Pharmacology

BOSTON – Requests for a medical waiver to avoid a second COVID-19 vaccine dose or a booster after cutaneous reactions to the first dose are not justified on the basis of risk, according to an analysis of several large sets of data presented at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology.

According to the data, “there are no serious adverse consequences from these cutaneous reactions,” said Esther Freeman, MD, PhD, director of Global Health Dermatology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.

This is important because the risk of vaccine hesitancy goes up dramatically in patients who experience reactions to the first vaccine dose, according to follow-up of more than 50,000 employees vaccinated in the Mass General Brigham Healthcare System (MGBHS). According to Dr. Freeman, there was almost a fourfold increase in the rate of second-dose refusals for those with cutaneous reactions and a more than fourfold increase in those who developed angioedema.

Before the data were available, skin reactions were a source of concern among dermatologists and others involved in monitoring vaccine-related adverse events. Injection site reactions (ISRs) are associated with essentially every injectable vaccine, so these were expected, but a small proportion of patients developed large red plaques in the injection arm 7-8 days after the inoculation.

“These delayed reactions caused a lot of initial panic,” said Dr. Freeman, who counted herself among those alarmed about what the reactions might signify. “Was this cellulitis? Would the next dose cause anaphylaxis? We were concerned.”

This concern dissipated with the availability of more data. In a global registry that has so far captured more than 1,000 cutaneous reactions from 52 participating countries, it appears that about 2% of patients have a cutaneous reaction other than an ISR after the first dose. All resolve with minimal skin care or no treatment.

After the second dose, the proportion is lower. If there is a reaction, it typically occurs earlier and resolves more quickly.

“What we have learned is that fewer than half of patients who had a reaction to the first dose have a reaction to the second, and those who did have a reaction had a milder course,” said Dr. Freeman.

These data are “incredibly reassuring” on many levels, she explained. In addition, it allows clinicians to confidently explain to patients that there are no serious sequelae from the rashes, whether immediate or delayed, from the available COVID-19 vaccines.

“Every skin reaction I have seen is something we can treat through,” she added, noting that most reactions resolve with little or no supportive care. Following skin reactions, particularly the delayed lesions, it is not uncommon for patients to refuse a second shot. Some request a medical waiver to avoid further vaccine exposure. According to Dr. Freeman, this is unwarranted.

“I have granted exactly zero waivers,” she said. She explains to patients that these reactions have not been predictive of serious events, such as anaphylaxis. Although the trigger of the hypersensitivity reaction remains unknown, there is no evidence of serious consequences.

Delayed skin reactions are more commonly associated with the Moderna than the Pfizer vaccine. One notable difference between these vaccines is the greater content of mRNA in the Moderna formulation, but Freeman said that this is only one potential hypothesis for higher frequency of reactions to this version of the vaccine.

Patients with a history of allergic disease are more likely to develop a reaction but not significantly more likely to have a reaction that is more difficult to manage, according to Kimberly G. Blumenthal, MD, quality and safety officer for allergy, and codirector of the clinical epidemiology program in the division of rheumatology, allergy, and immunology at Mass General.

Massachusetts General Hospital

Anaphylaxis has been associated with COVD-19 vaccines just as it has with essentially every injectable vaccine, Dr. Blumenthal said during the same session. But the risk is very low, and it stays low even among those with a history of severe hypersensitivity reactions in the past.

Among the data collected from more than 52,000 vaccinated MGBHS employees, 0.9% had a history of severe allergic reaction to a prior vaccine. Of these, 11.6% had an allergic reaction to the COVID-19 vaccine. This was more than twice the 4.6% rate of allergic reactions among employees without a history of allergic reactions, but serious consequences were rare in both groups.

Of those with a reaction to the first dose, all but 2.4% took a subsequent dose. Again, serious reactions were exceedingly rare. These serious reactions did include anaphylaxis and hospitalization in 3% of patients, but there were no fatalities and all resolved.

The absence of serious sequelae from a reaction to a COVID-19 vaccine must be considered within the context of the benefit, which includes protection from death and hospitalization from the virus, according to Dr. Blumenthal. Citing the evidence that first-shot reactions are a source of vaccine hesitancy, she agreed that it is important to educate patients about relative risks.

“Even in our own cohort of MGBHS employees, we have people, including those who had been provaccine in the past, become hesitant,” commented Dr. Blumenthal, who said there are data from the Kaiser Permanente System showing similar vaccine reluctance following a first-shot reaction.

After more than 500 million doses of the Moderna and Pfizer vaccines had been administered worldwide, there was not a single reported death from anaphylaxis. Although Dr. Blumenthal said that an unconfirmed death of this type had been recently reported, she emphasized that this single death, if valid, is dwarfed by the lives saved with vaccination.

Asked about her strategy for counseling patients with vaccine hesitancy, Dr. Freeman said the body of safety data is large and compelling. There is overwhelming evidence of a favorable benefit-to-risk ratio overall and among those with a first-shot reaction.

“I can reassure them on the basis of the data,” Dr. Freeman said in an interview. “Less than half will have a reaction to the second shot and even if they do have a reaction, it is likely to be less severe.”

Although the main message is that vaccination is potentially lifesaving and far outweighs any risks, Freeman specifically gives this message to those hesitant to take a second shot after a first-shot reaction: “I can get you through it.”

Dr. Freeman encouraged health care professionals to report cases of COVID-19 vaccine–related dermatologic side effects to the American Academy of Dermatology / International League of Dermatologic Societies COVID-19 dermatology registry. Dermatologic manifestations of COVID-19 can also be reported to the registry.

Dr. Freeman disclosed receiving grants/research funding from the International League of Dermatologic Societies and from the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Blumenthal disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

BOSTON – Requests for a medical waiver to avoid a second COVID-19 vaccine dose or a booster after cutaneous reactions to the first dose are not justified on the basis of risk, according to an analysis of several large sets of data presented at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology.

According to the data, “there are no serious adverse consequences from these cutaneous reactions,” said Esther Freeman, MD, PhD, director of Global Health Dermatology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.

This is important because the risk of vaccine hesitancy goes up dramatically in patients who experience reactions to the first vaccine dose, according to follow-up of more than 50,000 employees vaccinated in the Mass General Brigham Healthcare System (MGBHS). According to Dr. Freeman, there was almost a fourfold increase in the rate of second-dose refusals for those with cutaneous reactions and a more than fourfold increase in those who developed angioedema.

Before the data were available, skin reactions were a source of concern among dermatologists and others involved in monitoring vaccine-related adverse events. Injection site reactions (ISRs) are associated with essentially every injectable vaccine, so these were expected, but a small proportion of patients developed large red plaques in the injection arm 7-8 days after the inoculation.

“These delayed reactions caused a lot of initial panic,” said Dr. Freeman, who counted herself among those alarmed about what the reactions might signify. “Was this cellulitis? Would the next dose cause anaphylaxis? We were concerned.”

This concern dissipated with the availability of more data. In a global registry that has so far captured more than 1,000 cutaneous reactions from 52 participating countries, it appears that about 2% of patients have a cutaneous reaction other than an ISR after the first dose. All resolve with minimal skin care or no treatment.

After the second dose, the proportion is lower. If there is a reaction, it typically occurs earlier and resolves more quickly.

“What we have learned is that fewer than half of patients who had a reaction to the first dose have a reaction to the second, and those who did have a reaction had a milder course,” said Dr. Freeman.

These data are “incredibly reassuring” on many levels, she explained. In addition, it allows clinicians to confidently explain to patients that there are no serious sequelae from the rashes, whether immediate or delayed, from the available COVID-19 vaccines.

“Every skin reaction I have seen is something we can treat through,” she added, noting that most reactions resolve with little or no supportive care. Following skin reactions, particularly the delayed lesions, it is not uncommon for patients to refuse a second shot. Some request a medical waiver to avoid further vaccine exposure. According to Dr. Freeman, this is unwarranted.

“I have granted exactly zero waivers,” she said. She explains to patients that these reactions have not been predictive of serious events, such as anaphylaxis. Although the trigger of the hypersensitivity reaction remains unknown, there is no evidence of serious consequences.

Delayed skin reactions are more commonly associated with the Moderna than the Pfizer vaccine. One notable difference between these vaccines is the greater content of mRNA in the Moderna formulation, but Freeman said that this is only one potential hypothesis for higher frequency of reactions to this version of the vaccine.

Patients with a history of allergic disease are more likely to develop a reaction but not significantly more likely to have a reaction that is more difficult to manage, according to Kimberly G. Blumenthal, MD, quality and safety officer for allergy, and codirector of the clinical epidemiology program in the division of rheumatology, allergy, and immunology at Mass General.

Massachusetts General Hospital

Anaphylaxis has been associated with COVD-19 vaccines just as it has with essentially every injectable vaccine, Dr. Blumenthal said during the same session. But the risk is very low, and it stays low even among those with a history of severe hypersensitivity reactions in the past.

Among the data collected from more than 52,000 vaccinated MGBHS employees, 0.9% had a history of severe allergic reaction to a prior vaccine. Of these, 11.6% had an allergic reaction to the COVID-19 vaccine. This was more than twice the 4.6% rate of allergic reactions among employees without a history of allergic reactions, but serious consequences were rare in both groups.

Of those with a reaction to the first dose, all but 2.4% took a subsequent dose. Again, serious reactions were exceedingly rare. These serious reactions did include anaphylaxis and hospitalization in 3% of patients, but there were no fatalities and all resolved.

The absence of serious sequelae from a reaction to a COVID-19 vaccine must be considered within the context of the benefit, which includes protection from death and hospitalization from the virus, according to Dr. Blumenthal. Citing the evidence that first-shot reactions are a source of vaccine hesitancy, she agreed that it is important to educate patients about relative risks.

“Even in our own cohort of MGBHS employees, we have people, including those who had been provaccine in the past, become hesitant,” commented Dr. Blumenthal, who said there are data from the Kaiser Permanente System showing similar vaccine reluctance following a first-shot reaction.

After more than 500 million doses of the Moderna and Pfizer vaccines had been administered worldwide, there was not a single reported death from anaphylaxis. Although Dr. Blumenthal said that an unconfirmed death of this type had been recently reported, she emphasized that this single death, if valid, is dwarfed by the lives saved with vaccination.

Asked about her strategy for counseling patients with vaccine hesitancy, Dr. Freeman said the body of safety data is large and compelling. There is overwhelming evidence of a favorable benefit-to-risk ratio overall and among those with a first-shot reaction.

“I can reassure them on the basis of the data,” Dr. Freeman said in an interview. “Less than half will have a reaction to the second shot and even if they do have a reaction, it is likely to be less severe.”

Although the main message is that vaccination is potentially lifesaving and far outweighs any risks, Freeman specifically gives this message to those hesitant to take a second shot after a first-shot reaction: “I can get you through it.”

Dr. Freeman encouraged health care professionals to report cases of COVID-19 vaccine–related dermatologic side effects to the American Academy of Dermatology / International League of Dermatologic Societies COVID-19 dermatology registry. Dermatologic manifestations of COVID-19 can also be reported to the registry.

Dr. Freeman disclosed receiving grants/research funding from the International League of Dermatologic Societies and from the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Blumenthal disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

BOSTON – Requests for a medical waiver to avoid a second COVID-19 vaccine dose or a booster after cutaneous reactions to the first dose are not justified on the basis of risk, according to an analysis of several large sets of data presented at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology.

According to the data, “there are no serious adverse consequences from these cutaneous reactions,” said Esther Freeman, MD, PhD, director of Global Health Dermatology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.

This is important because the risk of vaccine hesitancy goes up dramatically in patients who experience reactions to the first vaccine dose, according to follow-up of more than 50,000 employees vaccinated in the Mass General Brigham Healthcare System (MGBHS). According to Dr. Freeman, there was almost a fourfold increase in the rate of second-dose refusals for those with cutaneous reactions and a more than fourfold increase in those who developed angioedema.

Before the data were available, skin reactions were a source of concern among dermatologists and others involved in monitoring vaccine-related adverse events. Injection site reactions (ISRs) are associated with essentially every injectable vaccine, so these were expected, but a small proportion of patients developed large red plaques in the injection arm 7-8 days after the inoculation.

“These delayed reactions caused a lot of initial panic,” said Dr. Freeman, who counted herself among those alarmed about what the reactions might signify. “Was this cellulitis? Would the next dose cause anaphylaxis? We were concerned.”

This concern dissipated with the availability of more data. In a global registry that has so far captured more than 1,000 cutaneous reactions from 52 participating countries, it appears that about 2% of patients have a cutaneous reaction other than an ISR after the first dose. All resolve with minimal skin care or no treatment.

After the second dose, the proportion is lower. If there is a reaction, it typically occurs earlier and resolves more quickly.

“What we have learned is that fewer than half of patients who had a reaction to the first dose have a reaction to the second, and those who did have a reaction had a milder course,” said Dr. Freeman.

These data are “incredibly reassuring” on many levels, she explained. In addition, it allows clinicians to confidently explain to patients that there are no serious sequelae from the rashes, whether immediate or delayed, from the available COVID-19 vaccines.

“Every skin reaction I have seen is something we can treat through,” she added, noting that most reactions resolve with little or no supportive care. Following skin reactions, particularly the delayed lesions, it is not uncommon for patients to refuse a second shot. Some request a medical waiver to avoid further vaccine exposure. According to Dr. Freeman, this is unwarranted.

“I have granted exactly zero waivers,” she said. She explains to patients that these reactions have not been predictive of serious events, such as anaphylaxis. Although the trigger of the hypersensitivity reaction remains unknown, there is no evidence of serious consequences.

Delayed skin reactions are more commonly associated with the Moderna than the Pfizer vaccine. One notable difference between these vaccines is the greater content of mRNA in the Moderna formulation, but Freeman said that this is only one potential hypothesis for higher frequency of reactions to this version of the vaccine.

Patients with a history of allergic disease are more likely to develop a reaction but not significantly more likely to have a reaction that is more difficult to manage, according to Kimberly G. Blumenthal, MD, quality and safety officer for allergy, and codirector of the clinical epidemiology program in the division of rheumatology, allergy, and immunology at Mass General.

Massachusetts General Hospital

Anaphylaxis has been associated with COVD-19 vaccines just as it has with essentially every injectable vaccine, Dr. Blumenthal said during the same session. But the risk is very low, and it stays low even among those with a history of severe hypersensitivity reactions in the past.

Among the data collected from more than 52,000 vaccinated MGBHS employees, 0.9% had a history of severe allergic reaction to a prior vaccine. Of these, 11.6% had an allergic reaction to the COVID-19 vaccine. This was more than twice the 4.6% rate of allergic reactions among employees without a history of allergic reactions, but serious consequences were rare in both groups.

Of those with a reaction to the first dose, all but 2.4% took a subsequent dose. Again, serious reactions were exceedingly rare. These serious reactions did include anaphylaxis and hospitalization in 3% of patients, but there were no fatalities and all resolved.

The absence of serious sequelae from a reaction to a COVID-19 vaccine must be considered within the context of the benefit, which includes protection from death and hospitalization from the virus, according to Dr. Blumenthal. Citing the evidence that first-shot reactions are a source of vaccine hesitancy, she agreed that it is important to educate patients about relative risks.

“Even in our own cohort of MGBHS employees, we have people, including those who had been provaccine in the past, become hesitant,” commented Dr. Blumenthal, who said there are data from the Kaiser Permanente System showing similar vaccine reluctance following a first-shot reaction.

After more than 500 million doses of the Moderna and Pfizer vaccines had been administered worldwide, there was not a single reported death from anaphylaxis. Although Dr. Blumenthal said that an unconfirmed death of this type had been recently reported, she emphasized that this single death, if valid, is dwarfed by the lives saved with vaccination.

Asked about her strategy for counseling patients with vaccine hesitancy, Dr. Freeman said the body of safety data is large and compelling. There is overwhelming evidence of a favorable benefit-to-risk ratio overall and among those with a first-shot reaction.

“I can reassure them on the basis of the data,” Dr. Freeman said in an interview. “Less than half will have a reaction to the second shot and even if they do have a reaction, it is likely to be less severe.”

Although the main message is that vaccination is potentially lifesaving and far outweighs any risks, Freeman specifically gives this message to those hesitant to take a second shot after a first-shot reaction: “I can get you through it.”

Dr. Freeman encouraged health care professionals to report cases of COVID-19 vaccine–related dermatologic side effects to the American Academy of Dermatology / International League of Dermatologic Societies COVID-19 dermatology registry. Dermatologic manifestations of COVID-19 can also be reported to the registry.

Dr. Freeman disclosed receiving grants/research funding from the International League of Dermatologic Societies and from the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Blumenthal disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Antidopaminergic antiemetics (ADAs) that are widely used for nausea and vomiting, including that related to chemotherapy, have been associated with an increased risk of ischemic stroke in a new study from France.

The authors found that ADA users could be at a threefold increased risk of stroke shortly after the initiation of treatment.

Further analysis showed that all three ADAs studied (domperidone, metopimazine, and metoclopramide) were associated with an increased risk, especially in the first days of use, but the highest increase was found for metopimazine and metoclopramide.

The study was published online March 23, 2022, in the BMJ.

“Our results show that the risk of ischemic stroke appears to be associated with ADA use,” wrote the authors, led by Anne Bénard-Laribière, PharmD, MS, of the University of Bordeaux (France). They emphasized, however, that this is an observational study and cannot therefore establish causation.

One important note about this study is that patients with a history of cancer were specifically excluded. The authors did not elaborate on what the ADAs were being used for, other than to say that ADAs are used for nausea and vomiting of “variable origins,” and a press release noted that these drugs are often used by patients with migraine.

Hence it is not clear what relevance these findings have for patients with cancer, suggested an expert unrelated to the study, Ian Olver, MD, PhD, professorial research fellow, faculty of health and medical sciences, University of Adelaide.

“So the best that can be said, from my viewpoint, is that the ADAs studied have been associated with an increased risk of stroke in patients other than cancer patients,” he told this news organization.

In addition, he also emphasized that an observational study cannot establish causation.

For their study, the authors used data from the nationwide reimbursement database. Hence, they “needed to make the assumption that the date of reimbursement approximated to the date of administration, and that would not be the case for drugs used prophylactically prior to chemotherapy or radiotherapy,” Dr. Olver commented.

The authors were also unable to make any statement about dose and schedule. “Certainly chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting would require more intermittent dosing compared to noncancer uses,” Dr. Olver said. In addition, “metoclopramide in conventional doses is not very effective for this purpose and metopimazine is mainly used in Europe.”

Most patients with cancer would not be receiving these drugs, he suggested: “These days they would be receiving 5HT3 receptor antagonists and NK1 receptor antagonists and steroids.”
 

Study details

The French study investigated the risk of ischemic stroke associated with ADA use in a real-world setting. The authors conducted a case-time-control study using data from the nationwide French reimbursement health care system database Système National des Données de Santé.

They identified 2,612 patients from the database who had experienced a first ischemic stroke between 2012 and 2016 and had also received at least one reimbursement for domperidone, metopimazine, or metoclopramide during the 70-day period prior to their stroke.

The frequency of reimbursements for ADAs was compared with a risk period (1-14 days before a stroke) and three matched reference periods (57-70 days, 43-56 days, and 29-42 days before stroke).

Patients who had experienced a stroke were matched to a control group of 21,859 randomly selected healthy people who also received an ADA in the same time period.

Within the stroke cohort, 1,250 patients received an ADA at least once during the designated risk period and 1,060 in the reference periods. Among the controls, 5,128 and 13,165 received an ADA at least one time in the risk and reference periods, respectively.

This yielded a case-time-control ratio of adjusted odds ratios of 3.12, of a risk of stroke among new users. Stratification by age (<70 years and ≥70 years), sex, history of dementia, and gastroenteritis epidemic periods revealed similar results, although the highest case-time-control ratio observed in men(aOR, 3.59).

The risk of stroke appeared to increase for all ADAs, but the highest was for metopimazine (3.62-fold increase) and metoclopramide (a 3.53-fold increase), which are both drugs that have the ability to cross the blood-brain barrier.

The study was funded by Agence Nationale de Sécurité du Médicament et des Produits de Santé through a partnership with the Health Product Epidemiology Scientific Interest Group. All authors had financial support from ANSM for the submitted work; one coauthor disclosed relationships with Pfizer and Roche. Dr. Olver disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Antidopaminergic antiemetics (ADAs) that are widely used for nausea and vomiting, including that related to chemotherapy, have been associated with an increased risk of ischemic stroke in a new study from France.

The authors found that ADA users could be at a threefold increased risk of stroke shortly after the initiation of treatment.

Further analysis showed that all three ADAs studied (domperidone, metopimazine, and metoclopramide) were associated with an increased risk, especially in the first days of use, but the highest increase was found for metopimazine and metoclopramide.

The study was published online March 23, 2022, in the BMJ.

“Our results show that the risk of ischemic stroke appears to be associated with ADA use,” wrote the authors, led by Anne Bénard-Laribière, PharmD, MS, of the University of Bordeaux (France). They emphasized, however, that this is an observational study and cannot therefore establish causation.

One important note about this study is that patients with a history of cancer were specifically excluded. The authors did not elaborate on what the ADAs were being used for, other than to say that ADAs are used for nausea and vomiting of “variable origins,” and a press release noted that these drugs are often used by patients with migraine.

Hence it is not clear what relevance these findings have for patients with cancer, suggested an expert unrelated to the study, Ian Olver, MD, PhD, professorial research fellow, faculty of health and medical sciences, University of Adelaide.

“So the best that can be said, from my viewpoint, is that the ADAs studied have been associated with an increased risk of stroke in patients other than cancer patients,” he told this news organization.

In addition, he also emphasized that an observational study cannot establish causation.

For their study, the authors used data from the nationwide reimbursement database. Hence, they “needed to make the assumption that the date of reimbursement approximated to the date of administration, and that would not be the case for drugs used prophylactically prior to chemotherapy or radiotherapy,” Dr. Olver commented.

The authors were also unable to make any statement about dose and schedule. “Certainly chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting would require more intermittent dosing compared to noncancer uses,” Dr. Olver said. In addition, “metoclopramide in conventional doses is not very effective for this purpose and metopimazine is mainly used in Europe.”

Most patients with cancer would not be receiving these drugs, he suggested: “These days they would be receiving 5HT3 receptor antagonists and NK1 receptor antagonists and steroids.”
 

Study details

The French study investigated the risk of ischemic stroke associated with ADA use in a real-world setting. The authors conducted a case-time-control study using data from the nationwide French reimbursement health care system database Système National des Données de Santé.

They identified 2,612 patients from the database who had experienced a first ischemic stroke between 2012 and 2016 and had also received at least one reimbursement for domperidone, metopimazine, or metoclopramide during the 70-day period prior to their stroke.

The frequency of reimbursements for ADAs was compared with a risk period (1-14 days before a stroke) and three matched reference periods (57-70 days, 43-56 days, and 29-42 days before stroke).

Patients who had experienced a stroke were matched to a control group of 21,859 randomly selected healthy people who also received an ADA in the same time period.

Within the stroke cohort, 1,250 patients received an ADA at least once during the designated risk period and 1,060 in the reference periods. Among the controls, 5,128 and 13,165 received an ADA at least one time in the risk and reference periods, respectively.

This yielded a case-time-control ratio of adjusted odds ratios of 3.12, of a risk of stroke among new users. Stratification by age (<70 years and ≥70 years), sex, history of dementia, and gastroenteritis epidemic periods revealed similar results, although the highest case-time-control ratio observed in men(aOR, 3.59).

The risk of stroke appeared to increase for all ADAs, but the highest was for metopimazine (3.62-fold increase) and metoclopramide (a 3.53-fold increase), which are both drugs that have the ability to cross the blood-brain barrier.

The study was funded by Agence Nationale de Sécurité du Médicament et des Produits de Santé through a partnership with the Health Product Epidemiology Scientific Interest Group. All authors had financial support from ANSM for the submitted work; one coauthor disclosed relationships with Pfizer and Roche. Dr. Olver disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Antidopaminergic antiemetics (ADAs) that are widely used for nausea and vomiting, including that related to chemotherapy, have been associated with an increased risk of ischemic stroke in a new study from France.

The authors found that ADA users could be at a threefold increased risk of stroke shortly after the initiation of treatment.

Further analysis showed that all three ADAs studied (domperidone, metopimazine, and metoclopramide) were associated with an increased risk, especially in the first days of use, but the highest increase was found for metopimazine and metoclopramide.

The study was published online March 23, 2022, in the BMJ.

“Our results show that the risk of ischemic stroke appears to be associated with ADA use,” wrote the authors, led by Anne Bénard-Laribière, PharmD, MS, of the University of Bordeaux (France). They emphasized, however, that this is an observational study and cannot therefore establish causation.

One important note about this study is that patients with a history of cancer were specifically excluded. The authors did not elaborate on what the ADAs were being used for, other than to say that ADAs are used for nausea and vomiting of “variable origins,” and a press release noted that these drugs are often used by patients with migraine.

Hence it is not clear what relevance these findings have for patients with cancer, suggested an expert unrelated to the study, Ian Olver, MD, PhD, professorial research fellow, faculty of health and medical sciences, University of Adelaide.

“So the best that can be said, from my viewpoint, is that the ADAs studied have been associated with an increased risk of stroke in patients other than cancer patients,” he told this news organization.

In addition, he also emphasized that an observational study cannot establish causation.

For their study, the authors used data from the nationwide reimbursement database. Hence, they “needed to make the assumption that the date of reimbursement approximated to the date of administration, and that would not be the case for drugs used prophylactically prior to chemotherapy or radiotherapy,” Dr. Olver commented.

The authors were also unable to make any statement about dose and schedule. “Certainly chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting would require more intermittent dosing compared to noncancer uses,” Dr. Olver said. In addition, “metoclopramide in conventional doses is not very effective for this purpose and metopimazine is mainly used in Europe.”

Most patients with cancer would not be receiving these drugs, he suggested: “These days they would be receiving 5HT3 receptor antagonists and NK1 receptor antagonists and steroids.”
 

Study details

The French study investigated the risk of ischemic stroke associated with ADA use in a real-world setting. The authors conducted a case-time-control study using data from the nationwide French reimbursement health care system database Système National des Données de Santé.

They identified 2,612 patients from the database who had experienced a first ischemic stroke between 2012 and 2016 and had also received at least one reimbursement for domperidone, metopimazine, or metoclopramide during the 70-day period prior to their stroke.

The frequency of reimbursements for ADAs was compared with a risk period (1-14 days before a stroke) and three matched reference periods (57-70 days, 43-56 days, and 29-42 days before stroke).

Patients who had experienced a stroke were matched to a control group of 21,859 randomly selected healthy people who also received an ADA in the same time period.

Within the stroke cohort, 1,250 patients received an ADA at least once during the designated risk period and 1,060 in the reference periods. Among the controls, 5,128 and 13,165 received an ADA at least one time in the risk and reference periods, respectively.

This yielded a case-time-control ratio of adjusted odds ratios of 3.12, of a risk of stroke among new users. Stratification by age (<70 years and ≥70 years), sex, history of dementia, and gastroenteritis epidemic periods revealed similar results, although the highest case-time-control ratio observed in men(aOR, 3.59).

The risk of stroke appeared to increase for all ADAs, but the highest was for metopimazine (3.62-fold increase) and metoclopramide (a 3.53-fold increase), which are both drugs that have the ability to cross the blood-brain barrier.

The study was funded by Agence Nationale de Sécurité du Médicament et des Produits de Santé through a partnership with the Health Product Epidemiology Scientific Interest Group. All authors had financial support from ANSM for the submitted work; one coauthor disclosed relationships with Pfizer and Roche. Dr. Olver disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Treatment with a glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist was associated with a 37% increase in the relative risk of gallbladder or biliary disease, compared with controls – especially when used at high doses, for a longer time, and for weight loss rather than type 2 diabetes – a new meta-analysis has found.

The results “indicate that physicians and patients should be concerned about the risks of gallbladder or biliary diseases with using GLP-1 agonists,” study authors Liyun He and colleagues from Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, summarize.

However, “the overall absolute risk increase for gallbladder and biliary disease with use of GLP-1 receptor agonists was small (an additional 27 cases per 10,000 persons treated per year),” they note.

“This absolute risk increase should be weighed against the benefits of treatment with GLP-1 agonists,” which include glucose control, decreased cardiovascular risk, and weight loss, they add.

The findings are from a meta-analysis of 76 randomized controlled trials of GLP-1 agonists published online March 28 in JAMA Internal Medicine.

In an accompanying editorial, Shanzay Haider, MD, and Kasia J. Lipska, MD, also characterize the absolute risk of these complications as “modest.”

“The highest risk for these complications,” they add, “occurred among individuals in the weight loss, compared with the type 2 diabetes studies (119 vs. 13 more events per 10,000 persons per year).”

“Ultimately, the decision to start, continue, or change the dose of a GLP-1 agonist should be reached through a collaborative and individualized discussion between a clinician and a patient,” Dr. Haider and Dr. Lipska, from Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Conn., summarize.

The study authors also note that few of the trials reported biliary-related events.

“Future trials [of drugs in this class] should prespecify gallbladder and biliary diseases as potential adverse events, and fully test for and report on these outcomes,” they urge.   

Certain drugs in this class are now approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for weight loss at higher doses than for type 2 diabetes – subcutaneous liraglutide (3.0 mg) and subcutaneous semaglutide (2.4 mg) – “suggesting that GLP-1 agonist drugs will increasingly be used at high doses for weight control,” the authors note.

Controversial link

The association between GLP-1 agonists and gallbladder or biliary disease is controversial, the authors write.

Several randomized controlled trials reported higher rates of gallbladder disorders in patients who received a GLP-1 agonist versus placebo, but it is not clear if this is a class effect.

Liraglutide “has drawn the most attention” about this risk, and a post-hoc analysis of the LEADER trial found a significantly increased risk of acute biliary obstruction with liraglutide versus placebo.

To investigate this, the researchers identified 76 randomized controlled trials of GLP-1 agonists in 103,371 patients that had data for the following safety outcomes: cholelithiasis (gallstones, 61 trials), cholecystitis (inflamed gallbladder, 53 trials), biliary disease (21 trials), cholecystectomy (surgical removal of the gallbladder, seven trials), and biliary cancer (12 trials).

Sixty trials were for type 2 diabetes, 13 were for weight loss, and three were for nonalcoholic steatohepatitis, polycystic ovary syndrome, and schizophrenia. They were classed as short or long (≤ 26 weeks or > 26 weeks).

The GLP-1 agonists were liraglutide (21 trials), subcutaneous semaglutide (14), dulaglutide (11), exenatide (9), albiglutide (8), oral semaglutide (8), and lixisenatide (6). 

Participants were a mean age of 58 years and 41% were women. They had a mean BMI of 31.6 kg/m² and 36.9 kg/m² in trials of GLP-1 agonists for type 2 diabetes and weight loss, respectively.  

Patients who received a GLP-1 agonist versus controls had significantly increased rates of cholelithiasis (RR, 1.27; P = .001), cholecystitis (RR, 1.36; P < .001), biliary disease (RR, 1.55; P = .02), and cholecystectomy (RR, 1.70; P < .001) but a nonsignificant increased rate of biliary cancer (RR, 1.43; P = .22).

Use of GLP-1 agonists was associated with a greater increased risk of gallbladder or biliary diseases in trials for weight loss (RR, 2.29) than in trials for type 2 diabetes or other diseases (RR, 1.27; P < .001 for interaction).

Use of these drugs was also associated with higher risks of these complications at higher doses and when given for a longer duration.     

Limitations of the meta-analysis include that the individual studies were not designed to evaluate the risk of gallbladder or biliary diseases associated with GLP-1 agonists.

Also, biliary-related events may have been under-reported, because this was not a predefined safety outcome in most of the trials. The meta-analysis lacked patient-level data, and it may have been underpowered for subgroup analyses.       

The work was supported by grants from the National Natural Science Foundation of China, the Beijing Municipal Natural Science Foundation, the Nonprofit Central Research Institute Fund of the Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, the CAMS Innovation Fund for Medical Sciences, and the Training Program for Excellent Talents in Dongcheng District. The researchers have no relevant financial disclosures.

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

Treatment with a glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist was associated with a 37% increase in the relative risk of gallbladder or biliary disease, compared with controls – especially when used at high doses, for a longer time, and for weight loss rather than type 2 diabetes – a new meta-analysis has found.

The results “indicate that physicians and patients should be concerned about the risks of gallbladder or biliary diseases with using GLP-1 agonists,” study authors Liyun He and colleagues from Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, summarize.

However, “the overall absolute risk increase for gallbladder and biliary disease with use of GLP-1 receptor agonists was small (an additional 27 cases per 10,000 persons treated per year),” they note.

“This absolute risk increase should be weighed against the benefits of treatment with GLP-1 agonists,” which include glucose control, decreased cardiovascular risk, and weight loss, they add.

The findings are from a meta-analysis of 76 randomized controlled trials of GLP-1 agonists published online March 28 in JAMA Internal Medicine.

In an accompanying editorial, Shanzay Haider, MD, and Kasia J. Lipska, MD, also characterize the absolute risk of these complications as “modest.”

“The highest risk for these complications,” they add, “occurred among individuals in the weight loss, compared with the type 2 diabetes studies (119 vs. 13 more events per 10,000 persons per year).”

“Ultimately, the decision to start, continue, or change the dose of a GLP-1 agonist should be reached through a collaborative and individualized discussion between a clinician and a patient,” Dr. Haider and Dr. Lipska, from Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Conn., summarize.

The study authors also note that few of the trials reported biliary-related events.

“Future trials [of drugs in this class] should prespecify gallbladder and biliary diseases as potential adverse events, and fully test for and report on these outcomes,” they urge.   

Certain drugs in this class are now approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for weight loss at higher doses than for type 2 diabetes – subcutaneous liraglutide (3.0 mg) and subcutaneous semaglutide (2.4 mg) – “suggesting that GLP-1 agonist drugs will increasingly be used at high doses for weight control,” the authors note.

Controversial link

The association between GLP-1 agonists and gallbladder or biliary disease is controversial, the authors write.

Several randomized controlled trials reported higher rates of gallbladder disorders in patients who received a GLP-1 agonist versus placebo, but it is not clear if this is a class effect.

Liraglutide “has drawn the most attention” about this risk, and a post-hoc analysis of the LEADER trial found a significantly increased risk of acute biliary obstruction with liraglutide versus placebo.

To investigate this, the researchers identified 76 randomized controlled trials of GLP-1 agonists in 103,371 patients that had data for the following safety outcomes: cholelithiasis (gallstones, 61 trials), cholecystitis (inflamed gallbladder, 53 trials), biliary disease (21 trials), cholecystectomy (surgical removal of the gallbladder, seven trials), and biliary cancer (12 trials).

Sixty trials were for type 2 diabetes, 13 were for weight loss, and three were for nonalcoholic steatohepatitis, polycystic ovary syndrome, and schizophrenia. They were classed as short or long (≤ 26 weeks or > 26 weeks).

The GLP-1 agonists were liraglutide (21 trials), subcutaneous semaglutide (14), dulaglutide (11), exenatide (9), albiglutide (8), oral semaglutide (8), and lixisenatide (6). 

Participants were a mean age of 58 years and 41% were women. They had a mean BMI of 31.6 kg/m² and 36.9 kg/m² in trials of GLP-1 agonists for type 2 diabetes and weight loss, respectively.  

Patients who received a GLP-1 agonist versus controls had significantly increased rates of cholelithiasis (RR, 1.27; P = .001), cholecystitis (RR, 1.36; P < .001), biliary disease (RR, 1.55; P = .02), and cholecystectomy (RR, 1.70; P < .001) but a nonsignificant increased rate of biliary cancer (RR, 1.43; P = .22).

Use of GLP-1 agonists was associated with a greater increased risk of gallbladder or biliary diseases in trials for weight loss (RR, 2.29) than in trials for type 2 diabetes or other diseases (RR, 1.27; P < .001 for interaction).

Use of these drugs was also associated with higher risks of these complications at higher doses and when given for a longer duration.     

Limitations of the meta-analysis include that the individual studies were not designed to evaluate the risk of gallbladder or biliary diseases associated with GLP-1 agonists.

Also, biliary-related events may have been under-reported, because this was not a predefined safety outcome in most of the trials. The meta-analysis lacked patient-level data, and it may have been underpowered for subgroup analyses.       

The work was supported by grants from the National Natural Science Foundation of China, the Beijing Municipal Natural Science Foundation, the Nonprofit Central Research Institute Fund of the Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, the CAMS Innovation Fund for Medical Sciences, and the Training Program for Excellent Talents in Dongcheng District. The researchers have no relevant financial disclosures.

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

Treatment with a glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist was associated with a 37% increase in the relative risk of gallbladder or biliary disease, compared with controls – especially when used at high doses, for a longer time, and for weight loss rather than type 2 diabetes – a new meta-analysis has found.

The results “indicate that physicians and patients should be concerned about the risks of gallbladder or biliary diseases with using GLP-1 agonists,” study authors Liyun He and colleagues from Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, summarize.

However, “the overall absolute risk increase for gallbladder and biliary disease with use of GLP-1 receptor agonists was small (an additional 27 cases per 10,000 persons treated per year),” they note.

“This absolute risk increase should be weighed against the benefits of treatment with GLP-1 agonists,” which include glucose control, decreased cardiovascular risk, and weight loss, they add.

The findings are from a meta-analysis of 76 randomized controlled trials of GLP-1 agonists published online March 28 in JAMA Internal Medicine.

In an accompanying editorial, Shanzay Haider, MD, and Kasia J. Lipska, MD, also characterize the absolute risk of these complications as “modest.”

“The highest risk for these complications,” they add, “occurred among individuals in the weight loss, compared with the type 2 diabetes studies (119 vs. 13 more events per 10,000 persons per year).”

“Ultimately, the decision to start, continue, or change the dose of a GLP-1 agonist should be reached through a collaborative and individualized discussion between a clinician and a patient,” Dr. Haider and Dr. Lipska, from Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Conn., summarize.

The study authors also note that few of the trials reported biliary-related events.

“Future trials [of drugs in this class] should prespecify gallbladder and biliary diseases as potential adverse events, and fully test for and report on these outcomes,” they urge.   

Certain drugs in this class are now approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for weight loss at higher doses than for type 2 diabetes – subcutaneous liraglutide (3.0 mg) and subcutaneous semaglutide (2.4 mg) – “suggesting that GLP-1 agonist drugs will increasingly be used at high doses for weight control,” the authors note.

Controversial link

The association between GLP-1 agonists and gallbladder or biliary disease is controversial, the authors write.

Several randomized controlled trials reported higher rates of gallbladder disorders in patients who received a GLP-1 agonist versus placebo, but it is not clear if this is a class effect.

Liraglutide “has drawn the most attention” about this risk, and a post-hoc analysis of the LEADER trial found a significantly increased risk of acute biliary obstruction with liraglutide versus placebo.

To investigate this, the researchers identified 76 randomized controlled trials of GLP-1 agonists in 103,371 patients that had data for the following safety outcomes: cholelithiasis (gallstones, 61 trials), cholecystitis (inflamed gallbladder, 53 trials), biliary disease (21 trials), cholecystectomy (surgical removal of the gallbladder, seven trials), and biliary cancer (12 trials).

Sixty trials were for type 2 diabetes, 13 were for weight loss, and three were for nonalcoholic steatohepatitis, polycystic ovary syndrome, and schizophrenia. They were classed as short or long (≤ 26 weeks or > 26 weeks).

The GLP-1 agonists were liraglutide (21 trials), subcutaneous semaglutide (14), dulaglutide (11), exenatide (9), albiglutide (8), oral semaglutide (8), and lixisenatide (6). 

Participants were a mean age of 58 years and 41% were women. They had a mean BMI of 31.6 kg/m² and 36.9 kg/m² in trials of GLP-1 agonists for type 2 diabetes and weight loss, respectively.  

Patients who received a GLP-1 agonist versus controls had significantly increased rates of cholelithiasis (RR, 1.27; P = .001), cholecystitis (RR, 1.36; P < .001), biliary disease (RR, 1.55; P = .02), and cholecystectomy (RR, 1.70; P < .001) but a nonsignificant increased rate of biliary cancer (RR, 1.43; P = .22).

Use of GLP-1 agonists was associated with a greater increased risk of gallbladder or biliary diseases in trials for weight loss (RR, 2.29) than in trials for type 2 diabetes or other diseases (RR, 1.27; P < .001 for interaction).

Use of these drugs was also associated with higher risks of these complications at higher doses and when given for a longer duration.     

Limitations of the meta-analysis include that the individual studies were not designed to evaluate the risk of gallbladder or biliary diseases associated with GLP-1 agonists.

Also, biliary-related events may have been under-reported, because this was not a predefined safety outcome in most of the trials. The meta-analysis lacked patient-level data, and it may have been underpowered for subgroup analyses.       

The work was supported by grants from the National Natural Science Foundation of China, the Beijing Municipal Natural Science Foundation, the Nonprofit Central Research Institute Fund of the Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, the CAMS Innovation Fund for Medical Sciences, and the Training Program for Excellent Talents in Dongcheng District. The researchers have no relevant financial disclosures.

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

Older adults taking psychotropic medication before contracting COVID-19 are at increased risk of dementia in the year following the illness, new research suggests.

Results from a large study of more than 1,700 patients who had been hospitalized with COVID showed a greater than twofold increased risk for post-COVID dementia in those taking antipsychotics and mood stabilizers/anticonvulsants – medications often used to treat schizophrenia, psychosis, bipolar disorder, and seizures.

“We know that pre-existing psychiatric illness is associated with poor COVID-19 outcomes, but our study is the first to show an association with certain psychiatric medications and dementia,” co-investigator Liron Sinvani, MD, the Feinstein Institutes for Medical Research, Manhasset, New York, said in an interview.

Feinstein Institutes for Medical Research

‘Striking’ dementia rate

Using electronic health records, the researchers evaluated pre-COVID psychotropic medication use and post-COVID dementia onset in 1,755 adults aged 65 and older. All were hospitalized with COVID-19 at Northwell Health between March 1 and April 20, 2020.

A “striking” 13% of the participants (n = 223) developed dementia within 1-year of follow-up, the investigators report.

Among the 438 patients (25%) exposed to at least one psychotropic medication before COVID-19, 105 (24%) developed dementia in the year following COVID versus 118 of 1,317 (9%) patients with no pre-COVID exposure to psychotropic medication (odds ratio, 3.2; 95% confidence interval, 2.37-4.32).

Both pre-COVID psychotropic medication use (OR, 2.7; 95% CI, 1.8-4.0, P < .001) and delirium (OR, 3.0; 95% CI, 1.9-4.6, P < .001) were significantly associated with post-COVID dementia at 1 year.

In a sensitivity analysis in the subset of 423 patients with at least one documented neurologic or psychiatric diagnosis at the time of COVID admission, and after adjusting for confounding factors, pre-COVID psychotropic medication use remained significantly linked to post-COVID dementia onset (OR, 3.09; 95% CI, 1.5-6.6, P = .002).

Drug classes most strongly associated with 1-year post-COVID dementia onset were antipsychotics (OR, 2.8, 95% CI, 1.7-4.4, P < .001) and mood stabilizers/anticonvulsants (OR, 2.4, 95% CI, 1.39-4.02, P = .001).

In a further exploratory analysis, the psychotropics valproic acid (multiple brands) and haloperidol (Haldol) had the largest association with post-COVID dementia.

Antidepressants as a class were not associated with post-COVID dementia, but the potential effects of two commonly prescribed antidepressants in older adults, mirtazapine (Remeron) and escitalopram (Lexapro), “warrant further investigation,” the researchers note.
 

Predictive risk marker?

“This research shows that psychotropic medications can be considered a predictive risk marker for post-COVID dementia. In patients taking psychotropic medications, COVID-19 could have accelerated progression of dementia after hospitalization,” lead author Yun Freudenberg-Hua, MD, the Feinstein Institutes, said in a news release.

It is unclear why psychotropic medications may raise the risk for dementia onset after COVID, the investigators note.

“It is intuitive that psychotropic medications indicate pre-existing neuropsychiatric conditions in which COVID-19 occurs. It is possible that psychotropic medications may potentiate the neurostructural changes that have been found in the brain of those who have recovered from COVID-19,” they write.

The sensitivity analysis in patients with documented neurologic and psychiatric diagnoses supports this interpretation. 

COVID-19 may also accelerate the underlying brain disorders for which psychotropic medications were prescribed, leading to the greater incidence of post-COVID dementia, the researchers write.

“It is important to note that this study is in no way recommending people should stop taking antipsychotics but simply that clinicians need to factor in a patient’s medication history while considering post-COVID aftereffects,” Dr. Freudenberg-Hua said.

“Given that the number of patients with dementia is projected to triple in the next 30 years, these findings have significant public health implications,” Dr. Sinvani added.

She noted that “care partners and health care professionals” should look for early signs of dementia, such as forgetfulness and depressive symptoms, in their patients.

“Future studies must continue to evaluate these associations, which are key for potential future interventions to prevent dementia,” Dr. Sinvani said.

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Freudenberg-Hua co-owns stock and stock options from Regeneron Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Sinvani has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Older adults taking psychotropic medication before contracting COVID-19 are at increased risk of dementia in the year following the illness, new research suggests.

Results from a large study of more than 1,700 patients who had been hospitalized with COVID showed a greater than twofold increased risk for post-COVID dementia in those taking antipsychotics and mood stabilizers/anticonvulsants – medications often used to treat schizophrenia, psychosis, bipolar disorder, and seizures.

“We know that pre-existing psychiatric illness is associated with poor COVID-19 outcomes, but our study is the first to show an association with certain psychiatric medications and dementia,” co-investigator Liron Sinvani, MD, the Feinstein Institutes for Medical Research, Manhasset, New York, said in an interview.

Feinstein Institutes for Medical Research

‘Striking’ dementia rate

Using electronic health records, the researchers evaluated pre-COVID psychotropic medication use and post-COVID dementia onset in 1,755 adults aged 65 and older. All were hospitalized with COVID-19 at Northwell Health between March 1 and April 20, 2020.

A “striking” 13% of the participants (n = 223) developed dementia within 1-year of follow-up, the investigators report.

Among the 438 patients (25%) exposed to at least one psychotropic medication before COVID-19, 105 (24%) developed dementia in the year following COVID versus 118 of 1,317 (9%) patients with no pre-COVID exposure to psychotropic medication (odds ratio, 3.2; 95% confidence interval, 2.37-4.32).

Both pre-COVID psychotropic medication use (OR, 2.7; 95% CI, 1.8-4.0, P < .001) and delirium (OR, 3.0; 95% CI, 1.9-4.6, P < .001) were significantly associated with post-COVID dementia at 1 year.

In a sensitivity analysis in the subset of 423 patients with at least one documented neurologic or psychiatric diagnosis at the time of COVID admission, and after adjusting for confounding factors, pre-COVID psychotropic medication use remained significantly linked to post-COVID dementia onset (OR, 3.09; 95% CI, 1.5-6.6, P = .002).

Drug classes most strongly associated with 1-year post-COVID dementia onset were antipsychotics (OR, 2.8, 95% CI, 1.7-4.4, P < .001) and mood stabilizers/anticonvulsants (OR, 2.4, 95% CI, 1.39-4.02, P = .001).

In a further exploratory analysis, the psychotropics valproic acid (multiple brands) and haloperidol (Haldol) had the largest association with post-COVID dementia.

Antidepressants as a class were not associated with post-COVID dementia, but the potential effects of two commonly prescribed antidepressants in older adults, mirtazapine (Remeron) and escitalopram (Lexapro), “warrant further investigation,” the researchers note.
 

Predictive risk marker?

“This research shows that psychotropic medications can be considered a predictive risk marker for post-COVID dementia. In patients taking psychotropic medications, COVID-19 could have accelerated progression of dementia after hospitalization,” lead author Yun Freudenberg-Hua, MD, the Feinstein Institutes, said in a news release.

It is unclear why psychotropic medications may raise the risk for dementia onset after COVID, the investigators note.

“It is intuitive that psychotropic medications indicate pre-existing neuropsychiatric conditions in which COVID-19 occurs. It is possible that psychotropic medications may potentiate the neurostructural changes that have been found in the brain of those who have recovered from COVID-19,” they write.

The sensitivity analysis in patients with documented neurologic and psychiatric diagnoses supports this interpretation. 

COVID-19 may also accelerate the underlying brain disorders for which psychotropic medications were prescribed, leading to the greater incidence of post-COVID dementia, the researchers write.

“It is important to note that this study is in no way recommending people should stop taking antipsychotics but simply that clinicians need to factor in a patient’s medication history while considering post-COVID aftereffects,” Dr. Freudenberg-Hua said.

“Given that the number of patients with dementia is projected to triple in the next 30 years, these findings have significant public health implications,” Dr. Sinvani added.

She noted that “care partners and health care professionals” should look for early signs of dementia, such as forgetfulness and depressive symptoms, in their patients.

“Future studies must continue to evaluate these associations, which are key for potential future interventions to prevent dementia,” Dr. Sinvani said.

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Freudenberg-Hua co-owns stock and stock options from Regeneron Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Sinvani has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Older adults taking psychotropic medication before contracting COVID-19 are at increased risk of dementia in the year following the illness, new research suggests.

Results from a large study of more than 1,700 patients who had been hospitalized with COVID showed a greater than twofold increased risk for post-COVID dementia in those taking antipsychotics and mood stabilizers/anticonvulsants – medications often used to treat schizophrenia, psychosis, bipolar disorder, and seizures.

“We know that pre-existing psychiatric illness is associated with poor COVID-19 outcomes, but our study is the first to show an association with certain psychiatric medications and dementia,” co-investigator Liron Sinvani, MD, the Feinstein Institutes for Medical Research, Manhasset, New York, said in an interview.

Feinstein Institutes for Medical Research

‘Striking’ dementia rate

Using electronic health records, the researchers evaluated pre-COVID psychotropic medication use and post-COVID dementia onset in 1,755 adults aged 65 and older. All were hospitalized with COVID-19 at Northwell Health between March 1 and April 20, 2020.

A “striking” 13% of the participants (n = 223) developed dementia within 1-year of follow-up, the investigators report.

Among the 438 patients (25%) exposed to at least one psychotropic medication before COVID-19, 105 (24%) developed dementia in the year following COVID versus 118 of 1,317 (9%) patients with no pre-COVID exposure to psychotropic medication (odds ratio, 3.2; 95% confidence interval, 2.37-4.32).

Both pre-COVID psychotropic medication use (OR, 2.7; 95% CI, 1.8-4.0, P < .001) and delirium (OR, 3.0; 95% CI, 1.9-4.6, P < .001) were significantly associated with post-COVID dementia at 1 year.

In a sensitivity analysis in the subset of 423 patients with at least one documented neurologic or psychiatric diagnosis at the time of COVID admission, and after adjusting for confounding factors, pre-COVID psychotropic medication use remained significantly linked to post-COVID dementia onset (OR, 3.09; 95% CI, 1.5-6.6, P = .002).

Drug classes most strongly associated with 1-year post-COVID dementia onset were antipsychotics (OR, 2.8, 95% CI, 1.7-4.4, P < .001) and mood stabilizers/anticonvulsants (OR, 2.4, 95% CI, 1.39-4.02, P = .001).

In a further exploratory analysis, the psychotropics valproic acid (multiple brands) and haloperidol (Haldol) had the largest association with post-COVID dementia.

Antidepressants as a class were not associated with post-COVID dementia, but the potential effects of two commonly prescribed antidepressants in older adults, mirtazapine (Remeron) and escitalopram (Lexapro), “warrant further investigation,” the researchers note.
 

Predictive risk marker?

“This research shows that psychotropic medications can be considered a predictive risk marker for post-COVID dementia. In patients taking psychotropic medications, COVID-19 could have accelerated progression of dementia after hospitalization,” lead author Yun Freudenberg-Hua, MD, the Feinstein Institutes, said in a news release.

It is unclear why psychotropic medications may raise the risk for dementia onset after COVID, the investigators note.

“It is intuitive that psychotropic medications indicate pre-existing neuropsychiatric conditions in which COVID-19 occurs. It is possible that psychotropic medications may potentiate the neurostructural changes that have been found in the brain of those who have recovered from COVID-19,” they write.

The sensitivity analysis in patients with documented neurologic and psychiatric diagnoses supports this interpretation. 

COVID-19 may also accelerate the underlying brain disorders for which psychotropic medications were prescribed, leading to the greater incidence of post-COVID dementia, the researchers write.

“It is important to note that this study is in no way recommending people should stop taking antipsychotics but simply that clinicians need to factor in a patient’s medication history while considering post-COVID aftereffects,” Dr. Freudenberg-Hua said.

“Given that the number of patients with dementia is projected to triple in the next 30 years, these findings have significant public health implications,” Dr. Sinvani added.

She noted that “care partners and health care professionals” should look for early signs of dementia, such as forgetfulness and depressive symptoms, in their patients.

“Future studies must continue to evaluate these associations, which are key for potential future interventions to prevent dementia,” Dr. Sinvani said.

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Freudenberg-Hua co-owns stock and stock options from Regeneron Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Sinvani has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved a higher 2-mg dose of the GLP-1 agonist semaglutide (Ozempic, Novo Nordisk) for adults with type 2 diabetes, giving a higher-dose alternative to the previous maximum 1-mg dose of semaglutide, administered by subcutaneous injection once weekly.

Semaglutide is currently available as 0.5-mg and 1-mg doses.

Results from the pivotal SUSTAIN FORTE study of the 2-mg dose (which, like lower-dose semaglutide for type 2 diabetes, comes in a single-use pen injector) showed that when compared head-to-head with a 1-mg/week dose in a 40-week study with 961 randomized patients, the 2-mg regimen led to a significant average incremental reduction in A1c levels of 0.23 percentage points. The 2-mg dose also produced a significant incremental increase in weight loss, with patients losing 0.93 kg more on the higher dose.

The 2-mg dose gives patients with type 2 diabetes and clinicians an “additional option” when a bigger “shift” in blood glucose is needed, said Juan Pablo Frias, MD, National Research Institute, Los Angeles, California, who was lead investigator for SUSTAIN FORTE, in a written statement.

As well as reducing glucose levels, semaglutide has been shown to reduce the risk of major cardiovascular events in adults with type 2 diabetes and known cardiovascular disease.

Semaglutide was approved as a 2.4-mg injectable dose, as Wegovy, in 2021 for weight loss in patients with overweight or obesity.

SUSTAIN FORTE and other trials of semaglutide were sponsored by Novo Nordisk. SURPASS-2 and other trials of tirzepatide were sponsored by Lilly. Dr. Frias was lead investigator for both SUSTAIN FORTE and SURPASS-2, as well as an investigator for other trials sponsored by Lilly, Novo Nordisk, and other companies.

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved a higher 2-mg dose of the GLP-1 agonist semaglutide (Ozempic, Novo Nordisk) for adults with type 2 diabetes, giving a higher-dose alternative to the previous maximum 1-mg dose of semaglutide, administered by subcutaneous injection once weekly.

Semaglutide is currently available as 0.5-mg and 1-mg doses.

Results from the pivotal SUSTAIN FORTE study of the 2-mg dose (which, like lower-dose semaglutide for type 2 diabetes, comes in a single-use pen injector) showed that when compared head-to-head with a 1-mg/week dose in a 40-week study with 961 randomized patients, the 2-mg regimen led to a significant average incremental reduction in A1c levels of 0.23 percentage points. The 2-mg dose also produced a significant incremental increase in weight loss, with patients losing 0.93 kg more on the higher dose.

The 2-mg dose gives patients with type 2 diabetes and clinicians an “additional option” when a bigger “shift” in blood glucose is needed, said Juan Pablo Frias, MD, National Research Institute, Los Angeles, California, who was lead investigator for SUSTAIN FORTE, in a written statement.

As well as reducing glucose levels, semaglutide has been shown to reduce the risk of major cardiovascular events in adults with type 2 diabetes and known cardiovascular disease.

Semaglutide was approved as a 2.4-mg injectable dose, as Wegovy, in 2021 for weight loss in patients with overweight or obesity.

SUSTAIN FORTE and other trials of semaglutide were sponsored by Novo Nordisk. SURPASS-2 and other trials of tirzepatide were sponsored by Lilly. Dr. Frias was lead investigator for both SUSTAIN FORTE and SURPASS-2, as well as an investigator for other trials sponsored by Lilly, Novo Nordisk, and other companies.

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved a higher 2-mg dose of the GLP-1 agonist semaglutide (Ozempic, Novo Nordisk) for adults with type 2 diabetes, giving a higher-dose alternative to the previous maximum 1-mg dose of semaglutide, administered by subcutaneous injection once weekly.

Semaglutide is currently available as 0.5-mg and 1-mg doses.

Results from the pivotal SUSTAIN FORTE study of the 2-mg dose (which, like lower-dose semaglutide for type 2 diabetes, comes in a single-use pen injector) showed that when compared head-to-head with a 1-mg/week dose in a 40-week study with 961 randomized patients, the 2-mg regimen led to a significant average incremental reduction in A1c levels of 0.23 percentage points. The 2-mg dose also produced a significant incremental increase in weight loss, with patients losing 0.93 kg more on the higher dose.

The 2-mg dose gives patients with type 2 diabetes and clinicians an “additional option” when a bigger “shift” in blood glucose is needed, said Juan Pablo Frias, MD, National Research Institute, Los Angeles, California, who was lead investigator for SUSTAIN FORTE, in a written statement.

As well as reducing glucose levels, semaglutide has been shown to reduce the risk of major cardiovascular events in adults with type 2 diabetes and known cardiovascular disease.

Semaglutide was approved as a 2.4-mg injectable dose, as Wegovy, in 2021 for weight loss in patients with overweight or obesity.

SUSTAIN FORTE and other trials of semaglutide were sponsored by Novo Nordisk. SURPASS-2 and other trials of tirzepatide were sponsored by Lilly. Dr. Frias was lead investigator for both SUSTAIN FORTE and SURPASS-2, as well as an investigator for other trials sponsored by Lilly, Novo Nordisk, and other companies.

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

CHICAGO – Patients discharged to facilities rather than to home after total hip arthroplasty (THA) or total knee arthroplasty (TKA) may need more potent chemoprophylaxis than aspirin to prevent blood clots, new data suggest.

Researchers led by Stefano Muscatelli, MD, an orthopedist at Michigan Medicine, Ann Arbor, first aimed to determine whether there was an increase in risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in patients who were discharged to facilities such as a skilled nursing facility or inpatient rehabilitation facility, compared with those discharged to home after THA or TKA.

The second aim was to determine whether VTE risk differed between home- and non–home-discharge patients when stratified by the chemoprophylaxis prescribed to prevent VTE.

Findings were presented at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons by coauthor Michael McHugh, MD, also an orthopedist at Michigan Medicine in Ann Arbor.

The agents were categorized in three groups: aspirin only; more aggressive anticoagulants, including warfarin, factor Xa inhibitor, direct thrombin inhibitor, low-molecular-weight heparin, pentasaccharide, or antiplatelet agents, with or without concurrent aspirin; and other regimens.

The researchers found that rates of VTE were higher among patients discharged to facilities.

Of 6,411 patients included in the study, the overall rate of VTE was 1.05%. Among home-discharge patients (n = 5445), rates of VTE were significantly lower than among patients discharged to facilities (n = 966) (0.83% vs. 2.26%; P < .001).

However, the researchers found there was no difference in VTE rates between non-home and home discharge in patients who received more aggressive chemoprophylaxis.

Among discharged patients who received only aspirin, rates of VTE among those discharged to home were significantly lower compared to those discharged to facilities (0.76% vs. 3.83%; P < .001).

“Smoking, BMI [body mass index], procedure type, and preoperative anticoagulation were not associated with the outcome of VTE,” Dr. McHugh said.

“Although we found VTE to continue to be an uncommon complication, non-home discharge is independently associated with higher rates of VTE. Patients should be encouraged to discharge home, but those discharged to non-home facilities after total joint arthroplasty should be considered for more potent chemoprophylaxis than aspirin,” he concluded.

Stuart J. Fischer, MD, with Summit (N.J.) Orthopaedics and Sports Medicine, who was not part of the study, told this news organization that he found the results inconclusive.

He said there is the potential for confounding because “the people who are sent to a facility after total hip or total knee are inherently less mobile and less able to take care of themselves, so they are at a higher risk for VTE. They are going to be more static.”

Dr. Fischer noted that over the past few years, there has been a movement away from anticoagulation with more aggressive agents toward aspirin, for several reasons. Providers don’t have to monitor aspirin use and can instruct patients to take it once or twice a day. Initial data seem to show that it protects well against VTE.

“The question is, in certain population of patients, is it enough? And that’s where the data are unclear,” Dr. Fischer said.

“It’s certainly a useful study, and we need to find out which methods of anticoagulation are most effective in each setting,” he said.

Limitations include that it was a retrospective review and that adverse events from more aggressive chemoprophylaxis agents were not assessed. Prophylactic regimens were chosen at the discretion of the treating surgeon.

The researchers excluded bilateral cases, conversion arthroplasty, hip hemiarthroplasty, unicompartmental knee arthroplasty, and deaths.

Dr. Muscatelli and Dr. McHugh reported no relevant financial relationships. A coauthor reported being a paid consultant for DePuy and Zimmer. Dr. Fischer reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

CHICAGO – Patients discharged to facilities rather than to home after total hip arthroplasty (THA) or total knee arthroplasty (TKA) may need more potent chemoprophylaxis than aspirin to prevent blood clots, new data suggest.

Researchers led by Stefano Muscatelli, MD, an orthopedist at Michigan Medicine, Ann Arbor, first aimed to determine whether there was an increase in risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in patients who were discharged to facilities such as a skilled nursing facility or inpatient rehabilitation facility, compared with those discharged to home after THA or TKA.

The second aim was to determine whether VTE risk differed between home- and non–home-discharge patients when stratified by the chemoprophylaxis prescribed to prevent VTE.

Findings were presented at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons by coauthor Michael McHugh, MD, also an orthopedist at Michigan Medicine in Ann Arbor.

The agents were categorized in three groups: aspirin only; more aggressive anticoagulants, including warfarin, factor Xa inhibitor, direct thrombin inhibitor, low-molecular-weight heparin, pentasaccharide, or antiplatelet agents, with or without concurrent aspirin; and other regimens.

The researchers found that rates of VTE were higher among patients discharged to facilities.

Of 6,411 patients included in the study, the overall rate of VTE was 1.05%. Among home-discharge patients (n = 5445), rates of VTE were significantly lower than among patients discharged to facilities (n = 966) (0.83% vs. 2.26%; P < .001).

However, the researchers found there was no difference in VTE rates between non-home and home discharge in patients who received more aggressive chemoprophylaxis.

Among discharged patients who received only aspirin, rates of VTE among those discharged to home were significantly lower compared to those discharged to facilities (0.76% vs. 3.83%; P < .001).

“Smoking, BMI [body mass index], procedure type, and preoperative anticoagulation were not associated with the outcome of VTE,” Dr. McHugh said.

“Although we found VTE to continue to be an uncommon complication, non-home discharge is independently associated with higher rates of VTE. Patients should be encouraged to discharge home, but those discharged to non-home facilities after total joint arthroplasty should be considered for more potent chemoprophylaxis than aspirin,” he concluded.

Stuart J. Fischer, MD, with Summit (N.J.) Orthopaedics and Sports Medicine, who was not part of the study, told this news organization that he found the results inconclusive.

He said there is the potential for confounding because “the people who are sent to a facility after total hip or total knee are inherently less mobile and less able to take care of themselves, so they are at a higher risk for VTE. They are going to be more static.”

Dr. Fischer noted that over the past few years, there has been a movement away from anticoagulation with more aggressive agents toward aspirin, for several reasons. Providers don’t have to monitor aspirin use and can instruct patients to take it once or twice a day. Initial data seem to show that it protects well against VTE.

“The question is, in certain population of patients, is it enough? And that’s where the data are unclear,” Dr. Fischer said.

“It’s certainly a useful study, and we need to find out which methods of anticoagulation are most effective in each setting,” he said.

Limitations include that it was a retrospective review and that adverse events from more aggressive chemoprophylaxis agents were not assessed. Prophylactic regimens were chosen at the discretion of the treating surgeon.

The researchers excluded bilateral cases, conversion arthroplasty, hip hemiarthroplasty, unicompartmental knee arthroplasty, and deaths.

Dr. Muscatelli and Dr. McHugh reported no relevant financial relationships. A coauthor reported being a paid consultant for DePuy and Zimmer. Dr. Fischer reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

CHICAGO – Patients discharged to facilities rather than to home after total hip arthroplasty (THA) or total knee arthroplasty (TKA) may need more potent chemoprophylaxis than aspirin to prevent blood clots, new data suggest.

Researchers led by Stefano Muscatelli, MD, an orthopedist at Michigan Medicine, Ann Arbor, first aimed to determine whether there was an increase in risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in patients who were discharged to facilities such as a skilled nursing facility or inpatient rehabilitation facility, compared with those discharged to home after THA or TKA.

The second aim was to determine whether VTE risk differed between home- and non–home-discharge patients when stratified by the chemoprophylaxis prescribed to prevent VTE.

Findings were presented at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons by coauthor Michael McHugh, MD, also an orthopedist at Michigan Medicine in Ann Arbor.

The agents were categorized in three groups: aspirin only; more aggressive anticoagulants, including warfarin, factor Xa inhibitor, direct thrombin inhibitor, low-molecular-weight heparin, pentasaccharide, or antiplatelet agents, with or without concurrent aspirin; and other regimens.

The researchers found that rates of VTE were higher among patients discharged to facilities.

Of 6,411 patients included in the study, the overall rate of VTE was 1.05%. Among home-discharge patients (n = 5445), rates of VTE were significantly lower than among patients discharged to facilities (n = 966) (0.83% vs. 2.26%; P < .001).

However, the researchers found there was no difference in VTE rates between non-home and home discharge in patients who received more aggressive chemoprophylaxis.

Among discharged patients who received only aspirin, rates of VTE among those discharged to home were significantly lower compared to those discharged to facilities (0.76% vs. 3.83%; P < .001).

“Smoking, BMI [body mass index], procedure type, and preoperative anticoagulation were not associated with the outcome of VTE,” Dr. McHugh said.

“Although we found VTE to continue to be an uncommon complication, non-home discharge is independently associated with higher rates of VTE. Patients should be encouraged to discharge home, but those discharged to non-home facilities after total joint arthroplasty should be considered for more potent chemoprophylaxis than aspirin,” he concluded.

Stuart J. Fischer, MD, with Summit (N.J.) Orthopaedics and Sports Medicine, who was not part of the study, told this news organization that he found the results inconclusive.

He said there is the potential for confounding because “the people who are sent to a facility after total hip or total knee are inherently less mobile and less able to take care of themselves, so they are at a higher risk for VTE. They are going to be more static.”

Dr. Fischer noted that over the past few years, there has been a movement away from anticoagulation with more aggressive agents toward aspirin, for several reasons. Providers don’t have to monitor aspirin use and can instruct patients to take it once or twice a day. Initial data seem to show that it protects well against VTE.

“The question is, in certain population of patients, is it enough? And that’s where the data are unclear,” Dr. Fischer said.

“It’s certainly a useful study, and we need to find out which methods of anticoagulation are most effective in each setting,” he said.

Limitations include that it was a retrospective review and that adverse events from more aggressive chemoprophylaxis agents were not assessed. Prophylactic regimens were chosen at the discretion of the treating surgeon.

The researchers excluded bilateral cases, conversion arthroplasty, hip hemiarthroplasty, unicompartmental knee arthroplasty, and deaths.

Dr. Muscatelli and Dr. McHugh reported no relevant financial relationships. A coauthor reported being a paid consultant for DePuy and Zimmer. Dr. Fischer reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

CHICAGO – Access to medical cannabis (MC) cut opioid prescriptions for patients with chronic noncancer back pain and patients with osteoarthritis, according to preliminary data presented at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons.

For those with chronic back pain, the average morphine milligram equivalents (MME) per day dropped from 15.1 to 11.0 (n = 186; P < .01). More than one-third of the patients (38.7%) stopped taking morphine after they filled prescriptions for medical cannabis.

LPETTET/Getty Images

Opioid prescriptions were filled 6 months before access to MC and then were compared with 6 months after access to MC.

In analyzing subgroups, the researchers found that patients who started at less than 15 MME/day and more than 15 MME/day showed significant decreases after filling the MC prescription.

Almost half (48.5%) of the patients in the group that started at less than 15 MME daily dropped to 0 MME/day, and 13.5% of patients who were getting more than 15 MME/day stopped using opioids.

Data on filled opioid prescriptions were gathered from a Prescription Drug Monitoring Program (PDMP) system for patients diagnosed with chronic musculoskeletal noncancer back pain who were eligible for MC access between February 2018 and July 2019.

Medical cannabis has shown benefit in treating chronic pain, but evidence has been limited on whether it can reduce opioid use, which can lead to substance abuse, addiction, overdose, and death, the researchers noted.

Researchers found that using MC via multiple routes of administration seemed to be important.

Patients who used only a single administration route showed a statistically insignificant decrease in MME/day from 20.0 to 15.1 (n = 68; P = .054), whereas patients who used two or more routes showed a significant decrease from 13.2 to 9.5 (n = 76; P < .01).

“We have many patients who are benefiting from a single route of delivery for chronic orthopedic pain,” Ari Greis, DO, a physical medicine and rehabilitation specialist in Bryn Mawr, Pa., and a coauthor of the MC studies for both back pain and OA, said in an interview. “However, our data shows a greater reduction in opioid consumption in patients using more than one route of delivery.”

He said delivery modes in the studies included vaporized cannabis oil or flower; sublingual tinctures; capsules or tablets; and topical lotions, creams, and salves.

Dr. Greis is the director of the medical cannabis department at Rothman Orthopaedic Institute in Bryn Mawr, and is a senior fellow in the Institute of Emerging Health Professions and the Lambert Center for the Study of Medicinal Cannabis and Hemp, both in Philadelphia.
 

Medical cannabis also reduces opioids for OA

The same team of researchers, using the data from the PDMP system, showed that medical cannabis also helped reduce opioid use for osteoarthritis.

For patients using opioids for OA, there was a significant decrease in average MME/day of prescriptions filled by patients following MC access – from 18.2 to 9.8 (n = 40; P < .05). The average drop in MME/day was 46.3%. The percentage of patients who stopped using opioids was 37.5%. Pain score on a 0-10 visual analog scale decreased significantly from 6.6 (n = 36) to 5.0 (n = 26; P < .01) at 3 months and 5.4 (n = 16; P < .05) at 6 months.

Gary Stewart, MD, an orthopedic surgeon in Morrow, Ga., who was not part of the studies, told this news organization that the studies offer good preliminary data to offer help with the opioid issue.

“I sometimes feel that we, as orthopedic surgeons and physicians in general, are working with one hand behind our back. We’re taking something that is a heroin or morphine derivative and giving it to our patients when we know it has a high risk of building tolerance and addiction. But at the same time, we have no alternative,” he said.

He said it’s important to remember the results from the relatively small study are preliminary and observational. People used different forms and amounts of MC and the data show only that prescriptions were filled, but not whether the cannabis was used. Prospective, controlled studies where opioids go head-to-head with MC are needed, he said.

“Still, this can lead us to more studies to give us an option [apart from] an opioid that we know is highly addictive,” he said.

Dr. Stewart is a member of the AAOS Opioid Task Force. Dr. Greis and several coauthors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships, and other coauthors report financial ties to companies unrelated to the research presented.

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

CHICAGO – Access to medical cannabis (MC) cut opioid prescriptions for patients with chronic noncancer back pain and patients with osteoarthritis, according to preliminary data presented at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons.

For those with chronic back pain, the average morphine milligram equivalents (MME) per day dropped from 15.1 to 11.0 (n = 186; P < .01). More than one-third of the patients (38.7%) stopped taking morphine after they filled prescriptions for medical cannabis.

LPETTET/Getty Images

Opioid prescriptions were filled 6 months before access to MC and then were compared with 6 months after access to MC.

In analyzing subgroups, the researchers found that patients who started at less than 15 MME/day and more than 15 MME/day showed significant decreases after filling the MC prescription.

Almost half (48.5%) of the patients in the group that started at less than 15 MME daily dropped to 0 MME/day, and 13.5% of patients who were getting more than 15 MME/day stopped using opioids.

Data on filled opioid prescriptions were gathered from a Prescription Drug Monitoring Program (PDMP) system for patients diagnosed with chronic musculoskeletal noncancer back pain who were eligible for MC access between February 2018 and July 2019.

Medical cannabis has shown benefit in treating chronic pain, but evidence has been limited on whether it can reduce opioid use, which can lead to substance abuse, addiction, overdose, and death, the researchers noted.

Researchers found that using MC via multiple routes of administration seemed to be important.

Patients who used only a single administration route showed a statistically insignificant decrease in MME/day from 20.0 to 15.1 (n = 68; P = .054), whereas patients who used two or more routes showed a significant decrease from 13.2 to 9.5 (n = 76; P < .01).

“We have many patients who are benefiting from a single route of delivery for chronic orthopedic pain,” Ari Greis, DO, a physical medicine and rehabilitation specialist in Bryn Mawr, Pa., and a coauthor of the MC studies for both back pain and OA, said in an interview. “However, our data shows a greater reduction in opioid consumption in patients using more than one route of delivery.”

He said delivery modes in the studies included vaporized cannabis oil or flower; sublingual tinctures; capsules or tablets; and topical lotions, creams, and salves.

Dr. Greis is the director of the medical cannabis department at Rothman Orthopaedic Institute in Bryn Mawr, and is a senior fellow in the Institute of Emerging Health Professions and the Lambert Center for the Study of Medicinal Cannabis and Hemp, both in Philadelphia.
 

Medical cannabis also reduces opioids for OA

The same team of researchers, using the data from the PDMP system, showed that medical cannabis also helped reduce opioid use for osteoarthritis.

For patients using opioids for OA, there was a significant decrease in average MME/day of prescriptions filled by patients following MC access – from 18.2 to 9.8 (n = 40; P < .05). The average drop in MME/day was 46.3%. The percentage of patients who stopped using opioids was 37.5%. Pain score on a 0-10 visual analog scale decreased significantly from 6.6 (n = 36) to 5.0 (n = 26; P < .01) at 3 months and 5.4 (n = 16; P < .05) at 6 months.

Gary Stewart, MD, an orthopedic surgeon in Morrow, Ga., who was not part of the studies, told this news organization that the studies offer good preliminary data to offer help with the opioid issue.

“I sometimes feel that we, as orthopedic surgeons and physicians in general, are working with one hand behind our back. We’re taking something that is a heroin or morphine derivative and giving it to our patients when we know it has a high risk of building tolerance and addiction. But at the same time, we have no alternative,” he said.

He said it’s important to remember the results from the relatively small study are preliminary and observational. People used different forms and amounts of MC and the data show only that prescriptions were filled, but not whether the cannabis was used. Prospective, controlled studies where opioids go head-to-head with MC are needed, he said.

“Still, this can lead us to more studies to give us an option [apart from] an opioid that we know is highly addictive,” he said.

Dr. Stewart is a member of the AAOS Opioid Task Force. Dr. Greis and several coauthors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships, and other coauthors report financial ties to companies unrelated to the research presented.

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

CHICAGO – Access to medical cannabis (MC) cut opioid prescriptions for patients with chronic noncancer back pain and patients with osteoarthritis, according to preliminary data presented at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons.

For those with chronic back pain, the average morphine milligram equivalents (MME) per day dropped from 15.1 to 11.0 (n = 186; P < .01). More than one-third of the patients (38.7%) stopped taking morphine after they filled prescriptions for medical cannabis.

LPETTET/Getty Images

Opioid prescriptions were filled 6 months before access to MC and then were compared with 6 months after access to MC.

In analyzing subgroups, the researchers found that patients who started at less than 15 MME/day and more than 15 MME/day showed significant decreases after filling the MC prescription.

Almost half (48.5%) of the patients in the group that started at less than 15 MME daily dropped to 0 MME/day, and 13.5% of patients who were getting more than 15 MME/day stopped using opioids.

Data on filled opioid prescriptions were gathered from a Prescription Drug Monitoring Program (PDMP) system for patients diagnosed with chronic musculoskeletal noncancer back pain who were eligible for MC access between February 2018 and July 2019.

Medical cannabis has shown benefit in treating chronic pain, but evidence has been limited on whether it can reduce opioid use, which can lead to substance abuse, addiction, overdose, and death, the researchers noted.

Researchers found that using MC via multiple routes of administration seemed to be important.

Patients who used only a single administration route showed a statistically insignificant decrease in MME/day from 20.0 to 15.1 (n = 68; P = .054), whereas patients who used two or more routes showed a significant decrease from 13.2 to 9.5 (n = 76; P < .01).

“We have many patients who are benefiting from a single route of delivery for chronic orthopedic pain,” Ari Greis, DO, a physical medicine and rehabilitation specialist in Bryn Mawr, Pa., and a coauthor of the MC studies for both back pain and OA, said in an interview. “However, our data shows a greater reduction in opioid consumption in patients using more than one route of delivery.”

He said delivery modes in the studies included vaporized cannabis oil or flower; sublingual tinctures; capsules or tablets; and topical lotions, creams, and salves.

Dr. Greis is the director of the medical cannabis department at Rothman Orthopaedic Institute in Bryn Mawr, and is a senior fellow in the Institute of Emerging Health Professions and the Lambert Center for the Study of Medicinal Cannabis and Hemp, both in Philadelphia.
 

Medical cannabis also reduces opioids for OA

The same team of researchers, using the data from the PDMP system, showed that medical cannabis also helped reduce opioid use for osteoarthritis.

For patients using opioids for OA, there was a significant decrease in average MME/day of prescriptions filled by patients following MC access – from 18.2 to 9.8 (n = 40; P < .05). The average drop in MME/day was 46.3%. The percentage of patients who stopped using opioids was 37.5%. Pain score on a 0-10 visual analog scale decreased significantly from 6.6 (n = 36) to 5.0 (n = 26; P < .01) at 3 months and 5.4 (n = 16; P < .05) at 6 months.

Gary Stewart, MD, an orthopedic surgeon in Morrow, Ga., who was not part of the studies, told this news organization that the studies offer good preliminary data to offer help with the opioid issue.

“I sometimes feel that we, as orthopedic surgeons and physicians in general, are working with one hand behind our back. We’re taking something that is a heroin or morphine derivative and giving it to our patients when we know it has a high risk of building tolerance and addiction. But at the same time, we have no alternative,” he said.

He said it’s important to remember the results from the relatively small study are preliminary and observational. People used different forms and amounts of MC and the data show only that prescriptions were filled, but not whether the cannabis was used. Prospective, controlled studies where opioids go head-to-head with MC are needed, he said.

“Still, this can lead us to more studies to give us an option [apart from] an opioid that we know is highly addictive,” he said.

Dr. Stewart is a member of the AAOS Opioid Task Force. Dr. Greis and several coauthors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships, and other coauthors report financial ties to companies unrelated to the research presented.

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

The widely used antidiabetic drug metformin may cause genital birth defects such as undescended testicles and urethral problems in the male offspring of men who take the medication, researchers have found.

The association appears to involve the effects of metformin on the development of sperm during a critical window prior to conception. Female offspring were not affected. Although previous studies have linked diabetes with fertility problems in men, the latest study is the first to show that these problems can result from treatment rather than the disease itself, according to the researchers, whose findings appear in Annals of Internal Medicine.

“This is the first data to suggest that paternal metformin [use] may be associated with birth defects in children. As such, it would be early to begin to alter clinical practice,” Michael Eisenberg, MD, director of male reproductive medicine and surgery, department of urology, Stanford (Calif.) University, who is a coauthor of the study, said in an interview. “However, if it is confirmed in other populations, then it may begin to enter counseling discussions.”

Dr. Eisenberg added that eating a nutritious diet, exercising, and maintaining a healthy body weight “can improve a man’s health and likely his fertility as well.”

For the new study, Dr. Eisenberg and colleagues analyzed records in a registry of all 1.25 million births that occurred in Denmark between 1997 and 2016. The registry included information on birth defects and parental drug prescriptions.

Offspring were considered exposed to a diabetes drug if a father had filled one or more prescriptions for the medications during the 3 months prior to conception, when the fertilizing sperm would have been produced.

The final analysis included 1,116,779 offspring – all singleton births to women without a history of diabetes or essential hypertension – of whom 7,029 were exposed to diabetes drugs via the father, and 3.3% (n = 36,585) had one or more major birth defects.

Among male offspring whose fathers had taken metformin (n = 1,451), there was a 3.4-fold greater incidence of major genitourinary birth defects, according to the researchers. The study failed to find associations between birth defects and the use of insulin. Although a signal did emerge for sulfonylurea-based drugs, it did not reach statistical significance.

The risk associated with metformin did not appear for men who were prescribed the drug in the year before or after sperm development. Nor was it evident in siblings of the boys with birth defects who were not considered to have been exposed to the medication, the researchers reported.

In an editorial accompanying the journal article, Germaine Buck Louis, PhD, a reproductive and perinatal epidemiologist, wrote: “Given the prevalence of metformin use as first-line therapy for type 2 diabetes, corroboration of these findings is urgently needed.”

Dr. Louis, dean of the College of Health and Human Services at George Mason University, Washington, said a key limitation of the research is the lack of data on how well men in the study adhered to their diabetes treatment. Nevertheless, “clinical guidance is needed to help couples planning pregnancy weigh the risks and benefits of paternal metformin use relative to other medications.”

The researchers received funding from the National Institutes of Health and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

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

The widely used antidiabetic drug metformin may cause genital birth defects such as undescended testicles and urethral problems in the male offspring of men who take the medication, researchers have found.

The association appears to involve the effects of metformin on the development of sperm during a critical window prior to conception. Female offspring were not affected. Although previous studies have linked diabetes with fertility problems in men, the latest study is the first to show that these problems can result from treatment rather than the disease itself, according to the researchers, whose findings appear in Annals of Internal Medicine.

“This is the first data to suggest that paternal metformin [use] may be associated with birth defects in children. As such, it would be early to begin to alter clinical practice,” Michael Eisenberg, MD, director of male reproductive medicine and surgery, department of urology, Stanford (Calif.) University, who is a coauthor of the study, said in an interview. “However, if it is confirmed in other populations, then it may begin to enter counseling discussions.”

Dr. Eisenberg added that eating a nutritious diet, exercising, and maintaining a healthy body weight “can improve a man’s health and likely his fertility as well.”

For the new study, Dr. Eisenberg and colleagues analyzed records in a registry of all 1.25 million births that occurred in Denmark between 1997 and 2016. The registry included information on birth defects and parental drug prescriptions.

Offspring were considered exposed to a diabetes drug if a father had filled one or more prescriptions for the medications during the 3 months prior to conception, when the fertilizing sperm would have been produced.

The final analysis included 1,116,779 offspring – all singleton births to women without a history of diabetes or essential hypertension – of whom 7,029 were exposed to diabetes drugs via the father, and 3.3% (n = 36,585) had one or more major birth defects.

Among male offspring whose fathers had taken metformin (n = 1,451), there was a 3.4-fold greater incidence of major genitourinary birth defects, according to the researchers. The study failed to find associations between birth defects and the use of insulin. Although a signal did emerge for sulfonylurea-based drugs, it did not reach statistical significance.

The risk associated with metformin did not appear for men who were prescribed the drug in the year before or after sperm development. Nor was it evident in siblings of the boys with birth defects who were not considered to have been exposed to the medication, the researchers reported.

In an editorial accompanying the journal article, Germaine Buck Louis, PhD, a reproductive and perinatal epidemiologist, wrote: “Given the prevalence of metformin use as first-line therapy for type 2 diabetes, corroboration of these findings is urgently needed.”

Dr. Louis, dean of the College of Health and Human Services at George Mason University, Washington, said a key limitation of the research is the lack of data on how well men in the study adhered to their diabetes treatment. Nevertheless, “clinical guidance is needed to help couples planning pregnancy weigh the risks and benefits of paternal metformin use relative to other medications.”

The researchers received funding from the National Institutes of Health and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

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

The widely used antidiabetic drug metformin may cause genital birth defects such as undescended testicles and urethral problems in the male offspring of men who take the medication, researchers have found.

The association appears to involve the effects of metformin on the development of sperm during a critical window prior to conception. Female offspring were not affected. Although previous studies have linked diabetes with fertility problems in men, the latest study is the first to show that these problems can result from treatment rather than the disease itself, according to the researchers, whose findings appear in Annals of Internal Medicine.

“This is the first data to suggest that paternal metformin [use] may be associated with birth defects in children. As such, it would be early to begin to alter clinical practice,” Michael Eisenberg, MD, director of male reproductive medicine and surgery, department of urology, Stanford (Calif.) University, who is a coauthor of the study, said in an interview. “However, if it is confirmed in other populations, then it may begin to enter counseling discussions.”

Dr. Eisenberg added that eating a nutritious diet, exercising, and maintaining a healthy body weight “can improve a man’s health and likely his fertility as well.”

For the new study, Dr. Eisenberg and colleagues analyzed records in a registry of all 1.25 million births that occurred in Denmark between 1997 and 2016. The registry included information on birth defects and parental drug prescriptions.

Offspring were considered exposed to a diabetes drug if a father had filled one or more prescriptions for the medications during the 3 months prior to conception, when the fertilizing sperm would have been produced.

The final analysis included 1,116,779 offspring – all singleton births to women without a history of diabetes or essential hypertension – of whom 7,029 were exposed to diabetes drugs via the father, and 3.3% (n = 36,585) had one or more major birth defects.

Among male offspring whose fathers had taken metformin (n = 1,451), there was a 3.4-fold greater incidence of major genitourinary birth defects, according to the researchers. The study failed to find associations between birth defects and the use of insulin. Although a signal did emerge for sulfonylurea-based drugs, it did not reach statistical significance.

The risk associated with metformin did not appear for men who were prescribed the drug in the year before or after sperm development. Nor was it evident in siblings of the boys with birth defects who were not considered to have been exposed to the medication, the researchers reported.

In an editorial accompanying the journal article, Germaine Buck Louis, PhD, a reproductive and perinatal epidemiologist, wrote: “Given the prevalence of metformin use as first-line therapy for type 2 diabetes, corroboration of these findings is urgently needed.”

Dr. Louis, dean of the College of Health and Human Services at George Mason University, Washington, said a key limitation of the research is the lack of data on how well men in the study adhered to their diabetes treatment. Nevertheless, “clinical guidance is needed to help couples planning pregnancy weigh the risks and benefits of paternal metformin use relative to other medications.”

The researchers received funding from the National Institutes of Health and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

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

Is this the most controversial topic in breast oncology? Quite likely: the results of a recent online poll show split votes and no consensus.

The topic is the use of chemotherapy for premenopausal women with early-stage hormone receptor–positive (HR+), human epidermal growth factor receptor 2–negative (HER2-) breast cancer.

Is the use of chemo in this patient population merely a “graceless” means of achieving ovarian function suppression, as one expert argued in a recent debate?

Or does it offer a distinct cytotoxic benefit, as the other expert countered?

The debate was held during the recent San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium (SABCS), at which new results were presented that increased the controversy.

The controversy had arisen the previous year over results from the RxPONDER trial.

Five-year follow-up data from RxPONDER showed that adding chemotherapy to endocrine therapy did not improve outcomes over endocrine therapy alone for postmenopausal women with low-risk, node-positive HR+, HER2- breast cancer. This suggests that older women with early-stage breast cancer may safely forgo chemotherapy.

However, the same trial included premenopausal women with the same disease profile, and the results in this subgroup showed that there was benefit from chemotherapy, with a 5-year invasive disease-free survival (IDFS) rate of 94.2%, versus 89.0% for endocrine therapy alone (P = .0004).

The results were immediately controversial.

Some experts suggested the effect was due to the chemotherapy incidentally causing ovarian suppression, not the cytotoxic effect of the drugs on cancer cells. These experts were skeptical about the suggestion that chemotherapy works differently in premenopausal women than it does in postmenopausal women.

Some clinicians feel the lack of clarity creates an opportunity for greater discussion with women when making the treatment decision.

“When I have this conversation with patients, it’s really nuanced,” Stephanie L. Graff, MD, director of breast oncology, Lifespan Cancer Institute, Providence, R.I., told this news organization.

“I would choose chemotherapy for myself, but I’m a chemotherapy doctor, so I’m very comfortable with these medications and their side effects, and I am also very familiar with the slow burn of the side effects of endocrine therapy,” she said.

But for patients who are hearing their options for the first time, the idea of chemotherapy “feels scary,” and there is “a lot of stigma” associated with it, she commented.

Ultimately, she believes in offering patients as much information as possible, inasmuch as “knowledge is power.”

For Dr. Graff, the message from RxPONDER was that, in premenopausal patients with lymph node positive, HR+ breast cancer, “all comers benefited from chemotherapy.”

“And so if the goal is to be maximally aggressive and optimally lower your risk of distant recurrence, which is a life-threatening event, chemotherapy should offered.”

But chemotherapy comes with side effects, so it’s an important conversation to have with patients; RxPONDER showed that the absolute difference in the rate of distant recurrence with chemotherapy was relatively minor, she added.
 

Debate rages on

The debate at SABCS was moderated by Harold J. Burstein, MD, PhD, from the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, who commented that if this was “a compelling question last week in clinic, it has now become red hot.”

At the meeting, held in December 2021, new longer-term data from the SOFT and TEXT clinical trials were presented, showing that ovarian suppression with tamoxifen plus an aromatase inhibitor provides a greater reduction in long-term risk of recurrence than tamoxifen alone.

Moreover, updated results from RxPONDER presented at the same session revealed that chemoendocrine therapy was associated with longer IDFS and distant relapse-free survival than endocrine therapy alone for women with one to three positive lymph nodes and a recurrence score of 25 or lower on the Oncotype DX (Genomic Health) 21-gene breast cancer assay.

Dr. Burstein said the debate over the use of chemotherapy in premenopausal women “is the most interesting question right now in early-stage breast cancer.”

The debate focused on the effect of chemotherapy in these patients – was it all down to ovarian function suppression?

Yes, argued Michael Gnant, MD, from the Medical University of Vienna.

Data from “modern adjuvant chemotherapy trials” suggest that chemo offers a 2%-3% benefit in distant disease-free survival at 5 years for premenopausal women, he noted. But the effect is much larger with ovarian function suppression via endocrine therapy, which provides 5-year disease-free and overall survival benefits of 9%-13%.

Older studies have shown that the benefit with chemotherapy is seen only in women who experience amenorrhea with the cytotoxic drugs, Dr. Gnant noted.

“In short, if you give adjuvant chemotherapy and you induce amenorrhea, then there is going to be a survival difference,” he said. “But if you give adjuvant chemotherapy and there is no amenorrhea, there won’t be an outcome difference.”

The ABSCG-05 trial, which compared endocrine therapy with chemotherapy, showed that “in the presence of optimal endocrine adjuvant treatment, adjuvant chemotherapy doesn’t add anything, because you have already achieved the effect of treatment-induced amenorrhea.”

So Dr. Gnant argued that the effect of chemotherapy in RxPONDER was due to ovarian function suppression.

But the real question is: “What does it mean for clinical practice?”

Dr. Gnant asserted that for the “large group of lower-risk premenopausal patients, tamoxifen will be good enough,” while those at moderate or intermediate risk should receive ovarian function suppression with either tamoxifen or an aromatase inhibitor, with the choice dictated by their adverse effects.

Chemotherapy “is just a graceless method of ovarian function suppression and should only be given to high-risk patients and to patients with endocrine nonresponsive disease,” he argued.

On the other side of the debate, Sibylle Loibl, MD, PhD, from the Centre of Hematology and Oncology, Bethanien, Frankfurt, argued that the effect is not all due to ovarian function suppression and that chemotherapy also has a cytotoxic effect in these patients.

“We need chemotherapy” because “cancer in young women is biologically different,” she asserted.

Dr. Loibl pointed to data currently awaiting publication in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute that suggest that younger women have “higher immune gene expression” that may make them more chemotherapy sensitive, and lower expression of hormone receptor genes, which “could make them less endocrine sensitive.”

She also cited data from a study from her own group that showed that pathologic complete response rates to neoadjuvant chemotherapy were higher in younger women with HR+, HER2- breast cancer, indicating a direct effect of chemotherapy on the disease and that age was an important prognostic factor.

The data on the induction of amenorrhea by chemotherapy is also not as clearcut as it seems, she commented. Chemotherapy does not achieve 100% amenorrhea, and gonadotropin-releasing hormone analogues are unable to suppress ovarian function in 20% of women.

Dr. Loibl concluded that the “chemotherapy effect is there, it is higher in young women with HR+, HER2- breast cancer,” and that the effect has two components.

“There is a direct cytotoxic effect which cannot be neglected, and there is an endocrine effect on the ovarian function suppression,” she argued.

“I think both are needed in young premenopausal patients,” she added.
 

Audience responses

After the debate, the audience was polled on what effect they thought chemotherapy was having in lower-risk HR+, HER2- breast cancer patients. About two-thirds responded that it was all or mostly due to ovarian function suppression.

However, the next question split the audience. They were presented with a clinical scenario: a 43-year-old woman with a mammographically detected 1.4-cm, intermediate grade, HR+, HER2- breast cancer who also had metastatic disease in one of three sentinel lymph nodes and whose recurrence score was 13.

When asked about the treatment plan they would choose for this patient, the audience was split over whether to opt for chemoendocrine therapy or endocrine therapy alone.

A similar clinical question was posited recently on Twitter, when Angela Toss, MD, PhD, from the University of Modena and Reggio Emilia, Italy, asked respondents which they would chose from among three options.

From the 815 votes that were cast, 46% chose Oncotype DX testing to determine the likely benefit of chemotherapy, 48% chose chemotherapy, and 6% picked ovarian function suppression and an aromatase inhibitor.

In response, Paolo Tarantino, MD, from the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, commented: “If you had any doubt of which is the most controversial topic in breast oncology, doubt no more. 815 votes, no consensus.”

Approached for comment, Eric Winer, MD, director of the Yale Cancer Center, New Haven, Conn., said that the data from RxPONDER “in many ways was helpful, but ... it created about as many questions as it answered, if not more.”

Because the results showed a benefit from chemotherapy for premenopausal women but not for postmenopausal women with breast cancer, Dr. Winer told this news organization that one of the outstanding questions is “whether premenopausal women are fundamentally different from postmenopausal women ... and my answer to that is that is very unlikely.”

Dr. Winer added that the “real tragedy” of this trial was that it did not include women with more than three positive nodes, particularly those who have a low recurrence score, he said.

Clinicians are therefore left either “extrapolating” data from those with fewer nodes or “marching down a path that we’ve taken for years of just giving those people chemotherapy routinely,” even though there may be no benefit, Dr. Winer commented.

Another expert who was approached for comment had a different take on the data. Matteo Lambertini, MD, IRCCS Ospedale Policlinico San Martino, Genoa, Italy, agreed with Loibl’s argument that chemotherapy has a cytotoxic effect in premenopausal women with HR+, HER2- breast cancer in addition to its effect on ovarian function suppression.

He did not agree, however, that there is a question mark over what to do for patients with more than three positive lymph nodes.

Dr. Lambertini said in an interview that he thinks “too much” trust is placed in genomic testing and that there is a “risk of forgetting about all the other factors that we normally use to make our treatment choices.”

A patient with five positive nodes will benefit from chemotherapy, “even if she had a very low recurrence score,” he said, “because there is a very high clinical risk of disease recurrence,” and chemotherapy “is of benefit” in these situations, he asserted.

Dr. Lambertini said that the RxPONDER results – and also studies such as TAILORx, which demonstrated the ability of Oncotype DX to identify which patients with early breast cancer could skip chemotherapy – show that “chemotherapy has a role to play” and that most patients should receive it.

He suggested, however, that “probably the benefit of chemotherapy is smaller” in real life than was seen in these trials, because in the trials, they did not use optimal adjuvant endocrine therapy.
 

Treating individual patients

When it comes to making treatment decisions for individual patients, Dr. Winer said he has a “conversation with people about what the results of the study showed and what [he believes] that they need.”

For patients whose Oncotype DX score is in the “very low range, I do not recommend chemotherapy,” he said, preferring instead to use endocrine therapy for ovarian function suppression.

For women with a more intermediate score, “I explain that I don’t think we have an answer and that, if they would want to take the most traditional and conservative path, it would be to get chemotherapy.

“But I’m certainly not rigid about my recommendations, and I’m particularly open” to ovarian function suppression for a premenopausal woman with an Onctyope DX score of 20 and two positive nodes who does not have “other adverse features.”

“Ultimately, what pushes me in one direction or another,” Dr. Winer said, aside from number of positive nodes or the size of the tumor, “is the patient’s preferences.”

This was a theme taken up by Kim Sabelko, PhD, vice-president of scientific strategy and programs at Susan G. Komen, Dallas.

The results from RxPONDER and similar studies are “really interesting,” as researchers are “working out how to individualize treatment,” and that it is not a matter of “one size fits all.”

“We need to understand when to use chemotherapy and other drugs, and more importantly, when not to, because we don’t want to overtreat people who don’t necessarily need these drugs,” she commented.

Dr. Sabelko emphasized that treatment decisions “should be shared” between the patient and their doctor, and she noted that there “will be some people who are going to refuse chemotherapy for different reasons.”

These clinical trial results help clinicians to explain the risks and benefits of treatment options, but the treatment decision should be taken “together” with the patient, she emphasized.

Dr. Gnant has relationships with Sandoz, Amge, Daiichi Sankyo, AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Nanostring, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, TLC Pharmaceuticals, and Life Brain. Dr. Loibl has relationships with AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol-Meyers Squibb, Celgene, Daiichi Sankyo, Eirgenix, GSK, Gilead, Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, Medscape, Puma, Roche, Samsung, Seagen, VM Scope, and GBG Forschungs.

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

Is this the most controversial topic in breast oncology? Quite likely: the results of a recent online poll show split votes and no consensus.

The topic is the use of chemotherapy for premenopausal women with early-stage hormone receptor–positive (HR+), human epidermal growth factor receptor 2–negative (HER2-) breast cancer.

Is the use of chemo in this patient population merely a “graceless” means of achieving ovarian function suppression, as one expert argued in a recent debate?

Or does it offer a distinct cytotoxic benefit, as the other expert countered?

The debate was held during the recent San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium (SABCS), at which new results were presented that increased the controversy.

The controversy had arisen the previous year over results from the RxPONDER trial.

Five-year follow-up data from RxPONDER showed that adding chemotherapy to endocrine therapy did not improve outcomes over endocrine therapy alone for postmenopausal women with low-risk, node-positive HR+, HER2- breast cancer. This suggests that older women with early-stage breast cancer may safely forgo chemotherapy.

However, the same trial included premenopausal women with the same disease profile, and the results in this subgroup showed that there was benefit from chemotherapy, with a 5-year invasive disease-free survival (IDFS) rate of 94.2%, versus 89.0% for endocrine therapy alone (P = .0004).

The results were immediately controversial.

Some experts suggested the effect was due to the chemotherapy incidentally causing ovarian suppression, not the cytotoxic effect of the drugs on cancer cells. These experts were skeptical about the suggestion that chemotherapy works differently in premenopausal women than it does in postmenopausal women.

Some clinicians feel the lack of clarity creates an opportunity for greater discussion with women when making the treatment decision.

“When I have this conversation with patients, it’s really nuanced,” Stephanie L. Graff, MD, director of breast oncology, Lifespan Cancer Institute, Providence, R.I., told this news organization.

“I would choose chemotherapy for myself, but I’m a chemotherapy doctor, so I’m very comfortable with these medications and their side effects, and I am also very familiar with the slow burn of the side effects of endocrine therapy,” she said.

But for patients who are hearing their options for the first time, the idea of chemotherapy “feels scary,” and there is “a lot of stigma” associated with it, she commented.

Ultimately, she believes in offering patients as much information as possible, inasmuch as “knowledge is power.”

For Dr. Graff, the message from RxPONDER was that, in premenopausal patients with lymph node positive, HR+ breast cancer, “all comers benefited from chemotherapy.”

“And so if the goal is to be maximally aggressive and optimally lower your risk of distant recurrence, which is a life-threatening event, chemotherapy should offered.”

But chemotherapy comes with side effects, so it’s an important conversation to have with patients; RxPONDER showed that the absolute difference in the rate of distant recurrence with chemotherapy was relatively minor, she added.
 

Debate rages on

The debate at SABCS was moderated by Harold J. Burstein, MD, PhD, from the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, who commented that if this was “a compelling question last week in clinic, it has now become red hot.”

At the meeting, held in December 2021, new longer-term data from the SOFT and TEXT clinical trials were presented, showing that ovarian suppression with tamoxifen plus an aromatase inhibitor provides a greater reduction in long-term risk of recurrence than tamoxifen alone.

Moreover, updated results from RxPONDER presented at the same session revealed that chemoendocrine therapy was associated with longer IDFS and distant relapse-free survival than endocrine therapy alone for women with one to three positive lymph nodes and a recurrence score of 25 or lower on the Oncotype DX (Genomic Health) 21-gene breast cancer assay.

Dr. Burstein said the debate over the use of chemotherapy in premenopausal women “is the most interesting question right now in early-stage breast cancer.”

The debate focused on the effect of chemotherapy in these patients – was it all down to ovarian function suppression?

Yes, argued Michael Gnant, MD, from the Medical University of Vienna.

Data from “modern adjuvant chemotherapy trials” suggest that chemo offers a 2%-3% benefit in distant disease-free survival at 5 years for premenopausal women, he noted. But the effect is much larger with ovarian function suppression via endocrine therapy, which provides 5-year disease-free and overall survival benefits of 9%-13%.

Older studies have shown that the benefit with chemotherapy is seen only in women who experience amenorrhea with the cytotoxic drugs, Dr. Gnant noted.

“In short, if you give adjuvant chemotherapy and you induce amenorrhea, then there is going to be a survival difference,” he said. “But if you give adjuvant chemotherapy and there is no amenorrhea, there won’t be an outcome difference.”

The ABSCG-05 trial, which compared endocrine therapy with chemotherapy, showed that “in the presence of optimal endocrine adjuvant treatment, adjuvant chemotherapy doesn’t add anything, because you have already achieved the effect of treatment-induced amenorrhea.”

So Dr. Gnant argued that the effect of chemotherapy in RxPONDER was due to ovarian function suppression.

But the real question is: “What does it mean for clinical practice?”

Dr. Gnant asserted that for the “large group of lower-risk premenopausal patients, tamoxifen will be good enough,” while those at moderate or intermediate risk should receive ovarian function suppression with either tamoxifen or an aromatase inhibitor, with the choice dictated by their adverse effects.

Chemotherapy “is just a graceless method of ovarian function suppression and should only be given to high-risk patients and to patients with endocrine nonresponsive disease,” he argued.

On the other side of the debate, Sibylle Loibl, MD, PhD, from the Centre of Hematology and Oncology, Bethanien, Frankfurt, argued that the effect is not all due to ovarian function suppression and that chemotherapy also has a cytotoxic effect in these patients.

“We need chemotherapy” because “cancer in young women is biologically different,” she asserted.

Dr. Loibl pointed to data currently awaiting publication in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute that suggest that younger women have “higher immune gene expression” that may make them more chemotherapy sensitive, and lower expression of hormone receptor genes, which “could make them less endocrine sensitive.”

She also cited data from a study from her own group that showed that pathologic complete response rates to neoadjuvant chemotherapy were higher in younger women with HR+, HER2- breast cancer, indicating a direct effect of chemotherapy on the disease and that age was an important prognostic factor.

The data on the induction of amenorrhea by chemotherapy is also not as clearcut as it seems, she commented. Chemotherapy does not achieve 100% amenorrhea, and gonadotropin-releasing hormone analogues are unable to suppress ovarian function in 20% of women.

Dr. Loibl concluded that the “chemotherapy effect is there, it is higher in young women with HR+, HER2- breast cancer,” and that the effect has two components.

“There is a direct cytotoxic effect which cannot be neglected, and there is an endocrine effect on the ovarian function suppression,” she argued.

“I think both are needed in young premenopausal patients,” she added.
 

Audience responses

After the debate, the audience was polled on what effect they thought chemotherapy was having in lower-risk HR+, HER2- breast cancer patients. About two-thirds responded that it was all or mostly due to ovarian function suppression.

However, the next question split the audience. They were presented with a clinical scenario: a 43-year-old woman with a mammographically detected 1.4-cm, intermediate grade, HR+, HER2- breast cancer who also had metastatic disease in one of three sentinel lymph nodes and whose recurrence score was 13.

When asked about the treatment plan they would choose for this patient, the audience was split over whether to opt for chemoendocrine therapy or endocrine therapy alone.

A similar clinical question was posited recently on Twitter, when Angela Toss, MD, PhD, from the University of Modena and Reggio Emilia, Italy, asked respondents which they would chose from among three options.

From the 815 votes that were cast, 46% chose Oncotype DX testing to determine the likely benefit of chemotherapy, 48% chose chemotherapy, and 6% picked ovarian function suppression and an aromatase inhibitor.

In response, Paolo Tarantino, MD, from the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, commented: “If you had any doubt of which is the most controversial topic in breast oncology, doubt no more. 815 votes, no consensus.”

Approached for comment, Eric Winer, MD, director of the Yale Cancer Center, New Haven, Conn., said that the data from RxPONDER “in many ways was helpful, but ... it created about as many questions as it answered, if not more.”

Because the results showed a benefit from chemotherapy for premenopausal women but not for postmenopausal women with breast cancer, Dr. Winer told this news organization that one of the outstanding questions is “whether premenopausal women are fundamentally different from postmenopausal women ... and my answer to that is that is very unlikely.”

Dr. Winer added that the “real tragedy” of this trial was that it did not include women with more than three positive nodes, particularly those who have a low recurrence score, he said.

Clinicians are therefore left either “extrapolating” data from those with fewer nodes or “marching down a path that we’ve taken for years of just giving those people chemotherapy routinely,” even though there may be no benefit, Dr. Winer commented.

Another expert who was approached for comment had a different take on the data. Matteo Lambertini, MD, IRCCS Ospedale Policlinico San Martino, Genoa, Italy, agreed with Loibl’s argument that chemotherapy has a cytotoxic effect in premenopausal women with HR+, HER2- breast cancer in addition to its effect on ovarian function suppression.

He did not agree, however, that there is a question mark over what to do for patients with more than three positive lymph nodes.

Dr. Lambertini said in an interview that he thinks “too much” trust is placed in genomic testing and that there is a “risk of forgetting about all the other factors that we normally use to make our treatment choices.”

A patient with five positive nodes will benefit from chemotherapy, “even if she had a very low recurrence score,” he said, “because there is a very high clinical risk of disease recurrence,” and chemotherapy “is of benefit” in these situations, he asserted.

Dr. Lambertini said that the RxPONDER results – and also studies such as TAILORx, which demonstrated the ability of Oncotype DX to identify which patients with early breast cancer could skip chemotherapy – show that “chemotherapy has a role to play” and that most patients should receive it.

He suggested, however, that “probably the benefit of chemotherapy is smaller” in real life than was seen in these trials, because in the trials, they did not use optimal adjuvant endocrine therapy.
 

Treating individual patients

When it comes to making treatment decisions for individual patients, Dr. Winer said he has a “conversation with people about what the results of the study showed and what [he believes] that they need.”

For patients whose Oncotype DX score is in the “very low range, I do not recommend chemotherapy,” he said, preferring instead to use endocrine therapy for ovarian function suppression.

For women with a more intermediate score, “I explain that I don’t think we have an answer and that, if they would want to take the most traditional and conservative path, it would be to get chemotherapy.

“But I’m certainly not rigid about my recommendations, and I’m particularly open” to ovarian function suppression for a premenopausal woman with an Onctyope DX score of 20 and two positive nodes who does not have “other adverse features.”

“Ultimately, what pushes me in one direction or another,” Dr. Winer said, aside from number of positive nodes or the size of the tumor, “is the patient’s preferences.”

This was a theme taken up by Kim Sabelko, PhD, vice-president of scientific strategy and programs at Susan G. Komen, Dallas.

The results from RxPONDER and similar studies are “really interesting,” as researchers are “working out how to individualize treatment,” and that it is not a matter of “one size fits all.”

“We need to understand when to use chemotherapy and other drugs, and more importantly, when not to, because we don’t want to overtreat people who don’t necessarily need these drugs,” she commented.

Dr. Sabelko emphasized that treatment decisions “should be shared” between the patient and their doctor, and she noted that there “will be some people who are going to refuse chemotherapy for different reasons.”

These clinical trial results help clinicians to explain the risks and benefits of treatment options, but the treatment decision should be taken “together” with the patient, she emphasized.

Dr. Gnant has relationships with Sandoz, Amge, Daiichi Sankyo, AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Nanostring, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, TLC Pharmaceuticals, and Life Brain. Dr. Loibl has relationships with AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol-Meyers Squibb, Celgene, Daiichi Sankyo, Eirgenix, GSK, Gilead, Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, Medscape, Puma, Roche, Samsung, Seagen, VM Scope, and GBG Forschungs.

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

Is this the most controversial topic in breast oncology? Quite likely: the results of a recent online poll show split votes and no consensus.

The topic is the use of chemotherapy for premenopausal women with early-stage hormone receptor–positive (HR+), human epidermal growth factor receptor 2–negative (HER2-) breast cancer.

Is the use of chemo in this patient population merely a “graceless” means of achieving ovarian function suppression, as one expert argued in a recent debate?

Or does it offer a distinct cytotoxic benefit, as the other expert countered?

The debate was held during the recent San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium (SABCS), at which new results were presented that increased the controversy.

The controversy had arisen the previous year over results from the RxPONDER trial.

Five-year follow-up data from RxPONDER showed that adding chemotherapy to endocrine therapy did not improve outcomes over endocrine therapy alone for postmenopausal women with low-risk, node-positive HR+, HER2- breast cancer. This suggests that older women with early-stage breast cancer may safely forgo chemotherapy.

However, the same trial included premenopausal women with the same disease profile, and the results in this subgroup showed that there was benefit from chemotherapy, with a 5-year invasive disease-free survival (IDFS) rate of 94.2%, versus 89.0% for endocrine therapy alone (P = .0004).

The results were immediately controversial.

Some experts suggested the effect was due to the chemotherapy incidentally causing ovarian suppression, not the cytotoxic effect of the drugs on cancer cells. These experts were skeptical about the suggestion that chemotherapy works differently in premenopausal women than it does in postmenopausal women.

Some clinicians feel the lack of clarity creates an opportunity for greater discussion with women when making the treatment decision.

“When I have this conversation with patients, it’s really nuanced,” Stephanie L. Graff, MD, director of breast oncology, Lifespan Cancer Institute, Providence, R.I., told this news organization.

“I would choose chemotherapy for myself, but I’m a chemotherapy doctor, so I’m very comfortable with these medications and their side effects, and I am also very familiar with the slow burn of the side effects of endocrine therapy,” she said.

But for patients who are hearing their options for the first time, the idea of chemotherapy “feels scary,” and there is “a lot of stigma” associated with it, she commented.

Ultimately, she believes in offering patients as much information as possible, inasmuch as “knowledge is power.”

For Dr. Graff, the message from RxPONDER was that, in premenopausal patients with lymph node positive, HR+ breast cancer, “all comers benefited from chemotherapy.”

“And so if the goal is to be maximally aggressive and optimally lower your risk of distant recurrence, which is a life-threatening event, chemotherapy should offered.”

But chemotherapy comes with side effects, so it’s an important conversation to have with patients; RxPONDER showed that the absolute difference in the rate of distant recurrence with chemotherapy was relatively minor, she added.
 

Debate rages on

The debate at SABCS was moderated by Harold J. Burstein, MD, PhD, from the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, who commented that if this was “a compelling question last week in clinic, it has now become red hot.”

At the meeting, held in December 2021, new longer-term data from the SOFT and TEXT clinical trials were presented, showing that ovarian suppression with tamoxifen plus an aromatase inhibitor provides a greater reduction in long-term risk of recurrence than tamoxifen alone.

Moreover, updated results from RxPONDER presented at the same session revealed that chemoendocrine therapy was associated with longer IDFS and distant relapse-free survival than endocrine therapy alone for women with one to three positive lymph nodes and a recurrence score of 25 or lower on the Oncotype DX (Genomic Health) 21-gene breast cancer assay.

Dr. Burstein said the debate over the use of chemotherapy in premenopausal women “is the most interesting question right now in early-stage breast cancer.”

The debate focused on the effect of chemotherapy in these patients – was it all down to ovarian function suppression?

Yes, argued Michael Gnant, MD, from the Medical University of Vienna.

Data from “modern adjuvant chemotherapy trials” suggest that chemo offers a 2%-3% benefit in distant disease-free survival at 5 years for premenopausal women, he noted. But the effect is much larger with ovarian function suppression via endocrine therapy, which provides 5-year disease-free and overall survival benefits of 9%-13%.

Older studies have shown that the benefit with chemotherapy is seen only in women who experience amenorrhea with the cytotoxic drugs, Dr. Gnant noted.

“In short, if you give adjuvant chemotherapy and you induce amenorrhea, then there is going to be a survival difference,” he said. “But if you give adjuvant chemotherapy and there is no amenorrhea, there won’t be an outcome difference.”

The ABSCG-05 trial, which compared endocrine therapy with chemotherapy, showed that “in the presence of optimal endocrine adjuvant treatment, adjuvant chemotherapy doesn’t add anything, because you have already achieved the effect of treatment-induced amenorrhea.”

So Dr. Gnant argued that the effect of chemotherapy in RxPONDER was due to ovarian function suppression.

But the real question is: “What does it mean for clinical practice?”

Dr. Gnant asserted that for the “large group of lower-risk premenopausal patients, tamoxifen will be good enough,” while those at moderate or intermediate risk should receive ovarian function suppression with either tamoxifen or an aromatase inhibitor, with the choice dictated by their adverse effects.

Chemotherapy “is just a graceless method of ovarian function suppression and should only be given to high-risk patients and to patients with endocrine nonresponsive disease,” he argued.

On the other side of the debate, Sibylle Loibl, MD, PhD, from the Centre of Hematology and Oncology, Bethanien, Frankfurt, argued that the effect is not all due to ovarian function suppression and that chemotherapy also has a cytotoxic effect in these patients.

“We need chemotherapy” because “cancer in young women is biologically different,” she asserted.

Dr. Loibl pointed to data currently awaiting publication in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute that suggest that younger women have “higher immune gene expression” that may make them more chemotherapy sensitive, and lower expression of hormone receptor genes, which “could make them less endocrine sensitive.”

She also cited data from a study from her own group that showed that pathologic complete response rates to neoadjuvant chemotherapy were higher in younger women with HR+, HER2- breast cancer, indicating a direct effect of chemotherapy on the disease and that age was an important prognostic factor.

The data on the induction of amenorrhea by chemotherapy is also not as clearcut as it seems, she commented. Chemotherapy does not achieve 100% amenorrhea, and gonadotropin-releasing hormone analogues are unable to suppress ovarian function in 20% of women.

Dr. Loibl concluded that the “chemotherapy effect is there, it is higher in young women with HR+, HER2- breast cancer,” and that the effect has two components.

“There is a direct cytotoxic effect which cannot be neglected, and there is an endocrine effect on the ovarian function suppression,” she argued.

“I think both are needed in young premenopausal patients,” she added.
 

Audience responses

After the debate, the audience was polled on what effect they thought chemotherapy was having in lower-risk HR+, HER2- breast cancer patients. About two-thirds responded that it was all or mostly due to ovarian function suppression.

However, the next question split the audience. They were presented with a clinical scenario: a 43-year-old woman with a mammographically detected 1.4-cm, intermediate grade, HR+, HER2- breast cancer who also had metastatic disease in one of three sentinel lymph nodes and whose recurrence score was 13.

When asked about the treatment plan they would choose for this patient, the audience was split over whether to opt for chemoendocrine therapy or endocrine therapy alone.

A similar clinical question was posited recently on Twitter, when Angela Toss, MD, PhD, from the University of Modena and Reggio Emilia, Italy, asked respondents which they would chose from among three options.

From the 815 votes that were cast, 46% chose Oncotype DX testing to determine the likely benefit of chemotherapy, 48% chose chemotherapy, and 6% picked ovarian function suppression and an aromatase inhibitor.

In response, Paolo Tarantino, MD, from the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, commented: “If you had any doubt of which is the most controversial topic in breast oncology, doubt no more. 815 votes, no consensus.”

Approached for comment, Eric Winer, MD, director of the Yale Cancer Center, New Haven, Conn., said that the data from RxPONDER “in many ways was helpful, but ... it created about as many questions as it answered, if not more.”

Because the results showed a benefit from chemotherapy for premenopausal women but not for postmenopausal women with breast cancer, Dr. Winer told this news organization that one of the outstanding questions is “whether premenopausal women are fundamentally different from postmenopausal women ... and my answer to that is that is very unlikely.”

Dr. Winer added that the “real tragedy” of this trial was that it did not include women with more than three positive nodes, particularly those who have a low recurrence score, he said.

Clinicians are therefore left either “extrapolating” data from those with fewer nodes or “marching down a path that we’ve taken for years of just giving those people chemotherapy routinely,” even though there may be no benefit, Dr. Winer commented.

Another expert who was approached for comment had a different take on the data. Matteo Lambertini, MD, IRCCS Ospedale Policlinico San Martino, Genoa, Italy, agreed with Loibl’s argument that chemotherapy has a cytotoxic effect in premenopausal women with HR+, HER2- breast cancer in addition to its effect on ovarian function suppression.

He did not agree, however, that there is a question mark over what to do for patients with more than three positive lymph nodes.

Dr. Lambertini said in an interview that he thinks “too much” trust is placed in genomic testing and that there is a “risk of forgetting about all the other factors that we normally use to make our treatment choices.”

A patient with five positive nodes will benefit from chemotherapy, “even if she had a very low recurrence score,” he said, “because there is a very high clinical risk of disease recurrence,” and chemotherapy “is of benefit” in these situations, he asserted.

Dr. Lambertini said that the RxPONDER results – and also studies such as TAILORx, which demonstrated the ability of Oncotype DX to identify which patients with early breast cancer could skip chemotherapy – show that “chemotherapy has a role to play” and that most patients should receive it.

He suggested, however, that “probably the benefit of chemotherapy is smaller” in real life than was seen in these trials, because in the trials, they did not use optimal adjuvant endocrine therapy.
 

Treating individual patients

When it comes to making treatment decisions for individual patients, Dr. Winer said he has a “conversation with people about what the results of the study showed and what [he believes] that they need.”

For patients whose Oncotype DX score is in the “very low range, I do not recommend chemotherapy,” he said, preferring instead to use endocrine therapy for ovarian function suppression.

For women with a more intermediate score, “I explain that I don’t think we have an answer and that, if they would want to take the most traditional and conservative path, it would be to get chemotherapy.

“But I’m certainly not rigid about my recommendations, and I’m particularly open” to ovarian function suppression for a premenopausal woman with an Onctyope DX score of 20 and two positive nodes who does not have “other adverse features.”

“Ultimately, what pushes me in one direction or another,” Dr. Winer said, aside from number of positive nodes or the size of the tumor, “is the patient’s preferences.”

This was a theme taken up by Kim Sabelko, PhD, vice-president of scientific strategy and programs at Susan G. Komen, Dallas.

The results from RxPONDER and similar studies are “really interesting,” as researchers are “working out how to individualize treatment,” and that it is not a matter of “one size fits all.”

“We need to understand when to use chemotherapy and other drugs, and more importantly, when not to, because we don’t want to overtreat people who don’t necessarily need these drugs,” she commented.

Dr. Sabelko emphasized that treatment decisions “should be shared” between the patient and their doctor, and she noted that there “will be some people who are going to refuse chemotherapy for different reasons.”

These clinical trial results help clinicians to explain the risks and benefits of treatment options, but the treatment decision should be taken “together” with the patient, she emphasized.

Dr. Gnant has relationships with Sandoz, Amge, Daiichi Sankyo, AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Nanostring, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, TLC Pharmaceuticals, and Life Brain. Dr. Loibl has relationships with AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol-Meyers Squibb, Celgene, Daiichi Sankyo, Eirgenix, GSK, Gilead, Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, Medscape, Puma, Roche, Samsung, Seagen, VM Scope, and GBG Forschungs.

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

BOSTON – Nearly 40% of adults with alopecia areata taking baricitinib, an oral Janus kinase 1 and 2 inhibitor, see significant hair regrowth over 52 weeks, according to updated results from two phase 3 trials presented at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology.

The results indicate improved response rates and hair growth among trial participants, said Brett King, MD, PhD, an associate professor of dermatology at Yale University, New Haven, Conn. He is the lead author of the analyses and presented the research.

Dr. King presented 36-week results from the clinical trials at the 2021 annual meeting of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology. The same results were also published March 26, 2022, in the New England Journal of Medicine.

“Every bit of data we’ve had is hugely important,” Dr. King said in an interview. “Every time we add 16 weeks of data across hundreds of patients, we are making a huge step forward toward the goal of [Food and Drug Administration approval for a medication for alopecia areata.”

All patients enrolled in the two trials, called BRAVE-AA1 and BRAVE-AA2, had severe alopecia areata, defined as a Severity of Alopecia Tool (SALT) score of at least 50, meaning 50% or less scalp coverage. The score ranges from 0 (no hair loss) to 100 (complete hair loss). The primary endpoint was a SALT score of 20 or less (80% scalp hair coverage).

The researchers pooled data from both clinical trials, with a combined enrollment of 1,200, for the 52-week results presented at the meeting. The placebo group stopped at 36 weeks, and these patients were randomly reassigned to either the 4-mg or 2-mg once-daily baricitinib treatment groups.

At baseline, patients enrolled in the trial had a mean SALT score of 85.5. After 52 weeks, 39.0% of patients who received 4 mg of baricitinib had at least 80% scalp coverage. Of this group, nearly three out of four (74.1%) had at least 90% scalp coverage, or a SALT score of 10 or less.

In patients who received 2 mg of baricitinib, 22.6% had a SALT score of 20 or less 20 (at least 80% scalp hair coverage) at 52 weeks, and two-thirds of that group (67.5%) had at least 90% scalp hair coverage at 52 weeks.

Comparatively, at 36 weeks, 35.2% of participants in BRAVE-AA1 and 32.5% of participants in BRAVE-AA2 receiving 4 mg of baricitinib had at least 80% scalp coverage. In the group taking the lower dose, 21.7% and 17.3% of patients in the BRAVE-AA1 and BRAVE-AA2 trials, respectively, had achieved at least 80% scalp coverage at 36 weeks. (These percentages differ slightly from the NEJM article because of a different analysis of missing data, Dr. King said. For comparison of both 36- and 52-week results, the percentages from the EADV are used above.)

The results indicate that 5% more patients reached the primary endpoint in the additional 16 weeks of the trial, Dr. King said.

Alopecia areata is an autoimmune condition where immune cells attack hair follicles, causing the hair to fall out, and is associated with emotional and psychological distress. Any hair follicle can be attacked, but they are rarely destroyed, so hair can regrow.

"Many underestimate the impact of this autoimmune hair loss condition," Adam Friedman, MD, professor and chair of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, told this news organization. He was not involved with the trial. "The burden of the disease, which certainly is an emotional but also a physical one, definitely needs to be addressed with indicated FDA-approved drugs," he noted, which is the goal of these trials. 

The BRAVE-AA1 and BRAVE-AA2 trials focused on scalp hair regrowth.

Eyebrow and eyelash growth, secondary outcomes, also improved between 36 and 52 weeks in both groups, calculated using the proportion of participants who had achieved full regrowth or regrowth with minimal gaps. At 36 weeks, about 31%-35% of patients who received 4 mg of baricitinib regrew eyebrow and eyelash hair. By 52 weeks, more than two out of five patients regrew eyebrow (44.1%) and eyelash (45.3%) hair.

“It’s a fantastic achievement and a major step forward in alopecia areata, especially for patients with the most severe and refractory cases,” said Arash Mostaghimi, MD, MPH, the director of inpatient dermatology at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, Massachusetts. Dr. Mostaghimi is on the advisory board for Eli Lilly, which manufactures baricitinib, and Brigham and Women’s was one of the clinical sites of the trial.

While dermatologists have been aware of how JAK inhibitors can affect hair regrowth in alopecia patients, they have been using these drugs off label, Dr. Friedman said. Therefore, these drugs are expensive and more difficult to access. These trials provide "data that proves the efficacy and safety of [baricitinib] under the umbrella of the FDA portal," he added, which will hopefully lead to an approved indication for alopecia areata, so it can be more accessible to patients.

Adverse events at 52 weeks were consistent with data from 36 weeks, which found that none of these adverse events occurred in more than 10% of participants. The most common adverse events were headache, acne, and increases in muscle-related blood markers. The most common infections reported were pneumonia, herpes zoster, and urinary tract infection. 

In February 2022, the FDA granted priority review for baricitinib for the treatment of severe alopecia areata. Lilly expects a regulatory decision by the end of 2022, they said in a press release. 

Lilly provided funding for the BRAVE-AA1 and BRAVE-AA2 trials. Dr. King reported financial relationships with Aclaris, Arena Pharmaceuticals, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Concert Pharmaceutics, Dermavant, Lilly, Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi Genzyme, and Viela Bio. Dr. Mostaghimi has reported serving on an advisory board for Lilly. Dr. Friedman reported no relevant financial relationships.  

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

*This article was updated on 3/28/2022 to include Dr. Friedman's comments, and on 3/31/2022 to correct the statement regarding adverse events reported in the study 

BOSTON – Nearly 40% of adults with alopecia areata taking baricitinib, an oral Janus kinase 1 and 2 inhibitor, see significant hair regrowth over 52 weeks, according to updated results from two phase 3 trials presented at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology.

The results indicate improved response rates and hair growth among trial participants, said Brett King, MD, PhD, an associate professor of dermatology at Yale University, New Haven, Conn. He is the lead author of the analyses and presented the research.

Dr. King presented 36-week results from the clinical trials at the 2021 annual meeting of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology. The same results were also published March 26, 2022, in the New England Journal of Medicine.

“Every bit of data we’ve had is hugely important,” Dr. King said in an interview. “Every time we add 16 weeks of data across hundreds of patients, we are making a huge step forward toward the goal of [Food and Drug Administration approval for a medication for alopecia areata.”

All patients enrolled in the two trials, called BRAVE-AA1 and BRAVE-AA2, had severe alopecia areata, defined as a Severity of Alopecia Tool (SALT) score of at least 50, meaning 50% or less scalp coverage. The score ranges from 0 (no hair loss) to 100 (complete hair loss). The primary endpoint was a SALT score of 20 or less (80% scalp hair coverage).

The researchers pooled data from both clinical trials, with a combined enrollment of 1,200, for the 52-week results presented at the meeting. The placebo group stopped at 36 weeks, and these patients were randomly reassigned to either the 4-mg or 2-mg once-daily baricitinib treatment groups.

At baseline, patients enrolled in the trial had a mean SALT score of 85.5. After 52 weeks, 39.0% of patients who received 4 mg of baricitinib had at least 80% scalp coverage. Of this group, nearly three out of four (74.1%) had at least 90% scalp coverage, or a SALT score of 10 or less.

In patients who received 2 mg of baricitinib, 22.6% had a SALT score of 20 or less 20 (at least 80% scalp hair coverage) at 52 weeks, and two-thirds of that group (67.5%) had at least 90% scalp hair coverage at 52 weeks.

Comparatively, at 36 weeks, 35.2% of participants in BRAVE-AA1 and 32.5% of participants in BRAVE-AA2 receiving 4 mg of baricitinib had at least 80% scalp coverage. In the group taking the lower dose, 21.7% and 17.3% of patients in the BRAVE-AA1 and BRAVE-AA2 trials, respectively, had achieved at least 80% scalp coverage at 36 weeks. (These percentages differ slightly from the NEJM article because of a different analysis of missing data, Dr. King said. For comparison of both 36- and 52-week results, the percentages from the EADV are used above.)

The results indicate that 5% more patients reached the primary endpoint in the additional 16 weeks of the trial, Dr. King said.

Alopecia areata is an autoimmune condition where immune cells attack hair follicles, causing the hair to fall out, and is associated with emotional and psychological distress. Any hair follicle can be attacked, but they are rarely destroyed, so hair can regrow.

"Many underestimate the impact of this autoimmune hair loss condition," Adam Friedman, MD, professor and chair of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, told this news organization. He was not involved with the trial. "The burden of the disease, which certainly is an emotional but also a physical one, definitely needs to be addressed with indicated FDA-approved drugs," he noted, which is the goal of these trials. 

The BRAVE-AA1 and BRAVE-AA2 trials focused on scalp hair regrowth.

Eyebrow and eyelash growth, secondary outcomes, also improved between 36 and 52 weeks in both groups, calculated using the proportion of participants who had achieved full regrowth or regrowth with minimal gaps. At 36 weeks, about 31%-35% of patients who received 4 mg of baricitinib regrew eyebrow and eyelash hair. By 52 weeks, more than two out of five patients regrew eyebrow (44.1%) and eyelash (45.3%) hair.

“It’s a fantastic achievement and a major step forward in alopecia areata, especially for patients with the most severe and refractory cases,” said Arash Mostaghimi, MD, MPH, the director of inpatient dermatology at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, Massachusetts. Dr. Mostaghimi is on the advisory board for Eli Lilly, which manufactures baricitinib, and Brigham and Women’s was one of the clinical sites of the trial.

While dermatologists have been aware of how JAK inhibitors can affect hair regrowth in alopecia patients, they have been using these drugs off label, Dr. Friedman said. Therefore, these drugs are expensive and more difficult to access. These trials provide "data that proves the efficacy and safety of [baricitinib] under the umbrella of the FDA portal," he added, which will hopefully lead to an approved indication for alopecia areata, so it can be more accessible to patients.

Adverse events at 52 weeks were consistent with data from 36 weeks, which found that none of these adverse events occurred in more than 10% of participants. The most common adverse events were headache, acne, and increases in muscle-related blood markers. The most common infections reported were pneumonia, herpes zoster, and urinary tract infection. 

In February 2022, the FDA granted priority review for baricitinib for the treatment of severe alopecia areata. Lilly expects a regulatory decision by the end of 2022, they said in a press release. 

Lilly provided funding for the BRAVE-AA1 and BRAVE-AA2 trials. Dr. King reported financial relationships with Aclaris, Arena Pharmaceuticals, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Concert Pharmaceutics, Dermavant, Lilly, Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi Genzyme, and Viela Bio. Dr. Mostaghimi has reported serving on an advisory board for Lilly. Dr. Friedman reported no relevant financial relationships.  

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

*This article was updated on 3/28/2022 to include Dr. Friedman's comments, and on 3/31/2022 to correct the statement regarding adverse events reported in the study 

BOSTON – Nearly 40% of adults with alopecia areata taking baricitinib, an oral Janus kinase 1 and 2 inhibitor, see significant hair regrowth over 52 weeks, according to updated results from two phase 3 trials presented at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology.

The results indicate improved response rates and hair growth among trial participants, said Brett King, MD, PhD, an associate professor of dermatology at Yale University, New Haven, Conn. He is the lead author of the analyses and presented the research.

Dr. King presented 36-week results from the clinical trials at the 2021 annual meeting of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology. The same results were also published March 26, 2022, in the New England Journal of Medicine.

“Every bit of data we’ve had is hugely important,” Dr. King said in an interview. “Every time we add 16 weeks of data across hundreds of patients, we are making a huge step forward toward the goal of [Food and Drug Administration approval for a medication for alopecia areata.”

All patients enrolled in the two trials, called BRAVE-AA1 and BRAVE-AA2, had severe alopecia areata, defined as a Severity of Alopecia Tool (SALT) score of at least 50, meaning 50% or less scalp coverage. The score ranges from 0 (no hair loss) to 100 (complete hair loss). The primary endpoint was a SALT score of 20 or less (80% scalp hair coverage).

The researchers pooled data from both clinical trials, with a combined enrollment of 1,200, for the 52-week results presented at the meeting. The placebo group stopped at 36 weeks, and these patients were randomly reassigned to either the 4-mg or 2-mg once-daily baricitinib treatment groups.

At baseline, patients enrolled in the trial had a mean SALT score of 85.5. After 52 weeks, 39.0% of patients who received 4 mg of baricitinib had at least 80% scalp coverage. Of this group, nearly three out of four (74.1%) had at least 90% scalp coverage, or a SALT score of 10 or less.

In patients who received 2 mg of baricitinib, 22.6% had a SALT score of 20 or less 20 (at least 80% scalp hair coverage) at 52 weeks, and two-thirds of that group (67.5%) had at least 90% scalp hair coverage at 52 weeks.

Comparatively, at 36 weeks, 35.2% of participants in BRAVE-AA1 and 32.5% of participants in BRAVE-AA2 receiving 4 mg of baricitinib had at least 80% scalp coverage. In the group taking the lower dose, 21.7% and 17.3% of patients in the BRAVE-AA1 and BRAVE-AA2 trials, respectively, had achieved at least 80% scalp coverage at 36 weeks. (These percentages differ slightly from the NEJM article because of a different analysis of missing data, Dr. King said. For comparison of both 36- and 52-week results, the percentages from the EADV are used above.)

The results indicate that 5% more patients reached the primary endpoint in the additional 16 weeks of the trial, Dr. King said.

Alopecia areata is an autoimmune condition where immune cells attack hair follicles, causing the hair to fall out, and is associated with emotional and psychological distress. Any hair follicle can be attacked, but they are rarely destroyed, so hair can regrow.

"Many underestimate the impact of this autoimmune hair loss condition," Adam Friedman, MD, professor and chair of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, told this news organization. He was not involved with the trial. "The burden of the disease, which certainly is an emotional but also a physical one, definitely needs to be addressed with indicated FDA-approved drugs," he noted, which is the goal of these trials. 

The BRAVE-AA1 and BRAVE-AA2 trials focused on scalp hair regrowth.

Eyebrow and eyelash growth, secondary outcomes, also improved between 36 and 52 weeks in both groups, calculated using the proportion of participants who had achieved full regrowth or regrowth with minimal gaps. At 36 weeks, about 31%-35% of patients who received 4 mg of baricitinib regrew eyebrow and eyelash hair. By 52 weeks, more than two out of five patients regrew eyebrow (44.1%) and eyelash (45.3%) hair.

“It’s a fantastic achievement and a major step forward in alopecia areata, especially for patients with the most severe and refractory cases,” said Arash Mostaghimi, MD, MPH, the director of inpatient dermatology at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, Massachusetts. Dr. Mostaghimi is on the advisory board for Eli Lilly, which manufactures baricitinib, and Brigham and Women’s was one of the clinical sites of the trial.

While dermatologists have been aware of how JAK inhibitors can affect hair regrowth in alopecia patients, they have been using these drugs off label, Dr. Friedman said. Therefore, these drugs are expensive and more difficult to access. These trials provide "data that proves the efficacy and safety of [baricitinib] under the umbrella of the FDA portal," he added, which will hopefully lead to an approved indication for alopecia areata, so it can be more accessible to patients.

Adverse events at 52 weeks were consistent with data from 36 weeks, which found that none of these adverse events occurred in more than 10% of participants. The most common adverse events were headache, acne, and increases in muscle-related blood markers. The most common infections reported were pneumonia, herpes zoster, and urinary tract infection. 

In February 2022, the FDA granted priority review for baricitinib for the treatment of severe alopecia areata. Lilly expects a regulatory decision by the end of 2022, they said in a press release. 

Lilly provided funding for the BRAVE-AA1 and BRAVE-AA2 trials. Dr. King reported financial relationships with Aclaris, Arena Pharmaceuticals, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Concert Pharmaceutics, Dermavant, Lilly, Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi Genzyme, and Viela Bio. Dr. Mostaghimi has reported serving on an advisory board for Lilly. Dr. Friedman reported no relevant financial relationships.  

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

*This article was updated on 3/28/2022 to include Dr. Friedman's comments, and on 3/31/2022 to correct the statement regarding adverse events reported in the study