User login
Ivermectin does not stop progression to severe COVID: randomized trial
Ivermectin treatment given to high-risk patients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19 during the first week of illness did not prevent progression to severe disease, according to results from a randomized clinical trial.
“The study findings do not support the use of ivermectin for patients with COVID-19,” researchers conclude in the paper published online in JAMA Internal Medicine.
The open-label trial was conducted at 20 public hospitals and a COVID-19 quarantine center in Malaysia between May 31 and Oct. 25, 2021. It was led by Steven Chee Loon Lim, MRCP, department of medicine, Raja Permaisuri Bainun Hospital, Perak, Malaysia.
Among 490 patients in the primary analysis, 52 of 241 patients (21.6%) in the ivermectin group and 43 of 249 patients (17.3%) in the control group progressed to severe disease (relative risk, 1.25; 95% confidence interval, 0.87-1.80; P = .25). All major ethnic groups in Malaysia were well represented, the researchers write.
Participants (average age 62.5 and 54.5% women) were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive either a 5-day course of oral ivermectin (0.4 mg/kg body weight daily for 5 days) plus standard of care (n = 241) or standard of care alone (n = 249). Standard of care included symptomatic therapy and monitoring for early deterioration based on clinical findings, laboratory tests, and chest imaging.
Secondary outcomes
Secondary outcomes included rates of mechanical ventilation, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, 28-day in-hospital mortality, and side effects.
In all the secondary outcomes, there were no significant differences between groups.
Mechanical ventilation occurred in four patients on the ivermectin protocol (1.7%) versus 10 patients in the control group (4.0%) (RR, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.13-1.30; P = .17); ICU admission occurred in six (2.4%) versus eight (3.2%) (RR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.27-2.20; P = .79); and 28-day in-hospital death occurred in three (1.2%) versus 10 (4.0%) (RR, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.09-1.11; P = .09).
The most common adverse event was diarrhea, reported by 5.8% in the ivermectin group and 1.6% in the control group.
No difference by vaccine status
The researchers conducted a subgroup analysis to evaluate any differences in whether participants were vaccinated. They said that analysis was “unremarkable.”
Just more than half of participants (51.8%) were fully vaccinated, with two doses of COVID-19 vaccines. Among the fully vaccinated patients, 17.7% in the ivermectin group and 9.2% in the control group developed severe disease (RR, 1.92; 95% CI, 0.99-3.71; P = .06).
Ivermectin, an inexpensive and widely available antiparasitic drug, is prescribed to treat COVID-19 but has not been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for that purpose. Evidence-based data for or against use has been sparse.
The authors write that “although some early clinical studies suggested the potential efficacy of ivermectin in the treatment and prevention of COVID-19, these studies had methodologic weaknesses.”
Dr. Lim and colleagues point out that their findings are consistent with those of the IVERCOR-COVID19 trial, which found ivermectin ineffective in reducing hospitalization risk.
Previous randomized trials of ivermectin for COVID-19 patients that have included at least 400 patients have focused on outpatients.
In the current study, the authors note, patients were hospitalized, which allowed investigators to observe administration of ivermectin with a high adherence rate. Additionally, the researchers used clearly defined criteria for determining progression to severe disease.
Limitations of the current study include that the open-label design might lead to under-reporting of adverse events in the control group while overestimating the drug effects of ivermectin. The study was also not designed to assess the effects of ivermectin on mortality from COVID-19.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Ivermectin treatment given to high-risk patients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19 during the first week of illness did not prevent progression to severe disease, according to results from a randomized clinical trial.
“The study findings do not support the use of ivermectin for patients with COVID-19,” researchers conclude in the paper published online in JAMA Internal Medicine.
The open-label trial was conducted at 20 public hospitals and a COVID-19 quarantine center in Malaysia between May 31 and Oct. 25, 2021. It was led by Steven Chee Loon Lim, MRCP, department of medicine, Raja Permaisuri Bainun Hospital, Perak, Malaysia.
Among 490 patients in the primary analysis, 52 of 241 patients (21.6%) in the ivermectin group and 43 of 249 patients (17.3%) in the control group progressed to severe disease (relative risk, 1.25; 95% confidence interval, 0.87-1.80; P = .25). All major ethnic groups in Malaysia were well represented, the researchers write.
Participants (average age 62.5 and 54.5% women) were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive either a 5-day course of oral ivermectin (0.4 mg/kg body weight daily for 5 days) plus standard of care (n = 241) or standard of care alone (n = 249). Standard of care included symptomatic therapy and monitoring for early deterioration based on clinical findings, laboratory tests, and chest imaging.
Secondary outcomes
Secondary outcomes included rates of mechanical ventilation, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, 28-day in-hospital mortality, and side effects.
In all the secondary outcomes, there were no significant differences between groups.
Mechanical ventilation occurred in four patients on the ivermectin protocol (1.7%) versus 10 patients in the control group (4.0%) (RR, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.13-1.30; P = .17); ICU admission occurred in six (2.4%) versus eight (3.2%) (RR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.27-2.20; P = .79); and 28-day in-hospital death occurred in three (1.2%) versus 10 (4.0%) (RR, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.09-1.11; P = .09).
The most common adverse event was diarrhea, reported by 5.8% in the ivermectin group and 1.6% in the control group.
No difference by vaccine status
The researchers conducted a subgroup analysis to evaluate any differences in whether participants were vaccinated. They said that analysis was “unremarkable.”
Just more than half of participants (51.8%) were fully vaccinated, with two doses of COVID-19 vaccines. Among the fully vaccinated patients, 17.7% in the ivermectin group and 9.2% in the control group developed severe disease (RR, 1.92; 95% CI, 0.99-3.71; P = .06).
Ivermectin, an inexpensive and widely available antiparasitic drug, is prescribed to treat COVID-19 but has not been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for that purpose. Evidence-based data for or against use has been sparse.
The authors write that “although some early clinical studies suggested the potential efficacy of ivermectin in the treatment and prevention of COVID-19, these studies had methodologic weaknesses.”
Dr. Lim and colleagues point out that their findings are consistent with those of the IVERCOR-COVID19 trial, which found ivermectin ineffective in reducing hospitalization risk.
Previous randomized trials of ivermectin for COVID-19 patients that have included at least 400 patients have focused on outpatients.
In the current study, the authors note, patients were hospitalized, which allowed investigators to observe administration of ivermectin with a high adherence rate. Additionally, the researchers used clearly defined criteria for determining progression to severe disease.
Limitations of the current study include that the open-label design might lead to under-reporting of adverse events in the control group while overestimating the drug effects of ivermectin. The study was also not designed to assess the effects of ivermectin on mortality from COVID-19.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Ivermectin treatment given to high-risk patients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19 during the first week of illness did not prevent progression to severe disease, according to results from a randomized clinical trial.
“The study findings do not support the use of ivermectin for patients with COVID-19,” researchers conclude in the paper published online in JAMA Internal Medicine.
The open-label trial was conducted at 20 public hospitals and a COVID-19 quarantine center in Malaysia between May 31 and Oct. 25, 2021. It was led by Steven Chee Loon Lim, MRCP, department of medicine, Raja Permaisuri Bainun Hospital, Perak, Malaysia.
Among 490 patients in the primary analysis, 52 of 241 patients (21.6%) in the ivermectin group and 43 of 249 patients (17.3%) in the control group progressed to severe disease (relative risk, 1.25; 95% confidence interval, 0.87-1.80; P = .25). All major ethnic groups in Malaysia were well represented, the researchers write.
Participants (average age 62.5 and 54.5% women) were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive either a 5-day course of oral ivermectin (0.4 mg/kg body weight daily for 5 days) plus standard of care (n = 241) or standard of care alone (n = 249). Standard of care included symptomatic therapy and monitoring for early deterioration based on clinical findings, laboratory tests, and chest imaging.
Secondary outcomes
Secondary outcomes included rates of mechanical ventilation, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, 28-day in-hospital mortality, and side effects.
In all the secondary outcomes, there were no significant differences between groups.
Mechanical ventilation occurred in four patients on the ivermectin protocol (1.7%) versus 10 patients in the control group (4.0%) (RR, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.13-1.30; P = .17); ICU admission occurred in six (2.4%) versus eight (3.2%) (RR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.27-2.20; P = .79); and 28-day in-hospital death occurred in three (1.2%) versus 10 (4.0%) (RR, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.09-1.11; P = .09).
The most common adverse event was diarrhea, reported by 5.8% in the ivermectin group and 1.6% in the control group.
No difference by vaccine status
The researchers conducted a subgroup analysis to evaluate any differences in whether participants were vaccinated. They said that analysis was “unremarkable.”
Just more than half of participants (51.8%) were fully vaccinated, with two doses of COVID-19 vaccines. Among the fully vaccinated patients, 17.7% in the ivermectin group and 9.2% in the control group developed severe disease (RR, 1.92; 95% CI, 0.99-3.71; P = .06).
Ivermectin, an inexpensive and widely available antiparasitic drug, is prescribed to treat COVID-19 but has not been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for that purpose. Evidence-based data for or against use has been sparse.
The authors write that “although some early clinical studies suggested the potential efficacy of ivermectin in the treatment and prevention of COVID-19, these studies had methodologic weaknesses.”
Dr. Lim and colleagues point out that their findings are consistent with those of the IVERCOR-COVID19 trial, which found ivermectin ineffective in reducing hospitalization risk.
Previous randomized trials of ivermectin for COVID-19 patients that have included at least 400 patients have focused on outpatients.
In the current study, the authors note, patients were hospitalized, which allowed investigators to observe administration of ivermectin with a high adherence rate. Additionally, the researchers used clearly defined criteria for determining progression to severe disease.
Limitations of the current study include that the open-label design might lead to under-reporting of adverse events in the control group while overestimating the drug effects of ivermectin. The study was also not designed to assess the effects of ivermectin on mortality from COVID-19.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM JAMA INTERNAL MEDICNE
DOACs comparable to warfarin in CVT
and are less likely to result in major bleeding, a retrospective study suggests.
The ACTION CVT study was presented at the International Stroke Conference (ISC) 2022 by Ekaterina Bakradze, MD, assistant professor of neurology at the University of Alabama at Birmingham.
It was also simultaneously published online in Stroke.
“This real-world data supports use of direct oral anticoagulant drugs as a reasonable alternative to warfarin in patients with cerebral venous thrombosis,” Dr. Bakradze concluded.
But she added that because this study was based on retrospective observational data, the findings should be interpreted with caution and require confirmation by larger prospective studies.
Two such studies are now underway: the Direct Oral Anticoagulants in the Treatment of Cerebral Venous Thrombosis (DOAC-CVT) study and the randomized Study of Rivaroxaban for Cerebral Venous Thrombosis (SECRET) trial.
Dr. Bakradze explained that cerebral venous thrombosis is a less common cause of stroke and occurs more often in women and younger patients, with a median age of 37 years. Current recommended treatment consists of heparin followed by oral anticoagulation.
She noted that although randomized trials and current guidelines indicate that DOACs are a preferred alternative to warfarin for the treatment of patients with venous thromboembolism, there are limited data on their use in patients with CVT.
A small, randomized trial (RESPECT-CVT) showed no significant difference in efficacy and safety outcomes between dabigatran and warfarin in patients with cerebral venous thrombosis, but with only 120 patients, this trial was too small for definite answers to this question.
A better understanding of this issue is important, because the mechanisms underlying cerebral venous thrombosis and other thromboembolism and their subsequent risks may differ, Dr. Bakradze said.
As randomized trials in patients with cerebral venous thrombosis are difficult to perform because the condition has a low incidence and low event rates, the researchers decided to look at this question with a large retrospective multicenter study.
The ACTION-CVT study involved 845 consecutive patients with cerebral venous thrombosis over 6 years (from January 2015 and December 2020) from 27 centers in Italy, New Zealand, Switzerland, and the United States. Patients were identified from medical records with diagnostic codes and confirmed with imaging.
The primary predictor in the study was oral anticoagulant type (DOAC vs. warfarin). Study outcomes were abstracted by individual sites through review of all available medical records.
The primary outcome was recurrent venous thrombosis (venous thromboembolism or cerebral venous thrombosis) during follow-up. Imaging outcomes based on recanalization status on last venous imaging study abstracted from radiology reports were also reported.
The safety outcome was major hemorrhage, defined as new or worsening intracranial hemorrhage (ICH), or major extracranial hemorrhage. Results were adjusted for age, sex, and relevant medical conditions.
The mean age of the patients included was 44.8 years, 64.7% were women, 33% received DOAC only, 51.8% received warfarin only, and 15.1% received both treatments at different times.
Results showed that during a median follow-up of 345 days, there were 5.68 recurrent venous thrombosis events, 3.77 major hemorrhages, and 1.84 deaths per 100 patient-years.
Among 525 patients who met recanalization analysis inclusion criteria, 36.6% had complete, 48.2% had partial, and 15.2% had no recanalization.
When compared with warfarin, DOAC treatment was associated with similar risk for recurrent venous thrombosis (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.94; 95% confidence interval, 0.51-1.73; P = .84), death (aHR, 0.71, 95% CI, 0.24-2.08; P = .53), and rate of partial/complete recanalization (aHR, 0.92, 95% CI, 0.48-1.73; P = .79).
But patients who received a DOAC had a significantly lower rate of major hemorrhage (aHR, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.15-0.81; P = .02).
When examined separately, the occurrence of ICH per 100 patient-years was much lower among the patients prescribed DOACs than those who were prescribed warfarin (1.52 vs. 3.51), whereas the occurrence of major bleeding outside the brain was similar (0.91 vs. 1.15).
Similar efficacy, better safety
Commenting on the study at an ISC press conference, Mitchell Elkind, MD, immediate past president of the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association and professor of neurology at Columbia University, New York, said: “The community has been concerned about extending the use of these new direct-acting oral anticoagulant drugs to cerebral venous thrombosis, but this study suggests that these patients may benefit from these new agents too.”
Tudor Jovin, MD, chair of neurology at Cooper University Hospital, Cherry Hill, New Jersey, also commented: “This study confirms what we already know from other indications about these DOAC drugs: that they have similar efficacy to warfarin but a better safety profile. These results are really spot on with that. These drugs are also much easier and more convenient to use than warfarin.”
“This is a great step forward,” he added. “Only 30% of patients in this study received DOACs, reflecting the fact that clinicians may be a little reluctant to use them in this condition. But this study now has the potential to change practice.”
In an editorial accompanying the publication in Stroke, Johnathon Gorman, MD, and Thalia Field, MD, from the Vancouver Stroke Program at the University of British Columbia, say that despite its methodological limitations, the ACTION-CVT study “provides added value to the current state of knowledge by virtue of its size and ‘real world’ setting that is reflective of how DOACs are being used to manage CVT in current clinical practice.”
They point out that although baseline characteristics between the DOAC and warfarin groups were similar, the possibility of confounding cannot be excluded, and “other characteristics not easily captured in a retrospective study may sway anticoagulation strategy.”
They acknowledge, however, that an additional propensity score analysis “provides reassurance that the groups are reasonably balanced, adjusting for variables associated with recurrent cerebral venous thrombosis, recanalization, and hemorrhage.”
The editorialists conclude that ACTION-CVT gives additional reassurance for DOACs as an alternative approach to warfarin as a treatment for cerebral venous thrombosis and for the shifts in clinical practice that are already occurring at many centers.
The study was partially supported by the Italian Ministry of Health Ricerca Corrente–IRCCS MultiMedica. Dr. Bakradze reports no disclosures. Dr. Field is the principal investigator of the SECRET trial, which received in-kind study medication from Bayer Canada. She reports honoraria from HLS Therapeutics outside the submitted work and is on the board of Destine Health. The other editorialist reports no conflicts.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
and are less likely to result in major bleeding, a retrospective study suggests.
The ACTION CVT study was presented at the International Stroke Conference (ISC) 2022 by Ekaterina Bakradze, MD, assistant professor of neurology at the University of Alabama at Birmingham.
It was also simultaneously published online in Stroke.
“This real-world data supports use of direct oral anticoagulant drugs as a reasonable alternative to warfarin in patients with cerebral venous thrombosis,” Dr. Bakradze concluded.
But she added that because this study was based on retrospective observational data, the findings should be interpreted with caution and require confirmation by larger prospective studies.
Two such studies are now underway: the Direct Oral Anticoagulants in the Treatment of Cerebral Venous Thrombosis (DOAC-CVT) study and the randomized Study of Rivaroxaban for Cerebral Venous Thrombosis (SECRET) trial.
Dr. Bakradze explained that cerebral venous thrombosis is a less common cause of stroke and occurs more often in women and younger patients, with a median age of 37 years. Current recommended treatment consists of heparin followed by oral anticoagulation.
She noted that although randomized trials and current guidelines indicate that DOACs are a preferred alternative to warfarin for the treatment of patients with venous thromboembolism, there are limited data on their use in patients with CVT.
A small, randomized trial (RESPECT-CVT) showed no significant difference in efficacy and safety outcomes between dabigatran and warfarin in patients with cerebral venous thrombosis, but with only 120 patients, this trial was too small for definite answers to this question.
A better understanding of this issue is important, because the mechanisms underlying cerebral venous thrombosis and other thromboembolism and their subsequent risks may differ, Dr. Bakradze said.
As randomized trials in patients with cerebral venous thrombosis are difficult to perform because the condition has a low incidence and low event rates, the researchers decided to look at this question with a large retrospective multicenter study.
The ACTION-CVT study involved 845 consecutive patients with cerebral venous thrombosis over 6 years (from January 2015 and December 2020) from 27 centers in Italy, New Zealand, Switzerland, and the United States. Patients were identified from medical records with diagnostic codes and confirmed with imaging.
The primary predictor in the study was oral anticoagulant type (DOAC vs. warfarin). Study outcomes were abstracted by individual sites through review of all available medical records.
The primary outcome was recurrent venous thrombosis (venous thromboembolism or cerebral venous thrombosis) during follow-up. Imaging outcomes based on recanalization status on last venous imaging study abstracted from radiology reports were also reported.
The safety outcome was major hemorrhage, defined as new or worsening intracranial hemorrhage (ICH), or major extracranial hemorrhage. Results were adjusted for age, sex, and relevant medical conditions.
The mean age of the patients included was 44.8 years, 64.7% were women, 33% received DOAC only, 51.8% received warfarin only, and 15.1% received both treatments at different times.
Results showed that during a median follow-up of 345 days, there were 5.68 recurrent venous thrombosis events, 3.77 major hemorrhages, and 1.84 deaths per 100 patient-years.
Among 525 patients who met recanalization analysis inclusion criteria, 36.6% had complete, 48.2% had partial, and 15.2% had no recanalization.
When compared with warfarin, DOAC treatment was associated with similar risk for recurrent venous thrombosis (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.94; 95% confidence interval, 0.51-1.73; P = .84), death (aHR, 0.71, 95% CI, 0.24-2.08; P = .53), and rate of partial/complete recanalization (aHR, 0.92, 95% CI, 0.48-1.73; P = .79).
But patients who received a DOAC had a significantly lower rate of major hemorrhage (aHR, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.15-0.81; P = .02).
When examined separately, the occurrence of ICH per 100 patient-years was much lower among the patients prescribed DOACs than those who were prescribed warfarin (1.52 vs. 3.51), whereas the occurrence of major bleeding outside the brain was similar (0.91 vs. 1.15).
Similar efficacy, better safety
Commenting on the study at an ISC press conference, Mitchell Elkind, MD, immediate past president of the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association and professor of neurology at Columbia University, New York, said: “The community has been concerned about extending the use of these new direct-acting oral anticoagulant drugs to cerebral venous thrombosis, but this study suggests that these patients may benefit from these new agents too.”
Tudor Jovin, MD, chair of neurology at Cooper University Hospital, Cherry Hill, New Jersey, also commented: “This study confirms what we already know from other indications about these DOAC drugs: that they have similar efficacy to warfarin but a better safety profile. These results are really spot on with that. These drugs are also much easier and more convenient to use than warfarin.”
“This is a great step forward,” he added. “Only 30% of patients in this study received DOACs, reflecting the fact that clinicians may be a little reluctant to use them in this condition. But this study now has the potential to change practice.”
In an editorial accompanying the publication in Stroke, Johnathon Gorman, MD, and Thalia Field, MD, from the Vancouver Stroke Program at the University of British Columbia, say that despite its methodological limitations, the ACTION-CVT study “provides added value to the current state of knowledge by virtue of its size and ‘real world’ setting that is reflective of how DOACs are being used to manage CVT in current clinical practice.”
They point out that although baseline characteristics between the DOAC and warfarin groups were similar, the possibility of confounding cannot be excluded, and “other characteristics not easily captured in a retrospective study may sway anticoagulation strategy.”
They acknowledge, however, that an additional propensity score analysis “provides reassurance that the groups are reasonably balanced, adjusting for variables associated with recurrent cerebral venous thrombosis, recanalization, and hemorrhage.”
The editorialists conclude that ACTION-CVT gives additional reassurance for DOACs as an alternative approach to warfarin as a treatment for cerebral venous thrombosis and for the shifts in clinical practice that are already occurring at many centers.
The study was partially supported by the Italian Ministry of Health Ricerca Corrente–IRCCS MultiMedica. Dr. Bakradze reports no disclosures. Dr. Field is the principal investigator of the SECRET trial, which received in-kind study medication from Bayer Canada. She reports honoraria from HLS Therapeutics outside the submitted work and is on the board of Destine Health. The other editorialist reports no conflicts.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
and are less likely to result in major bleeding, a retrospective study suggests.
The ACTION CVT study was presented at the International Stroke Conference (ISC) 2022 by Ekaterina Bakradze, MD, assistant professor of neurology at the University of Alabama at Birmingham.
It was also simultaneously published online in Stroke.
“This real-world data supports use of direct oral anticoagulant drugs as a reasonable alternative to warfarin in patients with cerebral venous thrombosis,” Dr. Bakradze concluded.
But she added that because this study was based on retrospective observational data, the findings should be interpreted with caution and require confirmation by larger prospective studies.
Two such studies are now underway: the Direct Oral Anticoagulants in the Treatment of Cerebral Venous Thrombosis (DOAC-CVT) study and the randomized Study of Rivaroxaban for Cerebral Venous Thrombosis (SECRET) trial.
Dr. Bakradze explained that cerebral venous thrombosis is a less common cause of stroke and occurs more often in women and younger patients, with a median age of 37 years. Current recommended treatment consists of heparin followed by oral anticoagulation.
She noted that although randomized trials and current guidelines indicate that DOACs are a preferred alternative to warfarin for the treatment of patients with venous thromboembolism, there are limited data on their use in patients with CVT.
A small, randomized trial (RESPECT-CVT) showed no significant difference in efficacy and safety outcomes between dabigatran and warfarin in patients with cerebral venous thrombosis, but with only 120 patients, this trial was too small for definite answers to this question.
A better understanding of this issue is important, because the mechanisms underlying cerebral venous thrombosis and other thromboembolism and their subsequent risks may differ, Dr. Bakradze said.
As randomized trials in patients with cerebral venous thrombosis are difficult to perform because the condition has a low incidence and low event rates, the researchers decided to look at this question with a large retrospective multicenter study.
The ACTION-CVT study involved 845 consecutive patients with cerebral venous thrombosis over 6 years (from January 2015 and December 2020) from 27 centers in Italy, New Zealand, Switzerland, and the United States. Patients were identified from medical records with diagnostic codes and confirmed with imaging.
The primary predictor in the study was oral anticoagulant type (DOAC vs. warfarin). Study outcomes were abstracted by individual sites through review of all available medical records.
The primary outcome was recurrent venous thrombosis (venous thromboembolism or cerebral venous thrombosis) during follow-up. Imaging outcomes based on recanalization status on last venous imaging study abstracted from radiology reports were also reported.
The safety outcome was major hemorrhage, defined as new or worsening intracranial hemorrhage (ICH), or major extracranial hemorrhage. Results were adjusted for age, sex, and relevant medical conditions.
The mean age of the patients included was 44.8 years, 64.7% were women, 33% received DOAC only, 51.8% received warfarin only, and 15.1% received both treatments at different times.
Results showed that during a median follow-up of 345 days, there were 5.68 recurrent venous thrombosis events, 3.77 major hemorrhages, and 1.84 deaths per 100 patient-years.
Among 525 patients who met recanalization analysis inclusion criteria, 36.6% had complete, 48.2% had partial, and 15.2% had no recanalization.
When compared with warfarin, DOAC treatment was associated with similar risk for recurrent venous thrombosis (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.94; 95% confidence interval, 0.51-1.73; P = .84), death (aHR, 0.71, 95% CI, 0.24-2.08; P = .53), and rate of partial/complete recanalization (aHR, 0.92, 95% CI, 0.48-1.73; P = .79).
But patients who received a DOAC had a significantly lower rate of major hemorrhage (aHR, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.15-0.81; P = .02).
When examined separately, the occurrence of ICH per 100 patient-years was much lower among the patients prescribed DOACs than those who were prescribed warfarin (1.52 vs. 3.51), whereas the occurrence of major bleeding outside the brain was similar (0.91 vs. 1.15).
Similar efficacy, better safety
Commenting on the study at an ISC press conference, Mitchell Elkind, MD, immediate past president of the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association and professor of neurology at Columbia University, New York, said: “The community has been concerned about extending the use of these new direct-acting oral anticoagulant drugs to cerebral venous thrombosis, but this study suggests that these patients may benefit from these new agents too.”
Tudor Jovin, MD, chair of neurology at Cooper University Hospital, Cherry Hill, New Jersey, also commented: “This study confirms what we already know from other indications about these DOAC drugs: that they have similar efficacy to warfarin but a better safety profile. These results are really spot on with that. These drugs are also much easier and more convenient to use than warfarin.”
“This is a great step forward,” he added. “Only 30% of patients in this study received DOACs, reflecting the fact that clinicians may be a little reluctant to use them in this condition. But this study now has the potential to change practice.”
In an editorial accompanying the publication in Stroke, Johnathon Gorman, MD, and Thalia Field, MD, from the Vancouver Stroke Program at the University of British Columbia, say that despite its methodological limitations, the ACTION-CVT study “provides added value to the current state of knowledge by virtue of its size and ‘real world’ setting that is reflective of how DOACs are being used to manage CVT in current clinical practice.”
They point out that although baseline characteristics between the DOAC and warfarin groups were similar, the possibility of confounding cannot be excluded, and “other characteristics not easily captured in a retrospective study may sway anticoagulation strategy.”
They acknowledge, however, that an additional propensity score analysis “provides reassurance that the groups are reasonably balanced, adjusting for variables associated with recurrent cerebral venous thrombosis, recanalization, and hemorrhage.”
The editorialists conclude that ACTION-CVT gives additional reassurance for DOACs as an alternative approach to warfarin as a treatment for cerebral venous thrombosis and for the shifts in clinical practice that are already occurring at many centers.
The study was partially supported by the Italian Ministry of Health Ricerca Corrente–IRCCS MultiMedica. Dr. Bakradze reports no disclosures. Dr. Field is the principal investigator of the SECRET trial, which received in-kind study medication from Bayer Canada. She reports honoraria from HLS Therapeutics outside the submitted work and is on the board of Destine Health. The other editorialist reports no conflicts.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
From ISC 2022
High praise, condemnation for CMS Aduhelm coverage plan
Medicare has received a key endorsement of its plan to restrict payment for the controversial Alzheimer’s disease (AD) drug aducanumab (Aduhelm) – but also drew pleas from other groups for more generous reimbursement of the drug, as well as expected similar medications currently in development.
The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services received more than 9,900 comments on its plan, according to the current tally posted on its website. However, it is unclear when the final count will be available.
CMS intends to limit federal payment for monoclonal antibodies that target amyloid to clinical trials. Among supporters of this approach is the influential Medicare Payment Advisory Commission, an expert panel that helps Congress and CMS manage the federal health program.
Opponents of the CMS plan include several pharmaceutical companies. Patient and consumer groups, individuals, and lawmakers had mixed views.
CMS officials will weigh the feedback provided in the comments when setting a final coverage policy for aducanumab. It is expected the agency’s final decision will be announced on April 11.
Ongoing debate
The Food and Drug Administration’s unusual approach to clearing the drug for U.S. sales triggered a review of its management of the accelerated approval process by the Office of Inspector General for the Department of Health & Human Services.
The FDA granted an accelerated approval for aducanumab in June based on evidence that the drug clears amyloid in the brain. However, it is unclear whether clearing the protein from the brain results in clinical benefit.
Usually, accelerated approvals precede the completion of phase 3 drug trials, with the FDA allowing early access to a medicine while awaiting confirmatory trials.
In the case of aducanumab, results of the phase 3 confirmatory trials ENGAGE and EMERGE were available at the time of FDA approval. However, interpretation of the findings is controversial.
Biogen contends that the amyloid-clearing effect of the higher dose of aducanumab shown in EMERGE indicates the drug has clinical potential. However, others argue that amyloid clearance does not indicate clinical benefit.
Limiting Medicare coverage of aducanumab for treatment of AD means “the progression of disease, for nearly all beneficiaries, would continue unabated,” Biogen wrote in its comment to CMS.
Conflicting data
Supporters of the CMS plan have a different view of the trial data. They note the failure of aducanumab in the companion ENGAGE trial, while also questioning the magnitude of benefit suggested by even the most positive data cited for the drug in the EMERGE trial.
Both studies used the Clinical Dementia Rating-Sum of Boxes (CDR-SB) score, an 18-point scale measuring cognition and function.
In his comment to CMS, MedPAC chairman Michael E. Chernew, PhD, noted the change in CDR-SB score of 0.39 in EMERGE’s high-dose aducanumab group. CMS has described this as being “less than the 1-2 point change that has been suggested as a minimal clinically important difference,” Dr. Chernew wrote.
MedPAC does not normally comment on Medicare coverage decisions, but did so in this case because of its significance and because of the potential fiscal implications, he noted.
“Though there is only limited, conflicting data on Aduhelm’s clinical effectiveness, Medicare would pay a high price for the product,” Dr. Chernew wrote, pointing out the $28,200 annual U.S. price of the drug.
MedPAC thus endorsed the coverage-with-evidence-development (CED) pathway. Under this approach, Medicare would pay for these drugs when used in clinical trials that meet certain criteria.
Legal challenge?
In its comment to CMS, Biogen questioned the agency’s legal grounds for limiting coverage of aducanumab. A mandate on clinical trials as part of the CED proposal “runs afoul of the Administrative Procedure Act’s prohibition against arbitrary and capricious agency action,” Biogen said.
The drug company argued that its own planned follow-on studies would provide the kind of data Medicare officials want to see. It also argued for greater use of observational data, including real-world evidence, and of information from Medicare claims.
Roche’s Genentech, which is also developing antiamyloid drugs for AD, echoed some of Biogen’s concerns about the aducanumab plan.
CMS’ CED plan would be “unnecessarily restrictive and discouraging for patients living with this destructive disease,” David Burt, executive director for federal government affairs at Genentech, wrote in a comment to CMS.
CMS should clarify that the CED requirement would not apply to cases of FDA-approved antiamyloid therapies that have demonstrated “clinically meaningful improvement,” Mr. Burt added. He noted there are phase 3 trials of drugs in this class that could soon produce data.
CMS should “fully consider the broad ramifications and significant unintended consequences of prematurely placing unduly severe restrictions on the entire class of antiamyloid monoclonal antibodies,” Mr. Burt wrote.
Health care inequity
In its comment to CMS, Biogen also noted the Medicare proposal would “compound the already pervasive inequities in access to treatment and will ultimately prove highly detrimental to health equity.”
There are already concerns about the access of Black and Latinx patients to clinical trials. The planned CED approach would tightly restrict access to aducanumab, as well as expected follow-ons in the amyloid-directed monoclonal antibody (mAb) drug class, the company said.
“Many of the trial sites for Aduhelm, as well as for other amyloid-directed [monoclonal antibodies] are not hospital-based outpatient settings, but include infusion centers, private practices, and medical research centers,” Biogen wrote.
Patient groups such as UsAgainstAlzheimer’s told CMS the CED approach would worsen disparities, despite the aim of Medicare officials to increase participation of Black and Latinx patients in future testing.
“CMS will be hard-pressed to achieve diversity if such hospitals are the only locations where Medicare beneficiaries are able to access mAbs,” USAgainstAlzheimer’s wrote in a Feb. 10 comment.
In contrast, the nonprofit National Center for Health Research praised CMS for what it described as an effort to address a lack of representation of Black and Latinx patients in earlier aducanumab research.
However, the NCHR also suggested CMS revise its plan to mandate that clinical trials include patients who are representative of the national population diagnosed with AD.
“Rather than being concerned about the percentage of patients in specific racial and ethnic groups, we propose that CMS include sufficient numbers of patients in different racial, ethnic, and age groups to ensure that there is enough statistical power for subgroup analyses to determine safety and efficacy for each of the major demographic groups,” the NCHR wrote.
Patient health, Medicare at risk
On Feb. 8, a group of House Republican lawmakers asked CMS to reverse its stance. In a publicly released letter, Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers of Washington state, the ranking Republican on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, and colleagues urged broader coverage of aducanumab.
In the letter, the group emphasized the idea of aducanumab as a potential treatment for patients with Down syndrome who are at risk for AD.
“The link between Down Syndrome and AD is still being researched by scientists,” Rep. Rodgers and colleagues wrote.
“However, there appears to be a correlation between the additional 21st chromosome present in people with Down Syndrome and the chromosome’s gene that makes amyloid precursor proteins and can cause a build-up of the beta-amyloid plaques common amongst those with AD,” they add.
On the other hand, CMS garnered earlier support from influential Democrats. On Jan. 13, House Energy and Commerce Chairman Frank Pallone Jr (D-N.J.) and House Oversight and Reform Chairwoman Carolyn B. Maloney (D-N.Y.) released a letter praising CMS for its plan for covering aducanumab.
In addition to the HHS-OIG review of the FDA’s approval of the drug, the two House committees are in the midst of their own investigation of the agency’s decision to clear the drug.
“Any broader coverage determination before there is clarity on Aduhelm’s approval process and findings from the myriad ongoing investigations may put the health of millions of Alzheimer’s patients on the line and the financial stability of the nation’s health insurance program for American seniors at risk,” Rep. Pallone and Rep. Maloney wrote.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Medicare has received a key endorsement of its plan to restrict payment for the controversial Alzheimer’s disease (AD) drug aducanumab (Aduhelm) – but also drew pleas from other groups for more generous reimbursement of the drug, as well as expected similar medications currently in development.
The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services received more than 9,900 comments on its plan, according to the current tally posted on its website. However, it is unclear when the final count will be available.
CMS intends to limit federal payment for monoclonal antibodies that target amyloid to clinical trials. Among supporters of this approach is the influential Medicare Payment Advisory Commission, an expert panel that helps Congress and CMS manage the federal health program.
Opponents of the CMS plan include several pharmaceutical companies. Patient and consumer groups, individuals, and lawmakers had mixed views.
CMS officials will weigh the feedback provided in the comments when setting a final coverage policy for aducanumab. It is expected the agency’s final decision will be announced on April 11.
Ongoing debate
The Food and Drug Administration’s unusual approach to clearing the drug for U.S. sales triggered a review of its management of the accelerated approval process by the Office of Inspector General for the Department of Health & Human Services.
The FDA granted an accelerated approval for aducanumab in June based on evidence that the drug clears amyloid in the brain. However, it is unclear whether clearing the protein from the brain results in clinical benefit.
Usually, accelerated approvals precede the completion of phase 3 drug trials, with the FDA allowing early access to a medicine while awaiting confirmatory trials.
In the case of aducanumab, results of the phase 3 confirmatory trials ENGAGE and EMERGE were available at the time of FDA approval. However, interpretation of the findings is controversial.
Biogen contends that the amyloid-clearing effect of the higher dose of aducanumab shown in EMERGE indicates the drug has clinical potential. However, others argue that amyloid clearance does not indicate clinical benefit.
Limiting Medicare coverage of aducanumab for treatment of AD means “the progression of disease, for nearly all beneficiaries, would continue unabated,” Biogen wrote in its comment to CMS.
Conflicting data
Supporters of the CMS plan have a different view of the trial data. They note the failure of aducanumab in the companion ENGAGE trial, while also questioning the magnitude of benefit suggested by even the most positive data cited for the drug in the EMERGE trial.
Both studies used the Clinical Dementia Rating-Sum of Boxes (CDR-SB) score, an 18-point scale measuring cognition and function.
In his comment to CMS, MedPAC chairman Michael E. Chernew, PhD, noted the change in CDR-SB score of 0.39 in EMERGE’s high-dose aducanumab group. CMS has described this as being “less than the 1-2 point change that has been suggested as a minimal clinically important difference,” Dr. Chernew wrote.
MedPAC does not normally comment on Medicare coverage decisions, but did so in this case because of its significance and because of the potential fiscal implications, he noted.
“Though there is only limited, conflicting data on Aduhelm’s clinical effectiveness, Medicare would pay a high price for the product,” Dr. Chernew wrote, pointing out the $28,200 annual U.S. price of the drug.
MedPAC thus endorsed the coverage-with-evidence-development (CED) pathway. Under this approach, Medicare would pay for these drugs when used in clinical trials that meet certain criteria.
Legal challenge?
In its comment to CMS, Biogen questioned the agency’s legal grounds for limiting coverage of aducanumab. A mandate on clinical trials as part of the CED proposal “runs afoul of the Administrative Procedure Act’s prohibition against arbitrary and capricious agency action,” Biogen said.
The drug company argued that its own planned follow-on studies would provide the kind of data Medicare officials want to see. It also argued for greater use of observational data, including real-world evidence, and of information from Medicare claims.
Roche’s Genentech, which is also developing antiamyloid drugs for AD, echoed some of Biogen’s concerns about the aducanumab plan.
CMS’ CED plan would be “unnecessarily restrictive and discouraging for patients living with this destructive disease,” David Burt, executive director for federal government affairs at Genentech, wrote in a comment to CMS.
CMS should clarify that the CED requirement would not apply to cases of FDA-approved antiamyloid therapies that have demonstrated “clinically meaningful improvement,” Mr. Burt added. He noted there are phase 3 trials of drugs in this class that could soon produce data.
CMS should “fully consider the broad ramifications and significant unintended consequences of prematurely placing unduly severe restrictions on the entire class of antiamyloid monoclonal antibodies,” Mr. Burt wrote.
Health care inequity
In its comment to CMS, Biogen also noted the Medicare proposal would “compound the already pervasive inequities in access to treatment and will ultimately prove highly detrimental to health equity.”
There are already concerns about the access of Black and Latinx patients to clinical trials. The planned CED approach would tightly restrict access to aducanumab, as well as expected follow-ons in the amyloid-directed monoclonal antibody (mAb) drug class, the company said.
“Many of the trial sites for Aduhelm, as well as for other amyloid-directed [monoclonal antibodies] are not hospital-based outpatient settings, but include infusion centers, private practices, and medical research centers,” Biogen wrote.
Patient groups such as UsAgainstAlzheimer’s told CMS the CED approach would worsen disparities, despite the aim of Medicare officials to increase participation of Black and Latinx patients in future testing.
“CMS will be hard-pressed to achieve diversity if such hospitals are the only locations where Medicare beneficiaries are able to access mAbs,” USAgainstAlzheimer’s wrote in a Feb. 10 comment.
In contrast, the nonprofit National Center for Health Research praised CMS for what it described as an effort to address a lack of representation of Black and Latinx patients in earlier aducanumab research.
However, the NCHR also suggested CMS revise its plan to mandate that clinical trials include patients who are representative of the national population diagnosed with AD.
“Rather than being concerned about the percentage of patients in specific racial and ethnic groups, we propose that CMS include sufficient numbers of patients in different racial, ethnic, and age groups to ensure that there is enough statistical power for subgroup analyses to determine safety and efficacy for each of the major demographic groups,” the NCHR wrote.
Patient health, Medicare at risk
On Feb. 8, a group of House Republican lawmakers asked CMS to reverse its stance. In a publicly released letter, Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers of Washington state, the ranking Republican on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, and colleagues urged broader coverage of aducanumab.
In the letter, the group emphasized the idea of aducanumab as a potential treatment for patients with Down syndrome who are at risk for AD.
“The link between Down Syndrome and AD is still being researched by scientists,” Rep. Rodgers and colleagues wrote.
“However, there appears to be a correlation between the additional 21st chromosome present in people with Down Syndrome and the chromosome’s gene that makes amyloid precursor proteins and can cause a build-up of the beta-amyloid plaques common amongst those with AD,” they add.
On the other hand, CMS garnered earlier support from influential Democrats. On Jan. 13, House Energy and Commerce Chairman Frank Pallone Jr (D-N.J.) and House Oversight and Reform Chairwoman Carolyn B. Maloney (D-N.Y.) released a letter praising CMS for its plan for covering aducanumab.
In addition to the HHS-OIG review of the FDA’s approval of the drug, the two House committees are in the midst of their own investigation of the agency’s decision to clear the drug.
“Any broader coverage determination before there is clarity on Aduhelm’s approval process and findings from the myriad ongoing investigations may put the health of millions of Alzheimer’s patients on the line and the financial stability of the nation’s health insurance program for American seniors at risk,” Rep. Pallone and Rep. Maloney wrote.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Medicare has received a key endorsement of its plan to restrict payment for the controversial Alzheimer’s disease (AD) drug aducanumab (Aduhelm) – but also drew pleas from other groups for more generous reimbursement of the drug, as well as expected similar medications currently in development.
The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services received more than 9,900 comments on its plan, according to the current tally posted on its website. However, it is unclear when the final count will be available.
CMS intends to limit federal payment for monoclonal antibodies that target amyloid to clinical trials. Among supporters of this approach is the influential Medicare Payment Advisory Commission, an expert panel that helps Congress and CMS manage the federal health program.
Opponents of the CMS plan include several pharmaceutical companies. Patient and consumer groups, individuals, and lawmakers had mixed views.
CMS officials will weigh the feedback provided in the comments when setting a final coverage policy for aducanumab. It is expected the agency’s final decision will be announced on April 11.
Ongoing debate
The Food and Drug Administration’s unusual approach to clearing the drug for U.S. sales triggered a review of its management of the accelerated approval process by the Office of Inspector General for the Department of Health & Human Services.
The FDA granted an accelerated approval for aducanumab in June based on evidence that the drug clears amyloid in the brain. However, it is unclear whether clearing the protein from the brain results in clinical benefit.
Usually, accelerated approvals precede the completion of phase 3 drug trials, with the FDA allowing early access to a medicine while awaiting confirmatory trials.
In the case of aducanumab, results of the phase 3 confirmatory trials ENGAGE and EMERGE were available at the time of FDA approval. However, interpretation of the findings is controversial.
Biogen contends that the amyloid-clearing effect of the higher dose of aducanumab shown in EMERGE indicates the drug has clinical potential. However, others argue that amyloid clearance does not indicate clinical benefit.
Limiting Medicare coverage of aducanumab for treatment of AD means “the progression of disease, for nearly all beneficiaries, would continue unabated,” Biogen wrote in its comment to CMS.
Conflicting data
Supporters of the CMS plan have a different view of the trial data. They note the failure of aducanumab in the companion ENGAGE trial, while also questioning the magnitude of benefit suggested by even the most positive data cited for the drug in the EMERGE trial.
Both studies used the Clinical Dementia Rating-Sum of Boxes (CDR-SB) score, an 18-point scale measuring cognition and function.
In his comment to CMS, MedPAC chairman Michael E. Chernew, PhD, noted the change in CDR-SB score of 0.39 in EMERGE’s high-dose aducanumab group. CMS has described this as being “less than the 1-2 point change that has been suggested as a minimal clinically important difference,” Dr. Chernew wrote.
MedPAC does not normally comment on Medicare coverage decisions, but did so in this case because of its significance and because of the potential fiscal implications, he noted.
“Though there is only limited, conflicting data on Aduhelm’s clinical effectiveness, Medicare would pay a high price for the product,” Dr. Chernew wrote, pointing out the $28,200 annual U.S. price of the drug.
MedPAC thus endorsed the coverage-with-evidence-development (CED) pathway. Under this approach, Medicare would pay for these drugs when used in clinical trials that meet certain criteria.
Legal challenge?
In its comment to CMS, Biogen questioned the agency’s legal grounds for limiting coverage of aducanumab. A mandate on clinical trials as part of the CED proposal “runs afoul of the Administrative Procedure Act’s prohibition against arbitrary and capricious agency action,” Biogen said.
The drug company argued that its own planned follow-on studies would provide the kind of data Medicare officials want to see. It also argued for greater use of observational data, including real-world evidence, and of information from Medicare claims.
Roche’s Genentech, which is also developing antiamyloid drugs for AD, echoed some of Biogen’s concerns about the aducanumab plan.
CMS’ CED plan would be “unnecessarily restrictive and discouraging for patients living with this destructive disease,” David Burt, executive director for federal government affairs at Genentech, wrote in a comment to CMS.
CMS should clarify that the CED requirement would not apply to cases of FDA-approved antiamyloid therapies that have demonstrated “clinically meaningful improvement,” Mr. Burt added. He noted there are phase 3 trials of drugs in this class that could soon produce data.
CMS should “fully consider the broad ramifications and significant unintended consequences of prematurely placing unduly severe restrictions on the entire class of antiamyloid monoclonal antibodies,” Mr. Burt wrote.
Health care inequity
In its comment to CMS, Biogen also noted the Medicare proposal would “compound the already pervasive inequities in access to treatment and will ultimately prove highly detrimental to health equity.”
There are already concerns about the access of Black and Latinx patients to clinical trials. The planned CED approach would tightly restrict access to aducanumab, as well as expected follow-ons in the amyloid-directed monoclonal antibody (mAb) drug class, the company said.
“Many of the trial sites for Aduhelm, as well as for other amyloid-directed [monoclonal antibodies] are not hospital-based outpatient settings, but include infusion centers, private practices, and medical research centers,” Biogen wrote.
Patient groups such as UsAgainstAlzheimer’s told CMS the CED approach would worsen disparities, despite the aim of Medicare officials to increase participation of Black and Latinx patients in future testing.
“CMS will be hard-pressed to achieve diversity if such hospitals are the only locations where Medicare beneficiaries are able to access mAbs,” USAgainstAlzheimer’s wrote in a Feb. 10 comment.
In contrast, the nonprofit National Center for Health Research praised CMS for what it described as an effort to address a lack of representation of Black and Latinx patients in earlier aducanumab research.
However, the NCHR also suggested CMS revise its plan to mandate that clinical trials include patients who are representative of the national population diagnosed with AD.
“Rather than being concerned about the percentage of patients in specific racial and ethnic groups, we propose that CMS include sufficient numbers of patients in different racial, ethnic, and age groups to ensure that there is enough statistical power for subgroup analyses to determine safety and efficacy for each of the major demographic groups,” the NCHR wrote.
Patient health, Medicare at risk
On Feb. 8, a group of House Republican lawmakers asked CMS to reverse its stance. In a publicly released letter, Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers of Washington state, the ranking Republican on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, and colleagues urged broader coverage of aducanumab.
In the letter, the group emphasized the idea of aducanumab as a potential treatment for patients with Down syndrome who are at risk for AD.
“The link between Down Syndrome and AD is still being researched by scientists,” Rep. Rodgers and colleagues wrote.
“However, there appears to be a correlation between the additional 21st chromosome present in people with Down Syndrome and the chromosome’s gene that makes amyloid precursor proteins and can cause a build-up of the beta-amyloid plaques common amongst those with AD,” they add.
On the other hand, CMS garnered earlier support from influential Democrats. On Jan. 13, House Energy and Commerce Chairman Frank Pallone Jr (D-N.J.) and House Oversight and Reform Chairwoman Carolyn B. Maloney (D-N.Y.) released a letter praising CMS for its plan for covering aducanumab.
In addition to the HHS-OIG review of the FDA’s approval of the drug, the two House committees are in the midst of their own investigation of the agency’s decision to clear the drug.
“Any broader coverage determination before there is clarity on Aduhelm’s approval process and findings from the myriad ongoing investigations may put the health of millions of Alzheimer’s patients on the line and the financial stability of the nation’s health insurance program for American seniors at risk,” Rep. Pallone and Rep. Maloney wrote.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Estrogen supplementation may reduce COVID-19 death risk
Estrogen supplementation is associated with a reduced risk of death from COVID-19 among postmenopausal women, new research suggests.
The findings, from a nationwide study using data from Sweden, were published online Feb. 14 in BMJ Open by Malin Sund, MD, PhD, of Umeå (Sweden) University Faculty of Medicine and colleagues.
Among postmenopausal women aged 50-80 years with verified COVID-19, those receiving estrogen as part of hormone replacement therapy for menopausal symptoms were less than half as likely to die from it as those not receiving estrogen, even after adjustment for confounders.
“This study shows an association between estrogen levels and COVID-19 death. Consequently, drugs increasing estrogen levels may have a role in therapeutic efforts to alleviate COVID-19 severity in postmenopausal women and could be studied in randomized control trials,” the investigators write.
However, coauthor Anne-Marie Fors Connolly, MD, PhD, a resident in clinical microbiology at Umeå University, cautioned: “This is an observational study. Further clinical studies are needed to verify these results before recommending clinicians to consider estrogen supplementation.”
Stephen Evans, professor of pharmacoepidemiology, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, agrees.
He told the U.K. Science and Media Centre: “This is an observational study comparing three groups of women based on whether they used hormonal therapy to boost estrogen levels or who had, as a result of treatment for breast cancer ... reduced estrogen levels or neither. The findings are apparently dramatic.”
“At the very least, great caution should be exercised in thinking that menopausal hormone therapy will have substantial, or even any, benefits in dealing with COVID-19,” he warned.
Do women die less frequently from COVID-19 than men?
Studies conducted early in the pandemic suggest women may be protected from poor outcomes of SARS-CoV-2 infection, compared with men, even after adjustment for confounders.
According to more recent data from the Swedish Public Health Agency, of the 16,501 people who have died from COVID-19 since the start of the pandemic, about 45% are women and 55% are men. About 70% who have received intensive care because of COVID-19 are men, although cumulative data suggest that women are nearly as likely to die from COVID-19 as men, Dr. Connolly told this news organization.
For the current study, a total of 14,685 women aged 50-80 years were included, of whom 17.3% (2,535) had received estrogen supplementation, 81.2% (11,923) had native estrogen levels with no breast cancer or estrogen supplementation (controls), and 1.5% (227) had decreased estrogen levels because of breast cancer and antiestrogen treatment.
The group with decreased estrogen levels had a more than twofold risk of dying from COVID-19 compared with controls (odds ratio, 2.35), but this difference was no longer significant after adjustments for potential confounders including age, income, and educational level, and weighted Charlson Comorbidity Index (wCCI).
However, the group with augmented estrogen levels had a decreased risk of dying from COVID-19 before (odds ratio, 0.45) and after (OR, 0.47) adjustment.
The percentages of patients who died of COVID-19 were 4.6% of controls, 10.1% of those with decreased estrogen, and 2.1% with increased estrogen.
Not surprisingly, the risk of dying from COVID-19 also increased with age (OR of 1.15 for every year increase in age) and comorbidities (OR, 1.13 per increase in wCCI). Low income and having only a primary level education also increased the odds of dying from COVID-19.
Data on obesity, a known risk factor for COVID-19 death, weren’t reported.
“Obesity would have been a very relevant variable to include. Unfortunately, this information is not present in the nationwide registry data that we used for our study,” Dr. Connolly told this news organization.
While the data are observational and can’t be used to inform treatment, Dr. Connolly pointed to a U.S. randomized clinical trial currently recruiting patients that will investigate the effect of estradiol and progesterone therapy in 120 adults hospitalized with COVID-19.
In the meantime, she warned doctors and patients: “Please do not consider ending antiestrogen treatment following breast cancer – this is a necessary treatment for the cancer.”
Dr. Evans noted, “There are short-term benefits of menopausal hormone therapy but women should not, based on this or other observational studies, be advised to take HRT [hormone replacement therapy] for a supposed benefit on death from COVID-19.”
The study had several nonpharmaceutical industry funders, including Umeå University and the Knut and Alice Wallenberg Foundation. The authors and Dr. Evans have reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Estrogen supplementation is associated with a reduced risk of death from COVID-19 among postmenopausal women, new research suggests.
The findings, from a nationwide study using data from Sweden, were published online Feb. 14 in BMJ Open by Malin Sund, MD, PhD, of Umeå (Sweden) University Faculty of Medicine and colleagues.
Among postmenopausal women aged 50-80 years with verified COVID-19, those receiving estrogen as part of hormone replacement therapy for menopausal symptoms were less than half as likely to die from it as those not receiving estrogen, even after adjustment for confounders.
“This study shows an association between estrogen levels and COVID-19 death. Consequently, drugs increasing estrogen levels may have a role in therapeutic efforts to alleviate COVID-19 severity in postmenopausal women and could be studied in randomized control trials,” the investigators write.
However, coauthor Anne-Marie Fors Connolly, MD, PhD, a resident in clinical microbiology at Umeå University, cautioned: “This is an observational study. Further clinical studies are needed to verify these results before recommending clinicians to consider estrogen supplementation.”
Stephen Evans, professor of pharmacoepidemiology, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, agrees.
He told the U.K. Science and Media Centre: “This is an observational study comparing three groups of women based on whether they used hormonal therapy to boost estrogen levels or who had, as a result of treatment for breast cancer ... reduced estrogen levels or neither. The findings are apparently dramatic.”
“At the very least, great caution should be exercised in thinking that menopausal hormone therapy will have substantial, or even any, benefits in dealing with COVID-19,” he warned.
Do women die less frequently from COVID-19 than men?
Studies conducted early in the pandemic suggest women may be protected from poor outcomes of SARS-CoV-2 infection, compared with men, even after adjustment for confounders.
According to more recent data from the Swedish Public Health Agency, of the 16,501 people who have died from COVID-19 since the start of the pandemic, about 45% are women and 55% are men. About 70% who have received intensive care because of COVID-19 are men, although cumulative data suggest that women are nearly as likely to die from COVID-19 as men, Dr. Connolly told this news organization.
For the current study, a total of 14,685 women aged 50-80 years were included, of whom 17.3% (2,535) had received estrogen supplementation, 81.2% (11,923) had native estrogen levels with no breast cancer or estrogen supplementation (controls), and 1.5% (227) had decreased estrogen levels because of breast cancer and antiestrogen treatment.
The group with decreased estrogen levels had a more than twofold risk of dying from COVID-19 compared with controls (odds ratio, 2.35), but this difference was no longer significant after adjustments for potential confounders including age, income, and educational level, and weighted Charlson Comorbidity Index (wCCI).
However, the group with augmented estrogen levels had a decreased risk of dying from COVID-19 before (odds ratio, 0.45) and after (OR, 0.47) adjustment.
The percentages of patients who died of COVID-19 were 4.6% of controls, 10.1% of those with decreased estrogen, and 2.1% with increased estrogen.
Not surprisingly, the risk of dying from COVID-19 also increased with age (OR of 1.15 for every year increase in age) and comorbidities (OR, 1.13 per increase in wCCI). Low income and having only a primary level education also increased the odds of dying from COVID-19.
Data on obesity, a known risk factor for COVID-19 death, weren’t reported.
“Obesity would have been a very relevant variable to include. Unfortunately, this information is not present in the nationwide registry data that we used for our study,” Dr. Connolly told this news organization.
While the data are observational and can’t be used to inform treatment, Dr. Connolly pointed to a U.S. randomized clinical trial currently recruiting patients that will investigate the effect of estradiol and progesterone therapy in 120 adults hospitalized with COVID-19.
In the meantime, she warned doctors and patients: “Please do not consider ending antiestrogen treatment following breast cancer – this is a necessary treatment for the cancer.”
Dr. Evans noted, “There are short-term benefits of menopausal hormone therapy but women should not, based on this or other observational studies, be advised to take HRT [hormone replacement therapy] for a supposed benefit on death from COVID-19.”
The study had several nonpharmaceutical industry funders, including Umeå University and the Knut and Alice Wallenberg Foundation. The authors and Dr. Evans have reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Estrogen supplementation is associated with a reduced risk of death from COVID-19 among postmenopausal women, new research suggests.
The findings, from a nationwide study using data from Sweden, were published online Feb. 14 in BMJ Open by Malin Sund, MD, PhD, of Umeå (Sweden) University Faculty of Medicine and colleagues.
Among postmenopausal women aged 50-80 years with verified COVID-19, those receiving estrogen as part of hormone replacement therapy for menopausal symptoms were less than half as likely to die from it as those not receiving estrogen, even after adjustment for confounders.
“This study shows an association between estrogen levels and COVID-19 death. Consequently, drugs increasing estrogen levels may have a role in therapeutic efforts to alleviate COVID-19 severity in postmenopausal women and could be studied in randomized control trials,” the investigators write.
However, coauthor Anne-Marie Fors Connolly, MD, PhD, a resident in clinical microbiology at Umeå University, cautioned: “This is an observational study. Further clinical studies are needed to verify these results before recommending clinicians to consider estrogen supplementation.”
Stephen Evans, professor of pharmacoepidemiology, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, agrees.
He told the U.K. Science and Media Centre: “This is an observational study comparing three groups of women based on whether they used hormonal therapy to boost estrogen levels or who had, as a result of treatment for breast cancer ... reduced estrogen levels or neither. The findings are apparently dramatic.”
“At the very least, great caution should be exercised in thinking that menopausal hormone therapy will have substantial, or even any, benefits in dealing with COVID-19,” he warned.
Do women die less frequently from COVID-19 than men?
Studies conducted early in the pandemic suggest women may be protected from poor outcomes of SARS-CoV-2 infection, compared with men, even after adjustment for confounders.
According to more recent data from the Swedish Public Health Agency, of the 16,501 people who have died from COVID-19 since the start of the pandemic, about 45% are women and 55% are men. About 70% who have received intensive care because of COVID-19 are men, although cumulative data suggest that women are nearly as likely to die from COVID-19 as men, Dr. Connolly told this news organization.
For the current study, a total of 14,685 women aged 50-80 years were included, of whom 17.3% (2,535) had received estrogen supplementation, 81.2% (11,923) had native estrogen levels with no breast cancer or estrogen supplementation (controls), and 1.5% (227) had decreased estrogen levels because of breast cancer and antiestrogen treatment.
The group with decreased estrogen levels had a more than twofold risk of dying from COVID-19 compared with controls (odds ratio, 2.35), but this difference was no longer significant after adjustments for potential confounders including age, income, and educational level, and weighted Charlson Comorbidity Index (wCCI).
However, the group with augmented estrogen levels had a decreased risk of dying from COVID-19 before (odds ratio, 0.45) and after (OR, 0.47) adjustment.
The percentages of patients who died of COVID-19 were 4.6% of controls, 10.1% of those with decreased estrogen, and 2.1% with increased estrogen.
Not surprisingly, the risk of dying from COVID-19 also increased with age (OR of 1.15 for every year increase in age) and comorbidities (OR, 1.13 per increase in wCCI). Low income and having only a primary level education also increased the odds of dying from COVID-19.
Data on obesity, a known risk factor for COVID-19 death, weren’t reported.
“Obesity would have been a very relevant variable to include. Unfortunately, this information is not present in the nationwide registry data that we used for our study,” Dr. Connolly told this news organization.
While the data are observational and can’t be used to inform treatment, Dr. Connolly pointed to a U.S. randomized clinical trial currently recruiting patients that will investigate the effect of estradiol and progesterone therapy in 120 adults hospitalized with COVID-19.
In the meantime, she warned doctors and patients: “Please do not consider ending antiestrogen treatment following breast cancer – this is a necessary treatment for the cancer.”
Dr. Evans noted, “There are short-term benefits of menopausal hormone therapy but women should not, based on this or other observational studies, be advised to take HRT [hormone replacement therapy] for a supposed benefit on death from COVID-19.”
The study had several nonpharmaceutical industry funders, including Umeå University and the Knut and Alice Wallenberg Foundation. The authors and Dr. Evans have reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM BMJ OPEN
Ketamine fast, effective for suicidal crises
In addition, a strong effect of ketamine was observed in patients with bipolar disorder, “whereas the effect was moderate and did not quite reach significance in those with other psychiatric disorders and unexpectedly was nonsignificant in those with major depressive disorders,” the researchers wrote.
“We assessed for the first time in the same study the effect of ketamine on three a priori–defined groups of nonpsychotic patients: those with a bipolar disorder, those with a depressive disorder, and those with other diagnoses,” study investigator Fabrice Jollant, MD, PhD, professor of psychiatry, University of Paris, said in an interview.
“This allowed us to find that comorbid disorders are important modulators of the clinical effects of ketamine, and that the effect of ketamine is particularly marked among patients with a bipolar disorder,” Dr. Jollant added.
The study was published online Feb. 2, 2022, in the BMJ.
Swift, full remission
The study included 156 adults admitted voluntarily to seven French teaching hospitals with severe suicidal ideation, including 52 with bipolar disorder, 56 with depressive disorder, and 48 with other psychiatric diagnoses.
They were randomly allocated to two 40-minute intravenous infusions of ketamine (0.5 mg/kg) or placebo (saline) administered at baseline and 24 hours, in addition to usual treatment.
The primary outcome was the rate of patients in full suicidal remission at day 3, confirmed by a score of 3 or less on a clinician-rated scale for suicidal ideation based on 19 items scored 0-2 (maximum score, 38).
“We investigated the full remission of suicidal ideas and not only the response, which is usually defined as a reduction of 50% of scores on a given scale. If people remain slightly suicidal, the suicidal risk persists. We want all suicidal ideas to disappear,” said Dr. Jollant.
They found that more patients reached full remission of suicidal ideas at day 3 after two ketamine infusions than after placebo infusions (63% vs. 32%; odds ratio, 3.7; 95% confidence interval, 1.9-7.3; P < .001).
This antisuicidal effect of ketamine was rapid, with 44% remission only 2 hours after the first infusion, the authors reported.
The effect of ketamine on suicidal remission was greatest in patients with bipolar disorder, with 85% achieving full remission at day 3 (OR, 14.1; 95% CI, 3.0-92.2; P < .001), compared with 42% of patients with depressive disorder (OR, 1.3; 95% CI, 0.3-5.2; P = .6) or 62% of those with other disorders (OR, 3.7; 95% CI, 0.9-17.3; P = .07).
At 6 weeks after treatment, remission in the ketamine group remained high, although nonsignificantly versus placebo (69.5% vs. 56.3%; OR, 0.8; 95% CI, 0.3-2.5; P = .7).
The researchers noted the beneficial effect of ketamine on suicidal ideation could be mediated by an effect on psychological pain.
“Although mental pain does not necessarily lead to suicidal ideas, recent studies suggest that individuals with severe suicidal ideas (notably those with a plan) also have high levels of mental pain. Ketamine might therefore exert its effects through analgesic mechanisms that reduce mental pain,” they wrote.
Ketamine’s side effects were “limited” with no manic or psychotic symptoms seen. The main side effects, including sedation, denationalization/derealization, nausea, and dizziness, were of short duration and occurred in about 10% or fewer patients.
The investigators acknowledged that the nonsignificant effect of ketamine in the patients with major depressive disorders in this study is “challenging to interpret.”
They pointed out the study may have lacked power to detect an effect in these patients. In addition, this group might be particularly heterogeneous, with more patients sensitive to a placebo effect and more patients requiring repeated ketamine infusions.
A new perspective on ketamine
In an accompanying editorial, Riccardo De Giorgi, MD, Wellcome Trust doctoral training fellow, department of psychiatry, University of Oxford (England), said the study challenges current thinking about ketamine.
The “unexpected” outcome (no benefit) in the depressive group “perhaps defies the prevailing notion that patients with major depression would benefit most from ketamine,” Dr. De Giorgi wrote.
“In fact, both usual care and ketamine given with usual care led to low, comparable remission rates of 35.7% and 42.3% for suicidal ideation, respectively, in patients with depressive disorder,” Dr. De Giorgi pointed out.
“While this study therefore confirms that many patients with depressive disorder and suicidal ideation remain poorly served by available treatments, it shows that another important group of patients with acute suicidal ideation, those with bipolar disorder, could benefit from ketamine,” Dr. De Giorgi wrote.
“Once again, here is evidence that careful clinical evaluation must precede any consideration of ketamine use, which must be reserved for specific clinical presentations and not given indiscriminately to anyone presenting with suicidal thoughts,” he concluded.
Funding for the study was provided by Programme Hospitalier de Recherche Clinique National. Dr. Jollant and Dr. De Giorgi disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
In addition, a strong effect of ketamine was observed in patients with bipolar disorder, “whereas the effect was moderate and did not quite reach significance in those with other psychiatric disorders and unexpectedly was nonsignificant in those with major depressive disorders,” the researchers wrote.
“We assessed for the first time in the same study the effect of ketamine on three a priori–defined groups of nonpsychotic patients: those with a bipolar disorder, those with a depressive disorder, and those with other diagnoses,” study investigator Fabrice Jollant, MD, PhD, professor of psychiatry, University of Paris, said in an interview.
“This allowed us to find that comorbid disorders are important modulators of the clinical effects of ketamine, and that the effect of ketamine is particularly marked among patients with a bipolar disorder,” Dr. Jollant added.
The study was published online Feb. 2, 2022, in the BMJ.
Swift, full remission
The study included 156 adults admitted voluntarily to seven French teaching hospitals with severe suicidal ideation, including 52 with bipolar disorder, 56 with depressive disorder, and 48 with other psychiatric diagnoses.
They were randomly allocated to two 40-minute intravenous infusions of ketamine (0.5 mg/kg) or placebo (saline) administered at baseline and 24 hours, in addition to usual treatment.
The primary outcome was the rate of patients in full suicidal remission at day 3, confirmed by a score of 3 or less on a clinician-rated scale for suicidal ideation based on 19 items scored 0-2 (maximum score, 38).
“We investigated the full remission of suicidal ideas and not only the response, which is usually defined as a reduction of 50% of scores on a given scale. If people remain slightly suicidal, the suicidal risk persists. We want all suicidal ideas to disappear,” said Dr. Jollant.
They found that more patients reached full remission of suicidal ideas at day 3 after two ketamine infusions than after placebo infusions (63% vs. 32%; odds ratio, 3.7; 95% confidence interval, 1.9-7.3; P < .001).
This antisuicidal effect of ketamine was rapid, with 44% remission only 2 hours after the first infusion, the authors reported.
The effect of ketamine on suicidal remission was greatest in patients with bipolar disorder, with 85% achieving full remission at day 3 (OR, 14.1; 95% CI, 3.0-92.2; P < .001), compared with 42% of patients with depressive disorder (OR, 1.3; 95% CI, 0.3-5.2; P = .6) or 62% of those with other disorders (OR, 3.7; 95% CI, 0.9-17.3; P = .07).
At 6 weeks after treatment, remission in the ketamine group remained high, although nonsignificantly versus placebo (69.5% vs. 56.3%; OR, 0.8; 95% CI, 0.3-2.5; P = .7).
The researchers noted the beneficial effect of ketamine on suicidal ideation could be mediated by an effect on psychological pain.
“Although mental pain does not necessarily lead to suicidal ideas, recent studies suggest that individuals with severe suicidal ideas (notably those with a plan) also have high levels of mental pain. Ketamine might therefore exert its effects through analgesic mechanisms that reduce mental pain,” they wrote.
Ketamine’s side effects were “limited” with no manic or psychotic symptoms seen. The main side effects, including sedation, denationalization/derealization, nausea, and dizziness, were of short duration and occurred in about 10% or fewer patients.
The investigators acknowledged that the nonsignificant effect of ketamine in the patients with major depressive disorders in this study is “challenging to interpret.”
They pointed out the study may have lacked power to detect an effect in these patients. In addition, this group might be particularly heterogeneous, with more patients sensitive to a placebo effect and more patients requiring repeated ketamine infusions.
A new perspective on ketamine
In an accompanying editorial, Riccardo De Giorgi, MD, Wellcome Trust doctoral training fellow, department of psychiatry, University of Oxford (England), said the study challenges current thinking about ketamine.
The “unexpected” outcome (no benefit) in the depressive group “perhaps defies the prevailing notion that patients with major depression would benefit most from ketamine,” Dr. De Giorgi wrote.
“In fact, both usual care and ketamine given with usual care led to low, comparable remission rates of 35.7% and 42.3% for suicidal ideation, respectively, in patients with depressive disorder,” Dr. De Giorgi pointed out.
“While this study therefore confirms that many patients with depressive disorder and suicidal ideation remain poorly served by available treatments, it shows that another important group of patients with acute suicidal ideation, those with bipolar disorder, could benefit from ketamine,” Dr. De Giorgi wrote.
“Once again, here is evidence that careful clinical evaluation must precede any consideration of ketamine use, which must be reserved for specific clinical presentations and not given indiscriminately to anyone presenting with suicidal thoughts,” he concluded.
Funding for the study was provided by Programme Hospitalier de Recherche Clinique National. Dr. Jollant and Dr. De Giorgi disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
In addition, a strong effect of ketamine was observed in patients with bipolar disorder, “whereas the effect was moderate and did not quite reach significance in those with other psychiatric disorders and unexpectedly was nonsignificant in those with major depressive disorders,” the researchers wrote.
“We assessed for the first time in the same study the effect of ketamine on three a priori–defined groups of nonpsychotic patients: those with a bipolar disorder, those with a depressive disorder, and those with other diagnoses,” study investigator Fabrice Jollant, MD, PhD, professor of psychiatry, University of Paris, said in an interview.
“This allowed us to find that comorbid disorders are important modulators of the clinical effects of ketamine, and that the effect of ketamine is particularly marked among patients with a bipolar disorder,” Dr. Jollant added.
The study was published online Feb. 2, 2022, in the BMJ.
Swift, full remission
The study included 156 adults admitted voluntarily to seven French teaching hospitals with severe suicidal ideation, including 52 with bipolar disorder, 56 with depressive disorder, and 48 with other psychiatric diagnoses.
They were randomly allocated to two 40-minute intravenous infusions of ketamine (0.5 mg/kg) or placebo (saline) administered at baseline and 24 hours, in addition to usual treatment.
The primary outcome was the rate of patients in full suicidal remission at day 3, confirmed by a score of 3 or less on a clinician-rated scale for suicidal ideation based on 19 items scored 0-2 (maximum score, 38).
“We investigated the full remission of suicidal ideas and not only the response, which is usually defined as a reduction of 50% of scores on a given scale. If people remain slightly suicidal, the suicidal risk persists. We want all suicidal ideas to disappear,” said Dr. Jollant.
They found that more patients reached full remission of suicidal ideas at day 3 after two ketamine infusions than after placebo infusions (63% vs. 32%; odds ratio, 3.7; 95% confidence interval, 1.9-7.3; P < .001).
This antisuicidal effect of ketamine was rapid, with 44% remission only 2 hours after the first infusion, the authors reported.
The effect of ketamine on suicidal remission was greatest in patients with bipolar disorder, with 85% achieving full remission at day 3 (OR, 14.1; 95% CI, 3.0-92.2; P < .001), compared with 42% of patients with depressive disorder (OR, 1.3; 95% CI, 0.3-5.2; P = .6) or 62% of those with other disorders (OR, 3.7; 95% CI, 0.9-17.3; P = .07).
At 6 weeks after treatment, remission in the ketamine group remained high, although nonsignificantly versus placebo (69.5% vs. 56.3%; OR, 0.8; 95% CI, 0.3-2.5; P = .7).
The researchers noted the beneficial effect of ketamine on suicidal ideation could be mediated by an effect on psychological pain.
“Although mental pain does not necessarily lead to suicidal ideas, recent studies suggest that individuals with severe suicidal ideas (notably those with a plan) also have high levels of mental pain. Ketamine might therefore exert its effects through analgesic mechanisms that reduce mental pain,” they wrote.
Ketamine’s side effects were “limited” with no manic or psychotic symptoms seen. The main side effects, including sedation, denationalization/derealization, nausea, and dizziness, were of short duration and occurred in about 10% or fewer patients.
The investigators acknowledged that the nonsignificant effect of ketamine in the patients with major depressive disorders in this study is “challenging to interpret.”
They pointed out the study may have lacked power to detect an effect in these patients. In addition, this group might be particularly heterogeneous, with more patients sensitive to a placebo effect and more patients requiring repeated ketamine infusions.
A new perspective on ketamine
In an accompanying editorial, Riccardo De Giorgi, MD, Wellcome Trust doctoral training fellow, department of psychiatry, University of Oxford (England), said the study challenges current thinking about ketamine.
The “unexpected” outcome (no benefit) in the depressive group “perhaps defies the prevailing notion that patients with major depression would benefit most from ketamine,” Dr. De Giorgi wrote.
“In fact, both usual care and ketamine given with usual care led to low, comparable remission rates of 35.7% and 42.3% for suicidal ideation, respectively, in patients with depressive disorder,” Dr. De Giorgi pointed out.
“While this study therefore confirms that many patients with depressive disorder and suicidal ideation remain poorly served by available treatments, it shows that another important group of patients with acute suicidal ideation, those with bipolar disorder, could benefit from ketamine,” Dr. De Giorgi wrote.
“Once again, here is evidence that careful clinical evaluation must precede any consideration of ketamine use, which must be reserved for specific clinical presentations and not given indiscriminately to anyone presenting with suicidal thoughts,” he concluded.
Funding for the study was provided by Programme Hospitalier de Recherche Clinique National. Dr. Jollant and Dr. De Giorgi disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM THE BMJ
Guselkumab controls axial involvement in PsA through 2 years
Guselkumab (Tremfya) received Food and Drug Administration approval for the treatment of psoriatic arthritis (PsA) almost 2 years ago on the basis of a phase 3 trial, but a new substudy from that trial has now demonstrated long-term benefit in the subgroup of patients who entered the trial with axial involvement, according to data presented at the annual meeting of the Canadian Rheumatology Association.
“The symptom relief was clinically meaningful and durable through week 100,” reported Dafna D. Gladman, MD, professor of medicine and director of the psoriatic arthritis program at the University of Toronto.
In the previously published double-blind, placebo-controlled DISCOVER-2 trial, two dosing regimens of the interleukin-23 (IL-23) inhibitor guselkumab were compared with placebo in biologic-naive patients. The active regimens were similarly effective relative to placebo for the primary endpoint of 20% improvement in American College of Rheumatology response criteria (ACR20) at week 24.
In this new long-term subgroup analysis, outcomes at 2 years were evaluated in the 246 patients with axial involvement (33.3% of the total number of 739 evaluable patients). Baseline characteristics across treatment groups in this subset of the DISCOVER-2 trial were similar.
Guselkumab exhibits nearly twofold advantage
At 24 weeks relative to baseline, the improvement on multiple axial involvement outcome measures was approximately twofold greater with active therapy than with placebo. For example, the mean Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index (BASDAI) score fell 2.6 points in both active treatment arms versus 1.4 on placebo.
The same relative advantage was observed when the BASDAI spinal pain subscore was isolated. There were also comparable responses on a modified BASDAI that excluded the peripheral pain response, and the Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score (ASDAS).
When evaluated at week 52 and again at week 100, all outcomes employed to evaluate change in axial involvement were sustained. Many were further improved. In patients who initiated therapy on placebo, all of whom were switched to guselkumab at the end of the 24-week double-blind period, at least the same degree of axial symptom control relative to baseline was achieved at both time periods.
Incremental improvement observed over time
“For most measures there was further improvement at 2 years, and there was generally consistent response across patient groups stratified by HLA [human leucocyte antigen] status,” Dr. Gladman reported.
Relative to the 2.6-point reduction in the BASDAI score in the two guselkumab arms at week 24, the reductions reached 3.0, 3.1, and 3.3 at 100 weeks in the every-4-week guselkumab group, every-8-week guselkumab group, and the crossed-over placebo group, respectively. For ASDAS, the reductions at week 24 were 1.4, 1.5, and 0.7 points and reached 1.6, 1.7, and 1.6 points at 100 weeks in the every-4-week, every-8-week, and placebo crossover groups, respectively.
The sustained improvement is consistent with a previous post hoc analysis in which data from the phase 3 DISCOVER-1 trial were pooled with those from DISCOVER-2. This analysis focused on the 312 patients in these studies with axial disease documented by imaging. Again, the study showed improvement at week 24 was sustained at week 52 independent of HLA-B27 status.
Need for MRI confirmation seen
The potential problem with this new analysis as well as the previous analysis is the absence of MRI to provide objective evidence of axial involvement, according to Walter P. Maksymowych, MD, professor in the division of rheumatology at the University of Alberta, Edmonton.
Noting that previous studies have indicated that axial involvement assessed by investigators is not reliable even when performed with x-rays, Dr. Maksymowych said these data would be much more reassuring with MRI controls.
“We have seen little correlation between clinical symptoms and MRI manifestations of disease,” he said.
Dr. Gladman conceded this point. Baseline MRI was performed in some of the patients in this subgroup analysis, but it was not mandated. As a result, the data support benefit from guselkumab for symptomatic axial involvement, but she indicated that better evidence of a disease-modifying effect is expected from a more rigorous placebo-controlled trial of guselkumab called STAR.
This trial is requiring MRI at baseline and at week 24 and is using the Spondyloarthritis Research Consortium of Canada (SPARCC) score to assess change. Dr. Gladman said the trial is enrolling “as we speak.”
Overall, Dr. Gladman agreed with Dr. Maksymowych that objective biomarkers are important for demonstrating that treatments are improving long-term outcomes, not just relieving symptoms.
Guselkumab manufacturer Janssen supported the post hoc analysis. Dr. Gladman reported financial relationships with AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB. Dr. Maksymowych reported financial relationships with AbbVie, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB.
Guselkumab (Tremfya) received Food and Drug Administration approval for the treatment of psoriatic arthritis (PsA) almost 2 years ago on the basis of a phase 3 trial, but a new substudy from that trial has now demonstrated long-term benefit in the subgroup of patients who entered the trial with axial involvement, according to data presented at the annual meeting of the Canadian Rheumatology Association.
“The symptom relief was clinically meaningful and durable through week 100,” reported Dafna D. Gladman, MD, professor of medicine and director of the psoriatic arthritis program at the University of Toronto.
In the previously published double-blind, placebo-controlled DISCOVER-2 trial, two dosing regimens of the interleukin-23 (IL-23) inhibitor guselkumab were compared with placebo in biologic-naive patients. The active regimens were similarly effective relative to placebo for the primary endpoint of 20% improvement in American College of Rheumatology response criteria (ACR20) at week 24.
In this new long-term subgroup analysis, outcomes at 2 years were evaluated in the 246 patients with axial involvement (33.3% of the total number of 739 evaluable patients). Baseline characteristics across treatment groups in this subset of the DISCOVER-2 trial were similar.
Guselkumab exhibits nearly twofold advantage
At 24 weeks relative to baseline, the improvement on multiple axial involvement outcome measures was approximately twofold greater with active therapy than with placebo. For example, the mean Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index (BASDAI) score fell 2.6 points in both active treatment arms versus 1.4 on placebo.
The same relative advantage was observed when the BASDAI spinal pain subscore was isolated. There were also comparable responses on a modified BASDAI that excluded the peripheral pain response, and the Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score (ASDAS).
When evaluated at week 52 and again at week 100, all outcomes employed to evaluate change in axial involvement were sustained. Many were further improved. In patients who initiated therapy on placebo, all of whom were switched to guselkumab at the end of the 24-week double-blind period, at least the same degree of axial symptom control relative to baseline was achieved at both time periods.
Incremental improvement observed over time
“For most measures there was further improvement at 2 years, and there was generally consistent response across patient groups stratified by HLA [human leucocyte antigen] status,” Dr. Gladman reported.
Relative to the 2.6-point reduction in the BASDAI score in the two guselkumab arms at week 24, the reductions reached 3.0, 3.1, and 3.3 at 100 weeks in the every-4-week guselkumab group, every-8-week guselkumab group, and the crossed-over placebo group, respectively. For ASDAS, the reductions at week 24 were 1.4, 1.5, and 0.7 points and reached 1.6, 1.7, and 1.6 points at 100 weeks in the every-4-week, every-8-week, and placebo crossover groups, respectively.
The sustained improvement is consistent with a previous post hoc analysis in which data from the phase 3 DISCOVER-1 trial were pooled with those from DISCOVER-2. This analysis focused on the 312 patients in these studies with axial disease documented by imaging. Again, the study showed improvement at week 24 was sustained at week 52 independent of HLA-B27 status.
Need for MRI confirmation seen
The potential problem with this new analysis as well as the previous analysis is the absence of MRI to provide objective evidence of axial involvement, according to Walter P. Maksymowych, MD, professor in the division of rheumatology at the University of Alberta, Edmonton.
Noting that previous studies have indicated that axial involvement assessed by investigators is not reliable even when performed with x-rays, Dr. Maksymowych said these data would be much more reassuring with MRI controls.
“We have seen little correlation between clinical symptoms and MRI manifestations of disease,” he said.
Dr. Gladman conceded this point. Baseline MRI was performed in some of the patients in this subgroup analysis, but it was not mandated. As a result, the data support benefit from guselkumab for symptomatic axial involvement, but she indicated that better evidence of a disease-modifying effect is expected from a more rigorous placebo-controlled trial of guselkumab called STAR.
This trial is requiring MRI at baseline and at week 24 and is using the Spondyloarthritis Research Consortium of Canada (SPARCC) score to assess change. Dr. Gladman said the trial is enrolling “as we speak.”
Overall, Dr. Gladman agreed with Dr. Maksymowych that objective biomarkers are important for demonstrating that treatments are improving long-term outcomes, not just relieving symptoms.
Guselkumab manufacturer Janssen supported the post hoc analysis. Dr. Gladman reported financial relationships with AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB. Dr. Maksymowych reported financial relationships with AbbVie, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB.
Guselkumab (Tremfya) received Food and Drug Administration approval for the treatment of psoriatic arthritis (PsA) almost 2 years ago on the basis of a phase 3 trial, but a new substudy from that trial has now demonstrated long-term benefit in the subgroup of patients who entered the trial with axial involvement, according to data presented at the annual meeting of the Canadian Rheumatology Association.
“The symptom relief was clinically meaningful and durable through week 100,” reported Dafna D. Gladman, MD, professor of medicine and director of the psoriatic arthritis program at the University of Toronto.
In the previously published double-blind, placebo-controlled DISCOVER-2 trial, two dosing regimens of the interleukin-23 (IL-23) inhibitor guselkumab were compared with placebo in biologic-naive patients. The active regimens were similarly effective relative to placebo for the primary endpoint of 20% improvement in American College of Rheumatology response criteria (ACR20) at week 24.
In this new long-term subgroup analysis, outcomes at 2 years were evaluated in the 246 patients with axial involvement (33.3% of the total number of 739 evaluable patients). Baseline characteristics across treatment groups in this subset of the DISCOVER-2 trial were similar.
Guselkumab exhibits nearly twofold advantage
At 24 weeks relative to baseline, the improvement on multiple axial involvement outcome measures was approximately twofold greater with active therapy than with placebo. For example, the mean Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index (BASDAI) score fell 2.6 points in both active treatment arms versus 1.4 on placebo.
The same relative advantage was observed when the BASDAI spinal pain subscore was isolated. There were also comparable responses on a modified BASDAI that excluded the peripheral pain response, and the Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score (ASDAS).
When evaluated at week 52 and again at week 100, all outcomes employed to evaluate change in axial involvement were sustained. Many were further improved. In patients who initiated therapy on placebo, all of whom were switched to guselkumab at the end of the 24-week double-blind period, at least the same degree of axial symptom control relative to baseline was achieved at both time periods.
Incremental improvement observed over time
“For most measures there was further improvement at 2 years, and there was generally consistent response across patient groups stratified by HLA [human leucocyte antigen] status,” Dr. Gladman reported.
Relative to the 2.6-point reduction in the BASDAI score in the two guselkumab arms at week 24, the reductions reached 3.0, 3.1, and 3.3 at 100 weeks in the every-4-week guselkumab group, every-8-week guselkumab group, and the crossed-over placebo group, respectively. For ASDAS, the reductions at week 24 were 1.4, 1.5, and 0.7 points and reached 1.6, 1.7, and 1.6 points at 100 weeks in the every-4-week, every-8-week, and placebo crossover groups, respectively.
The sustained improvement is consistent with a previous post hoc analysis in which data from the phase 3 DISCOVER-1 trial were pooled with those from DISCOVER-2. This analysis focused on the 312 patients in these studies with axial disease documented by imaging. Again, the study showed improvement at week 24 was sustained at week 52 independent of HLA-B27 status.
Need for MRI confirmation seen
The potential problem with this new analysis as well as the previous analysis is the absence of MRI to provide objective evidence of axial involvement, according to Walter P. Maksymowych, MD, professor in the division of rheumatology at the University of Alberta, Edmonton.
Noting that previous studies have indicated that axial involvement assessed by investigators is not reliable even when performed with x-rays, Dr. Maksymowych said these data would be much more reassuring with MRI controls.
“We have seen little correlation between clinical symptoms and MRI manifestations of disease,” he said.
Dr. Gladman conceded this point. Baseline MRI was performed in some of the patients in this subgroup analysis, but it was not mandated. As a result, the data support benefit from guselkumab for symptomatic axial involvement, but she indicated that better evidence of a disease-modifying effect is expected from a more rigorous placebo-controlled trial of guselkumab called STAR.
This trial is requiring MRI at baseline and at week 24 and is using the Spondyloarthritis Research Consortium of Canada (SPARCC) score to assess change. Dr. Gladman said the trial is enrolling “as we speak.”
Overall, Dr. Gladman agreed with Dr. Maksymowych that objective biomarkers are important for demonstrating that treatments are improving long-term outcomes, not just relieving symptoms.
Guselkumab manufacturer Janssen supported the post hoc analysis. Dr. Gladman reported financial relationships with AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB. Dr. Maksymowych reported financial relationships with AbbVie, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB.
FROM THE ANNUAL MEETING OF THE CANADIAN RHEUMATOLOGY ASSOCIATION
C. difficile: New vancomycin-resistant strains raise concerns
Samples from patients in the United States and Kenya show an increasing emergence of previously undetected vancomycin-resistant strains of Clostridioides difficile, sparking concern as recurrences in the treatment of C. difficile infection (CDI) continue to rise.
“Our results may help explain a decreasing effectiveness of antibiotic-based therapy in C. difficile infection, since a significant proportion of patients harboring strains with reduced susceptibility to vancomycin may not respond to treatment,” reported the authors in research published recently in Clinical Infectious Diseases.
The spread of the resistant strains “has serious public health implications, underscoring an urgent need for a comprehensive analysis of the circulating strains to help inform clinical decisions,” they added.
Commenting on the findings, Cornelius J. Clancy, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Pittsburgh, and chief of infectious diseases at the Veterans Affairs Pittsburgh Healthcare System, echoed the concern.
“The casual belief has been that [C. difficile] strains at most centers can be assumed to be vancomycin susceptible,” he told this news organization. “This study shows that this assumption can no longer be taken as a given.”
Dr. Clancy, who was not involved with this research, noted that “based on this study, there might be need for the Infectious Diseases Society of America and other organizations to offer guidance on generating good, quality surveillance data for C. difficile resistance.”
With C. difficile showing the ability to resist multiple antibiotics, drugs in the armamentarium to treat the infection have declined in recent years, and recurrences with the infection are reported in up to 25% of cases.
Oral vancomycin is recommended as the antibiotic of choice by the IDSA and the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America for severe as well as nonsevere cases of CDI, and although there are reports of nine vancomycin-resistant gene clusters, most involve Enterococcus.
To take a closer look at the prevalence of vancomycin-resistant C. difficile strains, first author Charles Darkoh, PhD, with the Center for Infectious Diseases at the University of Texas Health Science Center, Houston, and colleagues analyzed stool samples from patients with CDI, including 438 patients in Houston, taken between 2012 and 2017, and 98 in Nairobi, Kenya, taken in 2017.
They found that, among samples from patients in Houston, over the time period, 26% showed vancomycin nonsusceptible C. difficile isolates and 29% had isolates that were metronidazole resistant.
And among samples from the Nairobi patients, 67% harbored vancomycin-resistant isolates and 85% had isolates resistant to metronidazole.
Of note, the proportion of samples containing vancomycin-resistant C. difficile in the Houston patients showed a marked increase over time, from «complete absence» in 2012 to approximately 35% in 2017, the authors reported.
“These nonsusceptibility rates significantly exceeded prior reports from other studies conducted in the United States and Europe from 2011 to 2014, suggesting a lower percentage of resistance to both metronidazole and vancomycin,” the authors wrote.
Further experiments on mouse models infected with one of the vancomycin-resistant isolates showed that treatment with vancomycin failed to eradicate the infection, and 5-day survival was significantly lower after vancomycin treatment in those mice (25%) versus those infected with strains known to be vancomycin sensitive (50%).
Unrecognized genetic strains
Whole-genome sequencing of 10 of the resistant isolates showed no matches with gene clusters that have been previously recognized as being vancomycin resistant, suggesting the emergence of new clusters.
“Together, these results suggest unknown genetic elements associated with vancomycin nonsusceptibility in isolates circulating in the patient population,” the authors wrote.
Dr. Darkoh told this news organization that the research team is currently working to further investigate the patterns and mechanisms.
“We are currently working on a follow-up study for the next 5 years to find out how widespread this is,” he said. “We want to make sure it’s not necessarily just occurring in the settings we studied, and we also need to establish the mechanism of resistance.”
Further commenting on the results, Dr. Clancy noted that “the extent of resistance caught many in the field a bit off guard, as they are higher than previously reported.”
“The data are also concerning because most centers do not routinely test C. difficile for drug susceptibility.”
Dr. Clancy noted that “another immediately pressing need is to understand mechanisms of resistance. It was quite striking that vancomycin-resistant strains in this study did not carry vanA genes, pointing to previously unrecognized mechanisms of resistance.”
“As is often the case, antibiotic overuse was likely a factor in the resistances, with overtesting often leading to overtreatment of C. difficile,” Dr. Clancy said. “The situation may have been compounded by failure to appreciate how entrenched C. difficile resistance may be at certain hospitals, since widespread susceptibility testing is generally not routinely performed.”
As alternative treatments, Dr. Clancy pointed to the recent IDSA update, which included a stronger endorsement of fidaxomicin.
“Of course, there is also the need to assure that data on resistance to agents like fidaxomicin are generated going forward,” he noted.
The study was supported by was supported by National Institutes of Health, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, the Texas Medical Center Digestive Diseases Center, and the University of Texas Health Science Center. Dr. Darkoh has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. One coauthor received grant support from Merck, Entasis Pharmaceuticals, and MeMed Diagnostics. Dr. Clancy disclosed advisory board, consulting and/or research relationships with Merck, Qpex Biopharma, Shionogi, Astellas, Cidara, Scynexis, and Needham & Associates.
Help your patients understand their C. difficile diagnosis by sharing patient education from the AGA GI Patient Center: www.gastro.org/Cdiff.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Samples from patients in the United States and Kenya show an increasing emergence of previously undetected vancomycin-resistant strains of Clostridioides difficile, sparking concern as recurrences in the treatment of C. difficile infection (CDI) continue to rise.
“Our results may help explain a decreasing effectiveness of antibiotic-based therapy in C. difficile infection, since a significant proportion of patients harboring strains with reduced susceptibility to vancomycin may not respond to treatment,” reported the authors in research published recently in Clinical Infectious Diseases.
The spread of the resistant strains “has serious public health implications, underscoring an urgent need for a comprehensive analysis of the circulating strains to help inform clinical decisions,” they added.
Commenting on the findings, Cornelius J. Clancy, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Pittsburgh, and chief of infectious diseases at the Veterans Affairs Pittsburgh Healthcare System, echoed the concern.
“The casual belief has been that [C. difficile] strains at most centers can be assumed to be vancomycin susceptible,” he told this news organization. “This study shows that this assumption can no longer be taken as a given.”
Dr. Clancy, who was not involved with this research, noted that “based on this study, there might be need for the Infectious Diseases Society of America and other organizations to offer guidance on generating good, quality surveillance data for C. difficile resistance.”
With C. difficile showing the ability to resist multiple antibiotics, drugs in the armamentarium to treat the infection have declined in recent years, and recurrences with the infection are reported in up to 25% of cases.
Oral vancomycin is recommended as the antibiotic of choice by the IDSA and the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America for severe as well as nonsevere cases of CDI, and although there are reports of nine vancomycin-resistant gene clusters, most involve Enterococcus.
To take a closer look at the prevalence of vancomycin-resistant C. difficile strains, first author Charles Darkoh, PhD, with the Center for Infectious Diseases at the University of Texas Health Science Center, Houston, and colleagues analyzed stool samples from patients with CDI, including 438 patients in Houston, taken between 2012 and 2017, and 98 in Nairobi, Kenya, taken in 2017.
They found that, among samples from patients in Houston, over the time period, 26% showed vancomycin nonsusceptible C. difficile isolates and 29% had isolates that were metronidazole resistant.
And among samples from the Nairobi patients, 67% harbored vancomycin-resistant isolates and 85% had isolates resistant to metronidazole.
Of note, the proportion of samples containing vancomycin-resistant C. difficile in the Houston patients showed a marked increase over time, from «complete absence» in 2012 to approximately 35% in 2017, the authors reported.
“These nonsusceptibility rates significantly exceeded prior reports from other studies conducted in the United States and Europe from 2011 to 2014, suggesting a lower percentage of resistance to both metronidazole and vancomycin,” the authors wrote.
Further experiments on mouse models infected with one of the vancomycin-resistant isolates showed that treatment with vancomycin failed to eradicate the infection, and 5-day survival was significantly lower after vancomycin treatment in those mice (25%) versus those infected with strains known to be vancomycin sensitive (50%).
Unrecognized genetic strains
Whole-genome sequencing of 10 of the resistant isolates showed no matches with gene clusters that have been previously recognized as being vancomycin resistant, suggesting the emergence of new clusters.
“Together, these results suggest unknown genetic elements associated with vancomycin nonsusceptibility in isolates circulating in the patient population,” the authors wrote.
Dr. Darkoh told this news organization that the research team is currently working to further investigate the patterns and mechanisms.
“We are currently working on a follow-up study for the next 5 years to find out how widespread this is,” he said. “We want to make sure it’s not necessarily just occurring in the settings we studied, and we also need to establish the mechanism of resistance.”
Further commenting on the results, Dr. Clancy noted that “the extent of resistance caught many in the field a bit off guard, as they are higher than previously reported.”
“The data are also concerning because most centers do not routinely test C. difficile for drug susceptibility.”
Dr. Clancy noted that “another immediately pressing need is to understand mechanisms of resistance. It was quite striking that vancomycin-resistant strains in this study did not carry vanA genes, pointing to previously unrecognized mechanisms of resistance.”
“As is often the case, antibiotic overuse was likely a factor in the resistances, with overtesting often leading to overtreatment of C. difficile,” Dr. Clancy said. “The situation may have been compounded by failure to appreciate how entrenched C. difficile resistance may be at certain hospitals, since widespread susceptibility testing is generally not routinely performed.”
As alternative treatments, Dr. Clancy pointed to the recent IDSA update, which included a stronger endorsement of fidaxomicin.
“Of course, there is also the need to assure that data on resistance to agents like fidaxomicin are generated going forward,” he noted.
The study was supported by was supported by National Institutes of Health, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, the Texas Medical Center Digestive Diseases Center, and the University of Texas Health Science Center. Dr. Darkoh has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. One coauthor received grant support from Merck, Entasis Pharmaceuticals, and MeMed Diagnostics. Dr. Clancy disclosed advisory board, consulting and/or research relationships with Merck, Qpex Biopharma, Shionogi, Astellas, Cidara, Scynexis, and Needham & Associates.
Help your patients understand their C. difficile diagnosis by sharing patient education from the AGA GI Patient Center: www.gastro.org/Cdiff.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Samples from patients in the United States and Kenya show an increasing emergence of previously undetected vancomycin-resistant strains of Clostridioides difficile, sparking concern as recurrences in the treatment of C. difficile infection (CDI) continue to rise.
“Our results may help explain a decreasing effectiveness of antibiotic-based therapy in C. difficile infection, since a significant proportion of patients harboring strains with reduced susceptibility to vancomycin may not respond to treatment,” reported the authors in research published recently in Clinical Infectious Diseases.
The spread of the resistant strains “has serious public health implications, underscoring an urgent need for a comprehensive analysis of the circulating strains to help inform clinical decisions,” they added.
Commenting on the findings, Cornelius J. Clancy, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Pittsburgh, and chief of infectious diseases at the Veterans Affairs Pittsburgh Healthcare System, echoed the concern.
“The casual belief has been that [C. difficile] strains at most centers can be assumed to be vancomycin susceptible,” he told this news organization. “This study shows that this assumption can no longer be taken as a given.”
Dr. Clancy, who was not involved with this research, noted that “based on this study, there might be need for the Infectious Diseases Society of America and other organizations to offer guidance on generating good, quality surveillance data for C. difficile resistance.”
With C. difficile showing the ability to resist multiple antibiotics, drugs in the armamentarium to treat the infection have declined in recent years, and recurrences with the infection are reported in up to 25% of cases.
Oral vancomycin is recommended as the antibiotic of choice by the IDSA and the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America for severe as well as nonsevere cases of CDI, and although there are reports of nine vancomycin-resistant gene clusters, most involve Enterococcus.
To take a closer look at the prevalence of vancomycin-resistant C. difficile strains, first author Charles Darkoh, PhD, with the Center for Infectious Diseases at the University of Texas Health Science Center, Houston, and colleagues analyzed stool samples from patients with CDI, including 438 patients in Houston, taken between 2012 and 2017, and 98 in Nairobi, Kenya, taken in 2017.
They found that, among samples from patients in Houston, over the time period, 26% showed vancomycin nonsusceptible C. difficile isolates and 29% had isolates that were metronidazole resistant.
And among samples from the Nairobi patients, 67% harbored vancomycin-resistant isolates and 85% had isolates resistant to metronidazole.
Of note, the proportion of samples containing vancomycin-resistant C. difficile in the Houston patients showed a marked increase over time, from «complete absence» in 2012 to approximately 35% in 2017, the authors reported.
“These nonsusceptibility rates significantly exceeded prior reports from other studies conducted in the United States and Europe from 2011 to 2014, suggesting a lower percentage of resistance to both metronidazole and vancomycin,” the authors wrote.
Further experiments on mouse models infected with one of the vancomycin-resistant isolates showed that treatment with vancomycin failed to eradicate the infection, and 5-day survival was significantly lower after vancomycin treatment in those mice (25%) versus those infected with strains known to be vancomycin sensitive (50%).
Unrecognized genetic strains
Whole-genome sequencing of 10 of the resistant isolates showed no matches with gene clusters that have been previously recognized as being vancomycin resistant, suggesting the emergence of new clusters.
“Together, these results suggest unknown genetic elements associated with vancomycin nonsusceptibility in isolates circulating in the patient population,” the authors wrote.
Dr. Darkoh told this news organization that the research team is currently working to further investigate the patterns and mechanisms.
“We are currently working on a follow-up study for the next 5 years to find out how widespread this is,” he said. “We want to make sure it’s not necessarily just occurring in the settings we studied, and we also need to establish the mechanism of resistance.”
Further commenting on the results, Dr. Clancy noted that “the extent of resistance caught many in the field a bit off guard, as they are higher than previously reported.”
“The data are also concerning because most centers do not routinely test C. difficile for drug susceptibility.”
Dr. Clancy noted that “another immediately pressing need is to understand mechanisms of resistance. It was quite striking that vancomycin-resistant strains in this study did not carry vanA genes, pointing to previously unrecognized mechanisms of resistance.”
“As is often the case, antibiotic overuse was likely a factor in the resistances, with overtesting often leading to overtreatment of C. difficile,” Dr. Clancy said. “The situation may have been compounded by failure to appreciate how entrenched C. difficile resistance may be at certain hospitals, since widespread susceptibility testing is generally not routinely performed.”
As alternative treatments, Dr. Clancy pointed to the recent IDSA update, which included a stronger endorsement of fidaxomicin.
“Of course, there is also the need to assure that data on resistance to agents like fidaxomicin are generated going forward,” he noted.
The study was supported by was supported by National Institutes of Health, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, the Texas Medical Center Digestive Diseases Center, and the University of Texas Health Science Center. Dr. Darkoh has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. One coauthor received grant support from Merck, Entasis Pharmaceuticals, and MeMed Diagnostics. Dr. Clancy disclosed advisory board, consulting and/or research relationships with Merck, Qpex Biopharma, Shionogi, Astellas, Cidara, Scynexis, and Needham & Associates.
Help your patients understand their C. difficile diagnosis by sharing patient education from the AGA GI Patient Center: www.gastro.org/Cdiff.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM CLINICAL INFECTIOUS DISEASES
Stopping venetoclax treatment early reduces CLL survival outcomes
“There’s not a lot of awareness about the fact that you’re probably better off not permanently discontinuing treatment,” Anthony R. Mato, first author of the research published in Haematologica, said in an interview.
“Instead, attempting dose reductions with later resumption to complete the planned schedule for treatment probably could improve outcomes,” said Dr. Mato, who is director of the CLL Program at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York.
Venetoclax, a potent B-cell lymphoma-2 (BCL2) inhibitor, provides a novel, chemotherapy-free treatment option for first-line and r/r CLL. While its safety profile is manageable, treatment interruptions are very common, and premature discontinuations are reported in about a third of patients, often because of adverse events.
Lacking data on the effects of those interruptions on survival outcomes, Dr. Mato and colleagues conducted a post hoc analysis of the phase 3 MURANO trial. In this open-label study, treatment with six cycles of venetoclax in combination with rituximab followed by venetoclax once daily for a total of 2 years showed superior progression-free survival, compared with six cycles of bendamustine plus rituximab in patients with r/r CLL (P < .0001).
The current analysis involved 194 intention-to-treat patients from the trial’s venetoclax arm, among whom 140 (72%) completed 2 years of therapy, and 54 (28%) prematurely discontinued treatment. The most common reasons for discontinuation were adverse events (53.7%) and disease progression (22.2%).
Among those with early discontinuation for any reason except disease progression, the rate of progression-free survival was significantly inferior, compared with those who completed the treatment (hazard ratio, 5.98; P < .0001), as was the rate or discontinuation caused specifically by adverse events, which most commonly involved neutropenia or thrombocytopenia (HR, 5.82; P < .0001).
Those who discontinued had a mean duration of venetoclax therapy of 11.3 months, compared with 24.4 months for all patients. For each additional month of venetoclax therapy, there was a significantly lower risk of a progression-free survival event (P = .0263) and of an overall survival event (P < .0001).
The treatment interruption rate was much higher, at 69% (134), involving neutropenia in 43% (84) of instances and requiring dose reductions in 23% (45) of cases.
However, in contrast to permanent discontinuations, the temporary interruptions and dose reductions had no significant effect on progression-free or overall survival, regardless of the duration.
“Improved progression-free and overall survival were associated with greater cumulative venetoclax treatment exposure,” the authors wrote.
“The results of these analyses highlight the importance of appropriately managing treatment modifications to ensure optimal outcomes for patients receiving targeted treatment for CLL,” they said.
Key measures including “better supportive care, use of growth factors, and more aggressive strategies for dose reduction could potentially help to improve or decrease the number of patients discontinuing due to an adverse event,” Dr. Mato added.“We can’t say definitively because this is not a randomized study – it’s a retrospective analysis from a randomized study – but those measures likely could have a positive impact on patient outcomes.”
The study received support from Genentech and AbbVie. Dr. Mato reported consulting or other relationships with AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Celgene, DTRM, Genentech, Janssen, Loxo, PCYC, Sunesis, and TG Therapeutics.
“There’s not a lot of awareness about the fact that you’re probably better off not permanently discontinuing treatment,” Anthony R. Mato, first author of the research published in Haematologica, said in an interview.
“Instead, attempting dose reductions with later resumption to complete the planned schedule for treatment probably could improve outcomes,” said Dr. Mato, who is director of the CLL Program at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York.
Venetoclax, a potent B-cell lymphoma-2 (BCL2) inhibitor, provides a novel, chemotherapy-free treatment option for first-line and r/r CLL. While its safety profile is manageable, treatment interruptions are very common, and premature discontinuations are reported in about a third of patients, often because of adverse events.
Lacking data on the effects of those interruptions on survival outcomes, Dr. Mato and colleagues conducted a post hoc analysis of the phase 3 MURANO trial. In this open-label study, treatment with six cycles of venetoclax in combination with rituximab followed by venetoclax once daily for a total of 2 years showed superior progression-free survival, compared with six cycles of bendamustine plus rituximab in patients with r/r CLL (P < .0001).
The current analysis involved 194 intention-to-treat patients from the trial’s venetoclax arm, among whom 140 (72%) completed 2 years of therapy, and 54 (28%) prematurely discontinued treatment. The most common reasons for discontinuation were adverse events (53.7%) and disease progression (22.2%).
Among those with early discontinuation for any reason except disease progression, the rate of progression-free survival was significantly inferior, compared with those who completed the treatment (hazard ratio, 5.98; P < .0001), as was the rate or discontinuation caused specifically by adverse events, which most commonly involved neutropenia or thrombocytopenia (HR, 5.82; P < .0001).
Those who discontinued had a mean duration of venetoclax therapy of 11.3 months, compared with 24.4 months for all patients. For each additional month of venetoclax therapy, there was a significantly lower risk of a progression-free survival event (P = .0263) and of an overall survival event (P < .0001).
The treatment interruption rate was much higher, at 69% (134), involving neutropenia in 43% (84) of instances and requiring dose reductions in 23% (45) of cases.
However, in contrast to permanent discontinuations, the temporary interruptions and dose reductions had no significant effect on progression-free or overall survival, regardless of the duration.
“Improved progression-free and overall survival were associated with greater cumulative venetoclax treatment exposure,” the authors wrote.
“The results of these analyses highlight the importance of appropriately managing treatment modifications to ensure optimal outcomes for patients receiving targeted treatment for CLL,” they said.
Key measures including “better supportive care, use of growth factors, and more aggressive strategies for dose reduction could potentially help to improve or decrease the number of patients discontinuing due to an adverse event,” Dr. Mato added.“We can’t say definitively because this is not a randomized study – it’s a retrospective analysis from a randomized study – but those measures likely could have a positive impact on patient outcomes.”
The study received support from Genentech and AbbVie. Dr. Mato reported consulting or other relationships with AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Celgene, DTRM, Genentech, Janssen, Loxo, PCYC, Sunesis, and TG Therapeutics.
“There’s not a lot of awareness about the fact that you’re probably better off not permanently discontinuing treatment,” Anthony R. Mato, first author of the research published in Haematologica, said in an interview.
“Instead, attempting dose reductions with later resumption to complete the planned schedule for treatment probably could improve outcomes,” said Dr. Mato, who is director of the CLL Program at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York.
Venetoclax, a potent B-cell lymphoma-2 (BCL2) inhibitor, provides a novel, chemotherapy-free treatment option for first-line and r/r CLL. While its safety profile is manageable, treatment interruptions are very common, and premature discontinuations are reported in about a third of patients, often because of adverse events.
Lacking data on the effects of those interruptions on survival outcomes, Dr. Mato and colleagues conducted a post hoc analysis of the phase 3 MURANO trial. In this open-label study, treatment with six cycles of venetoclax in combination with rituximab followed by venetoclax once daily for a total of 2 years showed superior progression-free survival, compared with six cycles of bendamustine plus rituximab in patients with r/r CLL (P < .0001).
The current analysis involved 194 intention-to-treat patients from the trial’s venetoclax arm, among whom 140 (72%) completed 2 years of therapy, and 54 (28%) prematurely discontinued treatment. The most common reasons for discontinuation were adverse events (53.7%) and disease progression (22.2%).
Among those with early discontinuation for any reason except disease progression, the rate of progression-free survival was significantly inferior, compared with those who completed the treatment (hazard ratio, 5.98; P < .0001), as was the rate or discontinuation caused specifically by adverse events, which most commonly involved neutropenia or thrombocytopenia (HR, 5.82; P < .0001).
Those who discontinued had a mean duration of venetoclax therapy of 11.3 months, compared with 24.4 months for all patients. For each additional month of venetoclax therapy, there was a significantly lower risk of a progression-free survival event (P = .0263) and of an overall survival event (P < .0001).
The treatment interruption rate was much higher, at 69% (134), involving neutropenia in 43% (84) of instances and requiring dose reductions in 23% (45) of cases.
However, in contrast to permanent discontinuations, the temporary interruptions and dose reductions had no significant effect on progression-free or overall survival, regardless of the duration.
“Improved progression-free and overall survival were associated with greater cumulative venetoclax treatment exposure,” the authors wrote.
“The results of these analyses highlight the importance of appropriately managing treatment modifications to ensure optimal outcomes for patients receiving targeted treatment for CLL,” they said.
Key measures including “better supportive care, use of growth factors, and more aggressive strategies for dose reduction could potentially help to improve or decrease the number of patients discontinuing due to an adverse event,” Dr. Mato added.“We can’t say definitively because this is not a randomized study – it’s a retrospective analysis from a randomized study – but those measures likely could have a positive impact on patient outcomes.”
The study received support from Genentech and AbbVie. Dr. Mato reported consulting or other relationships with AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Celgene, DTRM, Genentech, Janssen, Loxo, PCYC, Sunesis, and TG Therapeutics.
Boxed warning for JAK inhibitors belies their durability in real-world registry studies
Several relatively large real-world analyses of Janus kinase inhibitors (JAKi) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis appear to show that the oral small-molecule drugs are discontinued and retained at rates similar to or better than biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs), including tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi), according to studies presented at the annual meeting of the Canadian Rheumatology Association.
The findings of these studies, although conducted prior to the Food and Drug Administration’s September 2021 announcement of a boxed warning for JAKi, do not lend support to the warning’s message of higher risks of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), blood clots, cancer, and death associated with JAKi.
In one study, discontinuation of JAKi-class drugs was less common than discontinuation of bDMARD-class drugs, including tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi), according to a multicenter team of investigators led by Janet Pope, MD, a professor in the division of rheumatology at the University of Western Ontario, London.
The greater durability of the JAKi relative to TNFi “seem to be driven by a greater loss of efficacy in bDMARDs over time,” reported Samir Magdy Iskander, a medical student at the university, who presented the data.
JAKi rival bDMARDs for long-term retention
In a separate but larger analysis, the retention rates with the JAKi tofacitinib (Xeljanz) and TNFi in two RA registries in Canada were about the same after a mean follow-up of 23.2 months (36.9% vs. 37.5%), but the tofacitinib group was at a relative disadvantage. Relative to the bDMARD group, patients taking JAKi were more likely to have had prior treatment with a bDMARD (66.9% vs. 33.9%), to have a higher median baseline Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) score (22.1 vs. 20.0; P < .05), and to be older (59.5 vs. 57.6 years).
In this study, 1,318 patients with RA enrolled in the Ontario Best Practices Research Initiative (OBRI) or a Quebec cohort called RHUMADATA were evaluated, reported Mohammad Movahedi, MD, PhD, of the Institute of Health Policy, Management, and Evaluation at the University of Toronto.
“We have not yet analyzed the reasons for discontinuation, but the data show that retention is about the same, meaning that selection of one agent over the other should be tailored according to patient characteristics,” Dr. Movahedi said.
Reasons for discontinuation were presented in the other observational study, which included 333 adult patients with RA from two centers in Ontario. The discontinuation rate for adverse events was approximately 20% in both groups (HR, 1.0005; P = .98). However, the discontinuation rate for lack of efficacy favored the JAKi, reaching statistical significance.
TNFi failure for lack of efficacy is higher
“For lack of efficacy, the discontinuation rate was about 35% lower on the JAKi [HR, 0.6543; P = .029],” Mr. Iskander reported. Relative to those taking a TNFi, those on a JAKi demonstrated “greater durability regardless of gender, age, disease duration, and prior lines of therapy.”
In a population of patients who have not achieved an adequate response to conventional synthetic DMARDs (csDMARDs), which describes the study population from the two Ontario centers, JAKi “may be considered as a preferable method of treatment,” Mr. Iskander said.
Pointing out that many clinicians have interpreted the boxed warning as a relative contraindication for use of JAKi as first-line therapy in patients with an inadequate response to csDMARDs, Marinka Twilt, MD, PhD, the moderator of the scientific session where these data were presented, questioned the conclusion. In the boxed warning, clinicians and patients are advised to consider an increased risk of serious infections, malignancy, and cardiovascular-related mortality in individuals older than 50 years.
In response, Mr. Iskander said that the data were collected and analyzed prior to the change in labeling. He acknowledged that this study was not designed to capture long-term risks, such as cardiovascular disease or malignancy. In this analysis, the safety and tolerability of JAKi and bDMARDs appeared comparable.
NEJM published study leading to boxed warning
Just a week prior to the CRA annual meeting, the New England Journal of Medicine published an FDA-mandated postmarketing trial of tofacitinib that was used by the agency to justify the boxed warning for JAKi with indications for artitis and other inflammatory diseases. In that open-label trial, more than 4,000 patients aged 50 years or older with at least one additional cardiovascular risk factor were randomized to 5 mg tofacitinib twice daily, 10 mg tofacitinib twice daily, or a TNFi (adalimumab or etanercept).
The efficacy of the therapies was similar, but tofacitinib failed to meet predefined noninferiority criteria for the co–primary endpoints of MACE or cancer (excluding nonmelanoma skin cancer). For tofacitinib relative to TNFi, the hazard ratio was 1.33 for MACE and 1.48 for cancers. The JAKi was also associated with higher incidences of opportunistic infections.
Mr. Iskander noted that Canadian clinical practice guidelines currently identify JAKi as a reasonable first-line alternative to bDMARDs after inadequate response to csDMARDs. While his data support that position, Dr. Twilt indicated that the benefit-to-risk ratio of JAKi might need recalculation based on the data that led the FDA to issue its boxed warning. She questioned whether the language regarding the relative role of JAKi and bDMARDs will change in coming RA guideline revisions.
Dr. Iskander reported no potential conflicts of interest. Dr. Movahedi did not list any personal conflicts of interest but acknowledged that OBRI received unrestricted grants from a variety of pharmaceutical companies, including those that manufacture bDMARDs and JAKi. Dr. Twilt reported no potential conflicts of interest.
Several relatively large real-world analyses of Janus kinase inhibitors (JAKi) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis appear to show that the oral small-molecule drugs are discontinued and retained at rates similar to or better than biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs), including tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi), according to studies presented at the annual meeting of the Canadian Rheumatology Association.
The findings of these studies, although conducted prior to the Food and Drug Administration’s September 2021 announcement of a boxed warning for JAKi, do not lend support to the warning’s message of higher risks of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), blood clots, cancer, and death associated with JAKi.
In one study, discontinuation of JAKi-class drugs was less common than discontinuation of bDMARD-class drugs, including tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi), according to a multicenter team of investigators led by Janet Pope, MD, a professor in the division of rheumatology at the University of Western Ontario, London.
The greater durability of the JAKi relative to TNFi “seem to be driven by a greater loss of efficacy in bDMARDs over time,” reported Samir Magdy Iskander, a medical student at the university, who presented the data.
JAKi rival bDMARDs for long-term retention
In a separate but larger analysis, the retention rates with the JAKi tofacitinib (Xeljanz) and TNFi in two RA registries in Canada were about the same after a mean follow-up of 23.2 months (36.9% vs. 37.5%), but the tofacitinib group was at a relative disadvantage. Relative to the bDMARD group, patients taking JAKi were more likely to have had prior treatment with a bDMARD (66.9% vs. 33.9%), to have a higher median baseline Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) score (22.1 vs. 20.0; P < .05), and to be older (59.5 vs. 57.6 years).
In this study, 1,318 patients with RA enrolled in the Ontario Best Practices Research Initiative (OBRI) or a Quebec cohort called RHUMADATA were evaluated, reported Mohammad Movahedi, MD, PhD, of the Institute of Health Policy, Management, and Evaluation at the University of Toronto.
“We have not yet analyzed the reasons for discontinuation, but the data show that retention is about the same, meaning that selection of one agent over the other should be tailored according to patient characteristics,” Dr. Movahedi said.
Reasons for discontinuation were presented in the other observational study, which included 333 adult patients with RA from two centers in Ontario. The discontinuation rate for adverse events was approximately 20% in both groups (HR, 1.0005; P = .98). However, the discontinuation rate for lack of efficacy favored the JAKi, reaching statistical significance.
TNFi failure for lack of efficacy is higher
“For lack of efficacy, the discontinuation rate was about 35% lower on the JAKi [HR, 0.6543; P = .029],” Mr. Iskander reported. Relative to those taking a TNFi, those on a JAKi demonstrated “greater durability regardless of gender, age, disease duration, and prior lines of therapy.”
In a population of patients who have not achieved an adequate response to conventional synthetic DMARDs (csDMARDs), which describes the study population from the two Ontario centers, JAKi “may be considered as a preferable method of treatment,” Mr. Iskander said.
Pointing out that many clinicians have interpreted the boxed warning as a relative contraindication for use of JAKi as first-line therapy in patients with an inadequate response to csDMARDs, Marinka Twilt, MD, PhD, the moderator of the scientific session where these data were presented, questioned the conclusion. In the boxed warning, clinicians and patients are advised to consider an increased risk of serious infections, malignancy, and cardiovascular-related mortality in individuals older than 50 years.
In response, Mr. Iskander said that the data were collected and analyzed prior to the change in labeling. He acknowledged that this study was not designed to capture long-term risks, such as cardiovascular disease or malignancy. In this analysis, the safety and tolerability of JAKi and bDMARDs appeared comparable.
NEJM published study leading to boxed warning
Just a week prior to the CRA annual meeting, the New England Journal of Medicine published an FDA-mandated postmarketing trial of tofacitinib that was used by the agency to justify the boxed warning for JAKi with indications for artitis and other inflammatory diseases. In that open-label trial, more than 4,000 patients aged 50 years or older with at least one additional cardiovascular risk factor were randomized to 5 mg tofacitinib twice daily, 10 mg tofacitinib twice daily, or a TNFi (adalimumab or etanercept).
The efficacy of the therapies was similar, but tofacitinib failed to meet predefined noninferiority criteria for the co–primary endpoints of MACE or cancer (excluding nonmelanoma skin cancer). For tofacitinib relative to TNFi, the hazard ratio was 1.33 for MACE and 1.48 for cancers. The JAKi was also associated with higher incidences of opportunistic infections.
Mr. Iskander noted that Canadian clinical practice guidelines currently identify JAKi as a reasonable first-line alternative to bDMARDs after inadequate response to csDMARDs. While his data support that position, Dr. Twilt indicated that the benefit-to-risk ratio of JAKi might need recalculation based on the data that led the FDA to issue its boxed warning. She questioned whether the language regarding the relative role of JAKi and bDMARDs will change in coming RA guideline revisions.
Dr. Iskander reported no potential conflicts of interest. Dr. Movahedi did not list any personal conflicts of interest but acknowledged that OBRI received unrestricted grants from a variety of pharmaceutical companies, including those that manufacture bDMARDs and JAKi. Dr. Twilt reported no potential conflicts of interest.
Several relatively large real-world analyses of Janus kinase inhibitors (JAKi) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis appear to show that the oral small-molecule drugs are discontinued and retained at rates similar to or better than biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs), including tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi), according to studies presented at the annual meeting of the Canadian Rheumatology Association.
The findings of these studies, although conducted prior to the Food and Drug Administration’s September 2021 announcement of a boxed warning for JAKi, do not lend support to the warning’s message of higher risks of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), blood clots, cancer, and death associated with JAKi.
In one study, discontinuation of JAKi-class drugs was less common than discontinuation of bDMARD-class drugs, including tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi), according to a multicenter team of investigators led by Janet Pope, MD, a professor in the division of rheumatology at the University of Western Ontario, London.
The greater durability of the JAKi relative to TNFi “seem to be driven by a greater loss of efficacy in bDMARDs over time,” reported Samir Magdy Iskander, a medical student at the university, who presented the data.
JAKi rival bDMARDs for long-term retention
In a separate but larger analysis, the retention rates with the JAKi tofacitinib (Xeljanz) and TNFi in two RA registries in Canada were about the same after a mean follow-up of 23.2 months (36.9% vs. 37.5%), but the tofacitinib group was at a relative disadvantage. Relative to the bDMARD group, patients taking JAKi were more likely to have had prior treatment with a bDMARD (66.9% vs. 33.9%), to have a higher median baseline Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) score (22.1 vs. 20.0; P < .05), and to be older (59.5 vs. 57.6 years).
In this study, 1,318 patients with RA enrolled in the Ontario Best Practices Research Initiative (OBRI) or a Quebec cohort called RHUMADATA were evaluated, reported Mohammad Movahedi, MD, PhD, of the Institute of Health Policy, Management, and Evaluation at the University of Toronto.
“We have not yet analyzed the reasons for discontinuation, but the data show that retention is about the same, meaning that selection of one agent over the other should be tailored according to patient characteristics,” Dr. Movahedi said.
Reasons for discontinuation were presented in the other observational study, which included 333 adult patients with RA from two centers in Ontario. The discontinuation rate for adverse events was approximately 20% in both groups (HR, 1.0005; P = .98). However, the discontinuation rate for lack of efficacy favored the JAKi, reaching statistical significance.
TNFi failure for lack of efficacy is higher
“For lack of efficacy, the discontinuation rate was about 35% lower on the JAKi [HR, 0.6543; P = .029],” Mr. Iskander reported. Relative to those taking a TNFi, those on a JAKi demonstrated “greater durability regardless of gender, age, disease duration, and prior lines of therapy.”
In a population of patients who have not achieved an adequate response to conventional synthetic DMARDs (csDMARDs), which describes the study population from the two Ontario centers, JAKi “may be considered as a preferable method of treatment,” Mr. Iskander said.
Pointing out that many clinicians have interpreted the boxed warning as a relative contraindication for use of JAKi as first-line therapy in patients with an inadequate response to csDMARDs, Marinka Twilt, MD, PhD, the moderator of the scientific session where these data were presented, questioned the conclusion. In the boxed warning, clinicians and patients are advised to consider an increased risk of serious infections, malignancy, and cardiovascular-related mortality in individuals older than 50 years.
In response, Mr. Iskander said that the data were collected and analyzed prior to the change in labeling. He acknowledged that this study was not designed to capture long-term risks, such as cardiovascular disease or malignancy. In this analysis, the safety and tolerability of JAKi and bDMARDs appeared comparable.
NEJM published study leading to boxed warning
Just a week prior to the CRA annual meeting, the New England Journal of Medicine published an FDA-mandated postmarketing trial of tofacitinib that was used by the agency to justify the boxed warning for JAKi with indications for artitis and other inflammatory diseases. In that open-label trial, more than 4,000 patients aged 50 years or older with at least one additional cardiovascular risk factor were randomized to 5 mg tofacitinib twice daily, 10 mg tofacitinib twice daily, or a TNFi (adalimumab or etanercept).
The efficacy of the therapies was similar, but tofacitinib failed to meet predefined noninferiority criteria for the co–primary endpoints of MACE or cancer (excluding nonmelanoma skin cancer). For tofacitinib relative to TNFi, the hazard ratio was 1.33 for MACE and 1.48 for cancers. The JAKi was also associated with higher incidences of opportunistic infections.
Mr. Iskander noted that Canadian clinical practice guidelines currently identify JAKi as a reasonable first-line alternative to bDMARDs after inadequate response to csDMARDs. While his data support that position, Dr. Twilt indicated that the benefit-to-risk ratio of JAKi might need recalculation based on the data that led the FDA to issue its boxed warning. She questioned whether the language regarding the relative role of JAKi and bDMARDs will change in coming RA guideline revisions.
Dr. Iskander reported no potential conflicts of interest. Dr. Movahedi did not list any personal conflicts of interest but acknowledged that OBRI received unrestricted grants from a variety of pharmaceutical companies, including those that manufacture bDMARDs and JAKi. Dr. Twilt reported no potential conflicts of interest.
FROM THE ANNUAL MEETING OF THE CANADIAN RHEUMATOLOGY ASSOCIATION
Native American Tribes Settle ‘Epic’ Opioid Deal
Hundreds of Native American tribes have tentatively settled in what one of the lead attorneys describes as “an epic deal”: The top 3 pharmaceutical distributors in the US and Johnson & Johnson have agreed to pay $665 million for deceptive marketing practices and overdistribution of opioids. Native Americans were among those hardest hit by the opioid epidemic. Between 2006 and 2014, Native Americans were nearly 50% more likely than non-Natives to die of an opioid overdose. In 2014, they ranked number 1 for death by opioid overdose.
Overprescribing was rampant. In some areas, such as southwestern Virginia, eastern Kentucky, and Alabama, prescriptions were 5 to 6 times higher than the national average. The overprescribing was largely due to massive and aggressive billion-dollar marketing campaigns, which misrepresented the safety of opioid medications. Purdue Pharma, for instance, trained sales representatives to claim that the risk of addiction was “less than 1 percent.” In an interview with Smithsonian Magazine, Caleb Alexander, MD, codirector of Johns Hopkins’ Center for Drug Safety and Effectiveness, said, “When I was in residency training, we were taught that one needn’t worry about the addictive potential of opioids if a patient had true pain.” He said it was no accident that physicians were cultivated to overestimate the effectiveness for chronic, noncancer pain while underestimating the risks.
Native Americans were not only in the target group for prescriptions, but also apparently singularly targeted. “We were preyed upon,” said Chickasaw Nation Governor Bill Anoatubby in the Washington Post. “It was unconscionable.” A Washington Post analysis found that, between 2006 and 2014, opioid distributors shipped an average of 36 pills per person in the US. States in the so-called opioid belt (mostly Southern states), received an average of 60 to 66 pills per person. The distributors shipped 57 pills per person to Oklahoma, home to nearly 322,000 Native Americans. (The opioid death rate for Native Americans in Oklahoma from 2006 to 2014 was more than triple the nationwide rate for non-Natives.) In South Dakota as recently as 2015, enough opioids were prescribed to medicate every adult around-the-clock for 19 consecutive days. Native Americans comprise 9% of South Dakota’s population; however, almost 30% of the patients are being treated for opioid use disorder.
In the settlement, which is a first for tribes, McKesson, Cardinal Health, and AmerisourceBergen would pay $515 million over 7 years. Johnson & Johnson would contribute $150 million in 2 years to the federally recognized tribes. “This settlement is a real turning point in history,” said Lloyd Miller, one of the attorneys representing one-third of the litigating tribes.
But the money is still small compensation for ravaging millions of lives. “Flooding the Native community with Western medicine—sedating a population rather than seeking to understand its needs and challenges—is not an acceptable means of handling its trauma,” the Lakota People’s Law Project says in an article on its website. Thus, the money dispersal will be overseen by a panel of tribal health experts, to go toward programs that aid drug users and their communities.
The funds will be managed in a way that will consider the long-term damage, Native American leaders vow. Children, for instance, have not been exempt from the sequelae of the overprescribing. Foster care systems are “overrun” with children of addicted parents, the Law Project says, and the children are placed in homes outside the tribe. “In the long run, this has the potential to curtail tribal membership, break down familial lines, and degrade cultural values.”
Dealing with the problem has drained tribal resources—doubly strained by the COVID-19 epidemic. Chairman Douglas Yankton, of the Spirit Lake Nation in North Dakota, said in a statement, “The dollars that will flow to Tribes under this initial settlement will help fund crucial, on-reservation, culturally appropriate opioid treatment services.”
However, Chairman Kristopher Peters, of the Squaxin Island Tribe in Washington State, told the Washington Post, “There is no amount of money that’s going to solve the generational issues that have been created from this. Our hope is that we can use these funds to help revitalize our culture and help heal our people.”
Johnson & Johnson says it no longer sells prescription opioids in the US
Hundreds of Native American tribes have tentatively settled in what one of the lead attorneys describes as “an epic deal”: The top 3 pharmaceutical distributors in the US and Johnson & Johnson have agreed to pay $665 million for deceptive marketing practices and overdistribution of opioids. Native Americans were among those hardest hit by the opioid epidemic. Between 2006 and 2014, Native Americans were nearly 50% more likely than non-Natives to die of an opioid overdose. In 2014, they ranked number 1 for death by opioid overdose.
Overprescribing was rampant. In some areas, such as southwestern Virginia, eastern Kentucky, and Alabama, prescriptions were 5 to 6 times higher than the national average. The overprescribing was largely due to massive and aggressive billion-dollar marketing campaigns, which misrepresented the safety of opioid medications. Purdue Pharma, for instance, trained sales representatives to claim that the risk of addiction was “less than 1 percent.” In an interview with Smithsonian Magazine, Caleb Alexander, MD, codirector of Johns Hopkins’ Center for Drug Safety and Effectiveness, said, “When I was in residency training, we were taught that one needn’t worry about the addictive potential of opioids if a patient had true pain.” He said it was no accident that physicians were cultivated to overestimate the effectiveness for chronic, noncancer pain while underestimating the risks.
Native Americans were not only in the target group for prescriptions, but also apparently singularly targeted. “We were preyed upon,” said Chickasaw Nation Governor Bill Anoatubby in the Washington Post. “It was unconscionable.” A Washington Post analysis found that, between 2006 and 2014, opioid distributors shipped an average of 36 pills per person in the US. States in the so-called opioid belt (mostly Southern states), received an average of 60 to 66 pills per person. The distributors shipped 57 pills per person to Oklahoma, home to nearly 322,000 Native Americans. (The opioid death rate for Native Americans in Oklahoma from 2006 to 2014 was more than triple the nationwide rate for non-Natives.) In South Dakota as recently as 2015, enough opioids were prescribed to medicate every adult around-the-clock for 19 consecutive days. Native Americans comprise 9% of South Dakota’s population; however, almost 30% of the patients are being treated for opioid use disorder.
In the settlement, which is a first for tribes, McKesson, Cardinal Health, and AmerisourceBergen would pay $515 million over 7 years. Johnson & Johnson would contribute $150 million in 2 years to the federally recognized tribes. “This settlement is a real turning point in history,” said Lloyd Miller, one of the attorneys representing one-third of the litigating tribes.
But the money is still small compensation for ravaging millions of lives. “Flooding the Native community with Western medicine—sedating a population rather than seeking to understand its needs and challenges—is not an acceptable means of handling its trauma,” the Lakota People’s Law Project says in an article on its website. Thus, the money dispersal will be overseen by a panel of tribal health experts, to go toward programs that aid drug users and their communities.
The funds will be managed in a way that will consider the long-term damage, Native American leaders vow. Children, for instance, have not been exempt from the sequelae of the overprescribing. Foster care systems are “overrun” with children of addicted parents, the Law Project says, and the children are placed in homes outside the tribe. “In the long run, this has the potential to curtail tribal membership, break down familial lines, and degrade cultural values.”
Dealing with the problem has drained tribal resources—doubly strained by the COVID-19 epidemic. Chairman Douglas Yankton, of the Spirit Lake Nation in North Dakota, said in a statement, “The dollars that will flow to Tribes under this initial settlement will help fund crucial, on-reservation, culturally appropriate opioid treatment services.”
However, Chairman Kristopher Peters, of the Squaxin Island Tribe in Washington State, told the Washington Post, “There is no amount of money that’s going to solve the generational issues that have been created from this. Our hope is that we can use these funds to help revitalize our culture and help heal our people.”
Johnson & Johnson says it no longer sells prescription opioids in the US
Hundreds of Native American tribes have tentatively settled in what one of the lead attorneys describes as “an epic deal”: The top 3 pharmaceutical distributors in the US and Johnson & Johnson have agreed to pay $665 million for deceptive marketing practices and overdistribution of opioids. Native Americans were among those hardest hit by the opioid epidemic. Between 2006 and 2014, Native Americans were nearly 50% more likely than non-Natives to die of an opioid overdose. In 2014, they ranked number 1 for death by opioid overdose.
Overprescribing was rampant. In some areas, such as southwestern Virginia, eastern Kentucky, and Alabama, prescriptions were 5 to 6 times higher than the national average. The overprescribing was largely due to massive and aggressive billion-dollar marketing campaigns, which misrepresented the safety of opioid medications. Purdue Pharma, for instance, trained sales representatives to claim that the risk of addiction was “less than 1 percent.” In an interview with Smithsonian Magazine, Caleb Alexander, MD, codirector of Johns Hopkins’ Center for Drug Safety and Effectiveness, said, “When I was in residency training, we were taught that one needn’t worry about the addictive potential of opioids if a patient had true pain.” He said it was no accident that physicians were cultivated to overestimate the effectiveness for chronic, noncancer pain while underestimating the risks.
Native Americans were not only in the target group for prescriptions, but also apparently singularly targeted. “We were preyed upon,” said Chickasaw Nation Governor Bill Anoatubby in the Washington Post. “It was unconscionable.” A Washington Post analysis found that, between 2006 and 2014, opioid distributors shipped an average of 36 pills per person in the US. States in the so-called opioid belt (mostly Southern states), received an average of 60 to 66 pills per person. The distributors shipped 57 pills per person to Oklahoma, home to nearly 322,000 Native Americans. (The opioid death rate for Native Americans in Oklahoma from 2006 to 2014 was more than triple the nationwide rate for non-Natives.) In South Dakota as recently as 2015, enough opioids were prescribed to medicate every adult around-the-clock for 19 consecutive days. Native Americans comprise 9% of South Dakota’s population; however, almost 30% of the patients are being treated for opioid use disorder.
In the settlement, which is a first for tribes, McKesson, Cardinal Health, and AmerisourceBergen would pay $515 million over 7 years. Johnson & Johnson would contribute $150 million in 2 years to the federally recognized tribes. “This settlement is a real turning point in history,” said Lloyd Miller, one of the attorneys representing one-third of the litigating tribes.
But the money is still small compensation for ravaging millions of lives. “Flooding the Native community with Western medicine—sedating a population rather than seeking to understand its needs and challenges—is not an acceptable means of handling its trauma,” the Lakota People’s Law Project says in an article on its website. Thus, the money dispersal will be overseen by a panel of tribal health experts, to go toward programs that aid drug users and their communities.
The funds will be managed in a way that will consider the long-term damage, Native American leaders vow. Children, for instance, have not been exempt from the sequelae of the overprescribing. Foster care systems are “overrun” with children of addicted parents, the Law Project says, and the children are placed in homes outside the tribe. “In the long run, this has the potential to curtail tribal membership, break down familial lines, and degrade cultural values.”
Dealing with the problem has drained tribal resources—doubly strained by the COVID-19 epidemic. Chairman Douglas Yankton, of the Spirit Lake Nation in North Dakota, said in a statement, “The dollars that will flow to Tribes under this initial settlement will help fund crucial, on-reservation, culturally appropriate opioid treatment services.”
However, Chairman Kristopher Peters, of the Squaxin Island Tribe in Washington State, told the Washington Post, “There is no amount of money that’s going to solve the generational issues that have been created from this. Our hope is that we can use these funds to help revitalize our culture and help heal our people.”
Johnson & Johnson says it no longer sells prescription opioids in the US