Diseases and Clinical Microbiology’s recent conference. He discussed various precision medicine projects aimed at reinforcing the fight against antibiotic resistance.

Infectious diseases are complex because the diversity of the pathogenic microorganism combines with the patient’s own diversity, which influences the interaction between the two, said Dr. Oteo. Thus, the antibiogram and targeted antibiotic treatments (which are chosen according to the species, sensitivity to antimicrobials, type of infection, and patient characteristics) have been established applications of precision medicine for decades. However, multiple tools could further strengthen personalized medicine against multiresistant pathogens.

Therapeutic drug monitoring, in which multiple pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic factors are considered, is a strategy with great potential to increase the effectiveness of antibiotics and minimize toxicity. Owing to its costs and the need for trained staff, this tool would be especially indicated in the treatment of patients with more complex conditions, such as those suffering from obesity, complex infections, or infections with multiresistant bacteria, as well as those in critical condition. Multiple computer programs are available to help determine the dosage of antibiotics by estimating drug exposure and to provide recommendations. However, clinical trials are needed to assess the pros and cons of applying therapeutic monitoring for types of antibiotics other than those for which a given type is already used (for example, aminoglycosides and glycopeptides).

One technology that could help in antibiotic use optimization programs is microneedle-based biosensors, which could be implanted in the skin for real-time antibiotic monitoring. This tool “could be the first step in establishing automated antibiotic administration systems, with infusion pumps and feedback systems, like those already used in diabetes for insulin administration,” said Dr. Oteo.

Artificial intelligence could also be a valuable technology for optimization programs. “We should go a step further in the implementation of artificial intelligence through clinical decision support systems,” said Dr. Oteo. This technology would guide the administration of antimicrobials using data extracted from the electronic medical record. However, there are great challenges to overcome in creating these tools, such as the risk of entering erroneous data; the difficulty in entering complex data, such as data relevant to antibiotic resistance; and the variability at the geographic and institutional levels.

Genomics is also a tool with great potential for identifying bacteria’s degree of resistance to antibiotics by studying mutations in chromosomal and acquired genes. A proof-of-concept study evaluated the sensitivity of different Pseudomonas aeruginosa strains to several antibiotics by analyzing genome sequences associated with resistance, said Dr. Otero. The researchers found that this system was effective at predicting the sensitivity of bacteria from genomic data.

In the United States, the PATRIC bioinformatics center, which is financed by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, works with automated learning models to predict the antimicrobial resistance of different species of bacteria, including Staphylococcus aureus, Streptococcus pneumoniae, and Mycobacterium tuberculosis. These models, which work with genomic data associated with antibiotic resistance phenotypes, are able to identify resistance without prior knowledge of the underlying mechanisms.

Another factor to consider with regard to the use of precision medicine for infectious diseases is the microbiota. Dr. Oteo explained that the pathogenic microorganism interacts not only with the host but also with its microbiota, “which can be diverse, is manifold, and can be very different, depending on the circumstances. These interactions can be translated into ecological and evolutionary pressures that may have clinical significance.” One of the best-known examples is the possibility that a beta-lactamase–producing bacterium benefits other bacteria around it by secreting these enzymes. Furthermore, some known forms of bacterial interaction (such as plasmid transfer) are directly related to antibiotic resistance. Metagenomics, which involves the genetic study of communities of microbes, could provide more information for predicting and avoiding infections by multiresistant pathogens by monitoring the microbiome.

The CRISPR-Cas9 gene editing tool could also be an ally in the fight against antibiotic resistance by eliminating resistance genes and thus making bacteria sensitive to certain antibiotics. Several published preliminary studies indicate that this is possible in vitro. The main challenge for the clinical application of CRISPR is in introducing it into the target microbial population. Use of conjugative plasmids and bacteriophages could perhaps be an option for overcoming this obstacle in the future.

Exploiting the possibilities of precision medicine through use of the most innovative tools in addressing antibiotic resistance is a great challenge, said Dr. Oteo, but the situation demands it, and it is necessary to take small steps to achieve this goal.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com. This article was translated from Univadis Spain.

Diversity is an omnipresent element in clinical practice: in the genome, in the environment, in patients’ lifestyles and habits. Precision medicine addresses the variability of the individual to improve diagnosis and treatment. It is increasingly used in specialties such as oncology, neurology, and cardiology. A personalized approach has many objectives, including to optimize treatment, minimize the risk of adverse effects, facilitate early diagnosis, and determine predisposition to disease. Genomic technologies, such as massive sequencing techniques, and tools such as CRISPR-Cas9 are key to the future of personalized medicine.

Jesús Oteo Iglesias, MD, PhD, a specialist in microbiology and director of Spain’s National Center for Microbiology, spoke at the Spanish Association of Infectious Diseases and Clinical Microbiology’s recent conference. He discussed various precision medicine projects aimed at reinforcing the fight against antibiotic resistance.

Infectious diseases are complex because the diversity of the pathogenic microorganism combines with the patient’s own diversity, which influences the interaction between the two, said Dr. Oteo. Thus, the antibiogram and targeted antibiotic treatments (which are chosen according to the species, sensitivity to antimicrobials, type of infection, and patient characteristics) have been established applications of precision medicine for decades. However, multiple tools could further strengthen personalized medicine against multiresistant pathogens.

Therapeutic drug monitoring, in which multiple pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic factors are considered, is a strategy with great potential to increase the effectiveness of antibiotics and minimize toxicity. Owing to its costs and the need for trained staff, this tool would be especially indicated in the treatment of patients with more complex conditions, such as those suffering from obesity, complex infections, or infections with multiresistant bacteria, as well as those in critical condition. Multiple computer programs are available to help determine the dosage of antibiotics by estimating drug exposure and to provide recommendations. However, clinical trials are needed to assess the pros and cons of applying therapeutic monitoring for types of antibiotics other than those for which a given type is already used (for example, aminoglycosides and glycopeptides).

One technology that could help in antibiotic use optimization programs is microneedle-based biosensors, which could be implanted in the skin for real-time antibiotic monitoring. This tool “could be the first step in establishing automated antibiotic administration systems, with infusion pumps and feedback systems, like those already used in diabetes for insulin administration,” said Dr. Oteo.

Artificial intelligence could also be a valuable technology for optimization programs. “We should go a step further in the implementation of artificial intelligence through clinical decision support systems,” said Dr. Oteo. This technology would guide the administration of antimicrobials using data extracted from the electronic medical record. However, there are great challenges to overcome in creating these tools, such as the risk of entering erroneous data; the difficulty in entering complex data, such as data relevant to antibiotic resistance; and the variability at the geographic and institutional levels.

Genomics is also a tool with great potential for identifying bacteria’s degree of resistance to antibiotics by studying mutations in chromosomal and acquired genes. A proof-of-concept study evaluated the sensitivity of different Pseudomonas aeruginosa strains to several antibiotics by analyzing genome sequences associated with resistance, said Dr. Otero. The researchers found that this system was effective at predicting the sensitivity of bacteria from genomic data.

In the United States, the PATRIC bioinformatics center, which is financed by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, works with automated learning models to predict the antimicrobial resistance of different species of bacteria, including Staphylococcus aureus, Streptococcus pneumoniae, and Mycobacterium tuberculosis. These models, which work with genomic data associated with antibiotic resistance phenotypes, are able to identify resistance without prior knowledge of the underlying mechanisms.

Another factor to consider with regard to the use of precision medicine for infectious diseases is the microbiota. Dr. Oteo explained that the pathogenic microorganism interacts not only with the host but also with its microbiota, “which can be diverse, is manifold, and can be very different, depending on the circumstances. These interactions can be translated into ecological and evolutionary pressures that may have clinical significance.” One of the best-known examples is the possibility that a beta-lactamase–producing bacterium benefits other bacteria around it by secreting these enzymes. Furthermore, some known forms of bacterial interaction (such as plasmid transfer) are directly related to antibiotic resistance. Metagenomics, which involves the genetic study of communities of microbes, could provide more information for predicting and avoiding infections by multiresistant pathogens by monitoring the microbiome.

The CRISPR-Cas9 gene editing tool could also be an ally in the fight against antibiotic resistance by eliminating resistance genes and thus making bacteria sensitive to certain antibiotics. Several published preliminary studies indicate that this is possible in vitro. The main challenge for the clinical application of CRISPR is in introducing it into the target microbial population. Use of conjugative plasmids and bacteriophages could perhaps be an option for overcoming this obstacle in the future.

Exploiting the possibilities of precision medicine through use of the most innovative tools in addressing antibiotic resistance is a great challenge, said Dr. Oteo, but the situation demands it, and it is necessary to take small steps to achieve this goal.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com. This article was translated from Univadis Spain.

DENVER – Psychedelics such as psilocybin “truly have the potential to transform how we treat a number of neuropsychiatric diseases, including headaches,” a neuropharmacologist told colleagues at the annual meeting of the American Headache Society.

However, Bryan Roth, MD, PhD, professor of pharmacology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, also offered a major cautionary note: There have been no randomized, phase 3 trials of psychedelics, and he bluntly said that “I do not recommend the use of psychedelics for any medical condition.”

The potential disease-altering powers of psychedelics have received a tremendous amount of research and media attention over the past several years. A landmark randomized, double-blind study released in 2016 triggered much of the interest, Dr. Roth said, when it suggested that high-dose psilocybin significantly lowered levels of depressed mood/anxiety in patients with life-threatening cancer. At 6 months, 80% of patients who took the dose reported moderate or greater improvement in well-being/life satisfaction.

“You have the potential – unprecedented in psychiatry – that a single dose of a therapeutic agent may induce a rapid, robust, and sustained antidepressant action,” he said. Also of note: The “vast majority” of subjects say their encounter with a psychedelic was “one of the most meaningful experiences of their lives.”

Dr. Roth said his own research suggests that psychedelics cause a “huge increase” in the asynchronous firing of neurons. “Noise is being injected into the system and is interpreted by the brain or the mind, which always likes to make a story about what’s going on. The story it makes up is idiosyncratic to every person and memorable for reasons that are not understood.”

Now, Dr. Roth said, he and colleagues are working to “create drugs that have this potential remarkable therapeutic efficacy in psychiatric and neurologic disorders without the psychedelic effects.” A $27 million grant from the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency is providing support for their efforts, he said.

For the moment, he said, there’s no way to know if “the psychedelic experience is essential to the therapeutic action of these drugs. But it’s a testable hypothesis.”

As he noted, a tiny 2010 study of 2-bromo-lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD), which doesn’t cause hallucinations, showed promise as a treatment for cluster headaches.

For now, Dr. Roth said, his lab is synthesizing and testing new compounds that interact with the crucial 5-HT2A receptor.
 

Additional research

In another presentation at the AHS annual meeting, neurologist Emmanuelle A. D. Schindler, MD, PhD, of Yale School of Medicine, highlighted her 2021 study of an exploratory double-blind, placebo-controlled, cross-over study of psilocybin versus placebo for migraine headache. A single oral dose of the drug, the researchers found, reduced headache frequency and pain over 2 weeks. The study is small, with just 10 subjects, and multiple exclusion criteria.

She also revealed preliminary findings from an ongoing randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of psilocybin versus placebo in cluster headaches. In 14 subjects, a psilocybin pulse was linked to fewer cluster attacks over 3 weeks, although the effect wasn’t statistically significant. However, there was a statistically significant reduction over 8 weeks in patients with chronic headache.

Dr. Schindler noted that “with these early studies, we only looked out to 2 weeks for migraine, and we only looked out to 2 months for cluster.” There are multiple other limitations, she acknowledged. “We have to do a lot more research and consider safety as well.”

However, “there is a really unique capacity for lasting effects after limited dosing,” she added, and the studies do show reductions in headache burden “that do not correlate with acute psychedelic effects.”

Moving forward, Dr. Roth cautioned that while U.S. states are allowing the use of psychedelics for medical purposes, “we don’t know if they ultimately are therapeutic. And we have strong reason to believe that microdosing or chronic dosing of these compounds is ultimately going to be deleterious to the health of our patients.”

Dr. Roth did not provide disclosure information. Dr. Schindler discloses research funding (Ceruvia Lifesciences, Wallace Research Foundation, Clusterbusters, Department of Veterans Affairs), serves on advisory boards (Ceruvia Lifesciences, Clusterbusters), and has a patent.

DENVER – Psychedelics such as psilocybin “truly have the potential to transform how we treat a number of neuropsychiatric diseases, including headaches,” a neuropharmacologist told colleagues at the annual meeting of the American Headache Society.

However, Bryan Roth, MD, PhD, professor of pharmacology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, also offered a major cautionary note: There have been no randomized, phase 3 trials of psychedelics, and he bluntly said that “I do not recommend the use of psychedelics for any medical condition.”

The potential disease-altering powers of psychedelics have received a tremendous amount of research and media attention over the past several years. A landmark randomized, double-blind study released in 2016 triggered much of the interest, Dr. Roth said, when it suggested that high-dose psilocybin significantly lowered levels of depressed mood/anxiety in patients with life-threatening cancer. At 6 months, 80% of patients who took the dose reported moderate or greater improvement in well-being/life satisfaction.

“You have the potential – unprecedented in psychiatry – that a single dose of a therapeutic agent may induce a rapid, robust, and sustained antidepressant action,” he said. Also of note: The “vast majority” of subjects say their encounter with a psychedelic was “one of the most meaningful experiences of their lives.”

Dr. Roth said his own research suggests that psychedelics cause a “huge increase” in the asynchronous firing of neurons. “Noise is being injected into the system and is interpreted by the brain or the mind, which always likes to make a story about what’s going on. The story it makes up is idiosyncratic to every person and memorable for reasons that are not understood.”

Now, Dr. Roth said, he and colleagues are working to “create drugs that have this potential remarkable therapeutic efficacy in psychiatric and neurologic disorders without the psychedelic effects.” A $27 million grant from the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency is providing support for their efforts, he said.

For the moment, he said, there’s no way to know if “the psychedelic experience is essential to the therapeutic action of these drugs. But it’s a testable hypothesis.”

As he noted, a tiny 2010 study of 2-bromo-lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD), which doesn’t cause hallucinations, showed promise as a treatment for cluster headaches.

For now, Dr. Roth said, his lab is synthesizing and testing new compounds that interact with the crucial 5-HT2A receptor.
 

Additional research

In another presentation at the AHS annual meeting, neurologist Emmanuelle A. D. Schindler, MD, PhD, of Yale School of Medicine, highlighted her 2021 study of an exploratory double-blind, placebo-controlled, cross-over study of psilocybin versus placebo for migraine headache. A single oral dose of the drug, the researchers found, reduced headache frequency and pain over 2 weeks. The study is small, with just 10 subjects, and multiple exclusion criteria.

She also revealed preliminary findings from an ongoing randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of psilocybin versus placebo in cluster headaches. In 14 subjects, a psilocybin pulse was linked to fewer cluster attacks over 3 weeks, although the effect wasn’t statistically significant. However, there was a statistically significant reduction over 8 weeks in patients with chronic headache.

Dr. Schindler noted that “with these early studies, we only looked out to 2 weeks for migraine, and we only looked out to 2 months for cluster.” There are multiple other limitations, she acknowledged. “We have to do a lot more research and consider safety as well.”

However, “there is a really unique capacity for lasting effects after limited dosing,” she added, and the studies do show reductions in headache burden “that do not correlate with acute psychedelic effects.”

Moving forward, Dr. Roth cautioned that while U.S. states are allowing the use of psychedelics for medical purposes, “we don’t know if they ultimately are therapeutic. And we have strong reason to believe that microdosing or chronic dosing of these compounds is ultimately going to be deleterious to the health of our patients.”

Dr. Roth did not provide disclosure information. Dr. Schindler discloses research funding (Ceruvia Lifesciences, Wallace Research Foundation, Clusterbusters, Department of Veterans Affairs), serves on advisory boards (Ceruvia Lifesciences, Clusterbusters), and has a patent.

DENVER – Psychedelics such as psilocybin “truly have the potential to transform how we treat a number of neuropsychiatric diseases, including headaches,” a neuropharmacologist told colleagues at the annual meeting of the American Headache Society.

However, Bryan Roth, MD, PhD, professor of pharmacology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, also offered a major cautionary note: There have been no randomized, phase 3 trials of psychedelics, and he bluntly said that “I do not recommend the use of psychedelics for any medical condition.”

The potential disease-altering powers of psychedelics have received a tremendous amount of research and media attention over the past several years. A landmark randomized, double-blind study released in 2016 triggered much of the interest, Dr. Roth said, when it suggested that high-dose psilocybin significantly lowered levels of depressed mood/anxiety in patients with life-threatening cancer. At 6 months, 80% of patients who took the dose reported moderate or greater improvement in well-being/life satisfaction.

“You have the potential – unprecedented in psychiatry – that a single dose of a therapeutic agent may induce a rapid, robust, and sustained antidepressant action,” he said. Also of note: The “vast majority” of subjects say their encounter with a psychedelic was “one of the most meaningful experiences of their lives.”

Dr. Roth said his own research suggests that psychedelics cause a “huge increase” in the asynchronous firing of neurons. “Noise is being injected into the system and is interpreted by the brain or the mind, which always likes to make a story about what’s going on. The story it makes up is idiosyncratic to every person and memorable for reasons that are not understood.”

Now, Dr. Roth said, he and colleagues are working to “create drugs that have this potential remarkable therapeutic efficacy in psychiatric and neurologic disorders without the psychedelic effects.” A $27 million grant from the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency is providing support for their efforts, he said.

For the moment, he said, there’s no way to know if “the psychedelic experience is essential to the therapeutic action of these drugs. But it’s a testable hypothesis.”

As he noted, a tiny 2010 study of 2-bromo-lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD), which doesn’t cause hallucinations, showed promise as a treatment for cluster headaches.

For now, Dr. Roth said, his lab is synthesizing and testing new compounds that interact with the crucial 5-HT2A receptor.
 

Additional research

In another presentation at the AHS annual meeting, neurologist Emmanuelle A. D. Schindler, MD, PhD, of Yale School of Medicine, highlighted her 2021 study of an exploratory double-blind, placebo-controlled, cross-over study of psilocybin versus placebo for migraine headache. A single oral dose of the drug, the researchers found, reduced headache frequency and pain over 2 weeks. The study is small, with just 10 subjects, and multiple exclusion criteria.

She also revealed preliminary findings from an ongoing randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of psilocybin versus placebo in cluster headaches. In 14 subjects, a psilocybin pulse was linked to fewer cluster attacks over 3 weeks, although the effect wasn’t statistically significant. However, there was a statistically significant reduction over 8 weeks in patients with chronic headache.

Dr. Schindler noted that “with these early studies, we only looked out to 2 weeks for migraine, and we only looked out to 2 months for cluster.” There are multiple other limitations, she acknowledged. “We have to do a lot more research and consider safety as well.”

However, “there is a really unique capacity for lasting effects after limited dosing,” she added, and the studies do show reductions in headache burden “that do not correlate with acute psychedelic effects.”

Moving forward, Dr. Roth cautioned that while U.S. states are allowing the use of psychedelics for medical purposes, “we don’t know if they ultimately are therapeutic. And we have strong reason to believe that microdosing or chronic dosing of these compounds is ultimately going to be deleterious to the health of our patients.”

Dr. Roth did not provide disclosure information. Dr. Schindler discloses research funding (Ceruvia Lifesciences, Wallace Research Foundation, Clusterbusters, Department of Veterans Affairs), serves on advisory boards (Ceruvia Lifesciences, Clusterbusters), and has a patent.