Pharmacology

LAS VEGAS – Risankizumab (Skyrizi, AbbVie) provides early and lasting benefits for patients with Crohn’s disease, phase 3 trials indicate.

Based on these and other recent findings, the drug could be used as a first-line treatment and even displace ustekinumab (Stelara, Janssen), which itself was approved by the Food and Drug Administration for Crohn’s disease in 2016, according to David Rubin, MD, the Joseph B. Kirsner Professor of Medicine at the University of Chicago.

“The drug works fast,” Dr. Rubin said in an interview. “If you start this therapy in patients with moderate to severe Crohn’s disease, they’re likely to feel better within the first few weeks.”

Dr. Rubin presented the findings on the drug’s early onset at the annual meeting of the American College of Gastroenterology. A related trial presented at the meeting showed the drug continuing to perform well up to 52 weeks.

Advances in immunomodulation have allowed drug companies to feed multiple new therapies into the pipeline for Crohn’s disease and related conditions in recent years, giving hope to the many patients who have not been able to benefit from older classes of drugs, such as biologics.

A humanized immunoglobulin G1 (IgG1) monoclonal antibody, risankizumab blocks interleukin (IL) 23 by binding to its p19 subunit. IL-23 is a cytokine implicated in several chronic immune disorders, including Crohn’s disease and psoriasis. Researchers hope that risankizumab will prove more selective, with a better safety profile, than previous drugs in its class. The FDA approved risankizumab in April 2019 for the treatment of moderate to severe plaque psoriasis.
 

MOTIVATE and ADVANCE studies

The two induction trials for Crohn’s disease enrolled slightly different populations.

The MOTIVATE study enrolled patients who had responded inadequately or were intolerant to biologic therapy. In this trial, the investigators assigned 205 patients to 1,200 mg of risankizumab, 206 patients to 600 mg of risankizumab, and 207 patients to placebo.

The ADVANCE study enrolled patients who had responded inadequately or could not tolerate either biologic or conventional therapy. In this trial, investigators randomly assigned 372 patients to 1,200 mg of risankizumab, 373 patients to 600 mg of risankizumab, and 186 patients to placebo.

In both trials, intravenous injections were given at weeks 0, 4, and 8.

The researchers defined a Crohn’s Disease Activity Index (CDAI) clinical remission as a score less than 150. They defined a Stool Frequency and Abdominal Pain Score (SF/APS) clinical remission as a soft stool frequency of no more than 2.8, and an abdominal pain score of no more than 1 and not worse than baseline.

A CDAI clinical response was at least a 100-point decrease from baseline. The SF/APS enhanced clinical response was at least a 60% decrease in average daily stool frequency or at least a 35% decrease in average daily abdominal pain, with both not worse than baseline.

At 4 weeks, the researchers found that the percentage of patients who achieved CDAI clinical remission in both risankizumab groups of both studies was greater than in the placebo group. The difference was statistically significant (P ≤ .01 in ADVANCE and P ≤ .05 in MOTIVATE), and it continued to grow at 8 weeks and 12 weeks.

By 12 weeks in the ADVANCE trial, according to a press release from AbbVie, 45% of patients on the 600-mg dose of risankizumab and 42% on the 1,200-mg dose of risankizumab had achieved CDAI clinical remission, compared with 25% of those on placebo, which was statistically significant (P < .001). For the MOTIVATE trial, the results were significantly better for patients in the risankizumab groups than for those in the placebo group.

In both trials, the treated groups continued to improve faster than the placebo groups through 12 weeks. Improvements in SF/APS enhanced clinical response largely paralleled those for CDAI clinical remission.

“It did show very good results,” session moderator Jonathan Leighton, MD, professor of medicine and chair of the division of gastroenterology at Mayo Clinic in Phoenix, Ariz., said in an interview with Medscape Medical News. “But basically, it’s so early that we don’t have all the data.” In particular, he would have liked to see whether patients responded to the drug before week 4.
 

FORTIFY study

In FORTIFY, the maintenance trial that followed, the researchers rerandomized those patients who had responded to risankizumab into three groups. Two groups received subcutaneous injections of risankizumab, with 179 patients getting 360 mg and another 179 patients getting 180 mg. The placebo group included the remaining 184 patients.

At week 52, 40.9% of patients in the placebo group were in clinical remission, compared with 52.2% in the 360-mg group and 55.4% in the 180-mg group, which was statistically significant (P = .005 for 360 mg, and P = .003 for 180 mg.)

“It showed us that [risankizumab] could achieve deep remission, which means patients achieving remission endoscopically in combination with clinical remission,” the presenter, Marla Dubinsky, MD, professor of pediatrics and medicine in the division of pediatric gastroenterology at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York, said in an interview.

Over the 52 weeks, deep remission and endoscopic remission rates increased in the 360-mg group, held steady in the 180-mg group, and decreased in the placebo group. Mean fecal calprotectin and C-reactive protein levels decreased in the risankizumab groups and increased in the placebo group.

There were more total treatment-emergent adverse events per 100 patient-years in the placebo group (339.7) than in the 360-mg group (269.3) or the 180-mg group (283.5). The same difference between groups was true of severe treatment-emergent adverse events. Serious events and events leading to discontinuation were similar in the three groups.

Dr. Leighton reports financial relationships to Olympus and Pfizer. Dr. Rubin reports financial relationships to AbbVie, AltruBio, Allergan, Arena Pharmaceuticals, Athos Therapeutics, Bellatrix, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene/Syneos, Connect Biopharma, GalenPharma/Atlantica, Genentech/Roche, Gilead, InDex Pharmaceuticals, Ironwood, Iterative Scopes, Janssen, Lilly, Materia Prima Farmaceutica, Pfizer, Prometheus Biosciences, Reistone, Takeda, and TECHLAB. Dr. Dubinsky reports financial relationships to all or most of the companies making drugs for inflammatory bowel disease. The studies were funded by AbbVie.

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

LAS VEGAS – Risankizumab (Skyrizi, AbbVie) provides early and lasting benefits for patients with Crohn’s disease, phase 3 trials indicate.

Based on these and other recent findings, the drug could be used as a first-line treatment and even displace ustekinumab (Stelara, Janssen), which itself was approved by the Food and Drug Administration for Crohn’s disease in 2016, according to David Rubin, MD, the Joseph B. Kirsner Professor of Medicine at the University of Chicago.

“The drug works fast,” Dr. Rubin said in an interview. “If you start this therapy in patients with moderate to severe Crohn’s disease, they’re likely to feel better within the first few weeks.”

Dr. Rubin presented the findings on the drug’s early onset at the annual meeting of the American College of Gastroenterology. A related trial presented at the meeting showed the drug continuing to perform well up to 52 weeks.

Advances in immunomodulation have allowed drug companies to feed multiple new therapies into the pipeline for Crohn’s disease and related conditions in recent years, giving hope to the many patients who have not been able to benefit from older classes of drugs, such as biologics.

A humanized immunoglobulin G1 (IgG1) monoclonal antibody, risankizumab blocks interleukin (IL) 23 by binding to its p19 subunit. IL-23 is a cytokine implicated in several chronic immune disorders, including Crohn’s disease and psoriasis. Researchers hope that risankizumab will prove more selective, with a better safety profile, than previous drugs in its class. The FDA approved risankizumab in April 2019 for the treatment of moderate to severe plaque psoriasis.
 

MOTIVATE and ADVANCE studies

The two induction trials for Crohn’s disease enrolled slightly different populations.

The MOTIVATE study enrolled patients who had responded inadequately or were intolerant to biologic therapy. In this trial, the investigators assigned 205 patients to 1,200 mg of risankizumab, 206 patients to 600 mg of risankizumab, and 207 patients to placebo.

The ADVANCE study enrolled patients who had responded inadequately or could not tolerate either biologic or conventional therapy. In this trial, investigators randomly assigned 372 patients to 1,200 mg of risankizumab, 373 patients to 600 mg of risankizumab, and 186 patients to placebo.

In both trials, intravenous injections were given at weeks 0, 4, and 8.

The researchers defined a Crohn’s Disease Activity Index (CDAI) clinical remission as a score less than 150. They defined a Stool Frequency and Abdominal Pain Score (SF/APS) clinical remission as a soft stool frequency of no more than 2.8, and an abdominal pain score of no more than 1 and not worse than baseline.

A CDAI clinical response was at least a 100-point decrease from baseline. The SF/APS enhanced clinical response was at least a 60% decrease in average daily stool frequency or at least a 35% decrease in average daily abdominal pain, with both not worse than baseline.

At 4 weeks, the researchers found that the percentage of patients who achieved CDAI clinical remission in both risankizumab groups of both studies was greater than in the placebo group. The difference was statistically significant (P ≤ .01 in ADVANCE and P ≤ .05 in MOTIVATE), and it continued to grow at 8 weeks and 12 weeks.

By 12 weeks in the ADVANCE trial, according to a press release from AbbVie, 45% of patients on the 600-mg dose of risankizumab and 42% on the 1,200-mg dose of risankizumab had achieved CDAI clinical remission, compared with 25% of those on placebo, which was statistically significant (P < .001). For the MOTIVATE trial, the results were significantly better for patients in the risankizumab groups than for those in the placebo group.

In both trials, the treated groups continued to improve faster than the placebo groups through 12 weeks. Improvements in SF/APS enhanced clinical response largely paralleled those for CDAI clinical remission.

“It did show very good results,” session moderator Jonathan Leighton, MD, professor of medicine and chair of the division of gastroenterology at Mayo Clinic in Phoenix, Ariz., said in an interview with Medscape Medical News. “But basically, it’s so early that we don’t have all the data.” In particular, he would have liked to see whether patients responded to the drug before week 4.
 

FORTIFY study

In FORTIFY, the maintenance trial that followed, the researchers rerandomized those patients who had responded to risankizumab into three groups. Two groups received subcutaneous injections of risankizumab, with 179 patients getting 360 mg and another 179 patients getting 180 mg. The placebo group included the remaining 184 patients.

At week 52, 40.9% of patients in the placebo group were in clinical remission, compared with 52.2% in the 360-mg group and 55.4% in the 180-mg group, which was statistically significant (P = .005 for 360 mg, and P = .003 for 180 mg.)

“It showed us that [risankizumab] could achieve deep remission, which means patients achieving remission endoscopically in combination with clinical remission,” the presenter, Marla Dubinsky, MD, professor of pediatrics and medicine in the division of pediatric gastroenterology at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York, said in an interview.

Over the 52 weeks, deep remission and endoscopic remission rates increased in the 360-mg group, held steady in the 180-mg group, and decreased in the placebo group. Mean fecal calprotectin and C-reactive protein levels decreased in the risankizumab groups and increased in the placebo group.

There were more total treatment-emergent adverse events per 100 patient-years in the placebo group (339.7) than in the 360-mg group (269.3) or the 180-mg group (283.5). The same difference between groups was true of severe treatment-emergent adverse events. Serious events and events leading to discontinuation were similar in the three groups.

Dr. Leighton reports financial relationships to Olympus and Pfizer. Dr. Rubin reports financial relationships to AbbVie, AltruBio, Allergan, Arena Pharmaceuticals, Athos Therapeutics, Bellatrix, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene/Syneos, Connect Biopharma, GalenPharma/Atlantica, Genentech/Roche, Gilead, InDex Pharmaceuticals, Ironwood, Iterative Scopes, Janssen, Lilly, Materia Prima Farmaceutica, Pfizer, Prometheus Biosciences, Reistone, Takeda, and TECHLAB. Dr. Dubinsky reports financial relationships to all or most of the companies making drugs for inflammatory bowel disease. The studies were funded by AbbVie.

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

LAS VEGAS – Risankizumab (Skyrizi, AbbVie) provides early and lasting benefits for patients with Crohn’s disease, phase 3 trials indicate.

Based on these and other recent findings, the drug could be used as a first-line treatment and even displace ustekinumab (Stelara, Janssen), which itself was approved by the Food and Drug Administration for Crohn’s disease in 2016, according to David Rubin, MD, the Joseph B. Kirsner Professor of Medicine at the University of Chicago.

“The drug works fast,” Dr. Rubin said in an interview. “If you start this therapy in patients with moderate to severe Crohn’s disease, they’re likely to feel better within the first few weeks.”

Dr. Rubin presented the findings on the drug’s early onset at the annual meeting of the American College of Gastroenterology. A related trial presented at the meeting showed the drug continuing to perform well up to 52 weeks.

Advances in immunomodulation have allowed drug companies to feed multiple new therapies into the pipeline for Crohn’s disease and related conditions in recent years, giving hope to the many patients who have not been able to benefit from older classes of drugs, such as biologics.

A humanized immunoglobulin G1 (IgG1) monoclonal antibody, risankizumab blocks interleukin (IL) 23 by binding to its p19 subunit. IL-23 is a cytokine implicated in several chronic immune disorders, including Crohn’s disease and psoriasis. Researchers hope that risankizumab will prove more selective, with a better safety profile, than previous drugs in its class. The FDA approved risankizumab in April 2019 for the treatment of moderate to severe plaque psoriasis.
 

MOTIVATE and ADVANCE studies

The two induction trials for Crohn’s disease enrolled slightly different populations.

The MOTIVATE study enrolled patients who had responded inadequately or were intolerant to biologic therapy. In this trial, the investigators assigned 205 patients to 1,200 mg of risankizumab, 206 patients to 600 mg of risankizumab, and 207 patients to placebo.

The ADVANCE study enrolled patients who had responded inadequately or could not tolerate either biologic or conventional therapy. In this trial, investigators randomly assigned 372 patients to 1,200 mg of risankizumab, 373 patients to 600 mg of risankizumab, and 186 patients to placebo.

In both trials, intravenous injections were given at weeks 0, 4, and 8.

The researchers defined a Crohn’s Disease Activity Index (CDAI) clinical remission as a score less than 150. They defined a Stool Frequency and Abdominal Pain Score (SF/APS) clinical remission as a soft stool frequency of no more than 2.8, and an abdominal pain score of no more than 1 and not worse than baseline.

A CDAI clinical response was at least a 100-point decrease from baseline. The SF/APS enhanced clinical response was at least a 60% decrease in average daily stool frequency or at least a 35% decrease in average daily abdominal pain, with both not worse than baseline.

At 4 weeks, the researchers found that the percentage of patients who achieved CDAI clinical remission in both risankizumab groups of both studies was greater than in the placebo group. The difference was statistically significant (P ≤ .01 in ADVANCE and P ≤ .05 in MOTIVATE), and it continued to grow at 8 weeks and 12 weeks.

By 12 weeks in the ADVANCE trial, according to a press release from AbbVie, 45% of patients on the 600-mg dose of risankizumab and 42% on the 1,200-mg dose of risankizumab had achieved CDAI clinical remission, compared with 25% of those on placebo, which was statistically significant (P < .001). For the MOTIVATE trial, the results were significantly better for patients in the risankizumab groups than for those in the placebo group.

In both trials, the treated groups continued to improve faster than the placebo groups through 12 weeks. Improvements in SF/APS enhanced clinical response largely paralleled those for CDAI clinical remission.

“It did show very good results,” session moderator Jonathan Leighton, MD, professor of medicine and chair of the division of gastroenterology at Mayo Clinic in Phoenix, Ariz., said in an interview with Medscape Medical News. “But basically, it’s so early that we don’t have all the data.” In particular, he would have liked to see whether patients responded to the drug before week 4.
 

FORTIFY study

In FORTIFY, the maintenance trial that followed, the researchers rerandomized those patients who had responded to risankizumab into three groups. Two groups received subcutaneous injections of risankizumab, with 179 patients getting 360 mg and another 179 patients getting 180 mg. The placebo group included the remaining 184 patients.

At week 52, 40.9% of patients in the placebo group were in clinical remission, compared with 52.2% in the 360-mg group and 55.4% in the 180-mg group, which was statistically significant (P = .005 for 360 mg, and P = .003 for 180 mg.)

“It showed us that [risankizumab] could achieve deep remission, which means patients achieving remission endoscopically in combination with clinical remission,” the presenter, Marla Dubinsky, MD, professor of pediatrics and medicine in the division of pediatric gastroenterology at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York, said in an interview.

Over the 52 weeks, deep remission and endoscopic remission rates increased in the 360-mg group, held steady in the 180-mg group, and decreased in the placebo group. Mean fecal calprotectin and C-reactive protein levels decreased in the risankizumab groups and increased in the placebo group.

There were more total treatment-emergent adverse events per 100 patient-years in the placebo group (339.7) than in the 360-mg group (269.3) or the 180-mg group (283.5). The same difference between groups was true of severe treatment-emergent adverse events. Serious events and events leading to discontinuation were similar in the three groups.

Dr. Leighton reports financial relationships to Olympus and Pfizer. Dr. Rubin reports financial relationships to AbbVie, AltruBio, Allergan, Arena Pharmaceuticals, Athos Therapeutics, Bellatrix, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene/Syneos, Connect Biopharma, GalenPharma/Atlantica, Genentech/Roche, Gilead, InDex Pharmaceuticals, Ironwood, Iterative Scopes, Janssen, Lilly, Materia Prima Farmaceutica, Pfizer, Prometheus Biosciences, Reistone, Takeda, and TECHLAB. Dr. Dubinsky reports financial relationships to all or most of the companies making drugs for inflammatory bowel disease. The studies were funded by AbbVie.

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

The glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist liraglutide (Saxenda, Novo Nordisk) was safe and effective for treating weight regain after Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB), in a randomized controlled trial.

That is, 132 patients who had lost at least 25% of their initial weight after RYGB and then gained at least 10% back were randomized 2:1 to receive liraglutide plus frequent lifestyle advice from a registered dietitian or lifestyle advice alone.

After a year, 69%, 48%, and 24% of patients who had received liraglutide lost at least 5%, 10%, and 15% of their study entry weight, respectively. In contrast, only 5% of patients in the control group lost at least 5% of their weight and none lost at least 10% of their weight.

“Liraglutide 3.0 mg/day, with lifestyle modification, was significantly more effective than placebo in treating weight regain after RYGB without increased risk of serious adverse events,” Holly F. Lofton, MD, summarized this week in an oral session at ObesityWeek®, the annual meeting of The Obesity Society.

Dr. Lofton, a clinical associate professor of surgery and medicine, and director, weight management program, NYU, Langone Health, explained to this news organization that she initiated the study after attending a “packed” session about post bariatric surgery weight regain at a prior American Society of Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery conference.

“The lecturers recommended conservative measures (such as reiterating the diet recommendations, exercise, [and] counseling), and revisional surgeries,” she said in an email, but at the time “there was no literature that provided direction on which pharmacotherapies are best for this population.”

It was known that decreases in endogenous GLP-1 levels coincide with weight regain, and liraglutide (Saxenda) was the only GLP-1 agonist approved for chronic weight management at the time, so she devised the current study protocol.

The findings are especially helpful for patients who are not candidates for bariatric surgery revisions, she noted. Further research is needed to investigate the effect of newer GLP-1 agonists, such as semaglutide (Wegovy), on weight regain following different types of bariatric surgery.

Asked to comment, Wendy C. King, PhD, who was not involved with this research, said that more than two-thirds of patients treated with 3 mg/day subcutaneous liraglutide injections in the current study lost at least 5% of their initial weight a year later, and 20% of them attained a weight as low as, or lower than, their lowest weight after bariatric surgery (nadir weight).

“The fact that both groups received lifestyle counseling from registered dietitians for just over a year, but only patients in the liraglutide group lost weight, on average, speaks to the difficulty of losing weight following weight regain post–bariatric surgery,” added Dr. King, an associate professor of epidemiology at the University of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

This study “provides data that may help clinicians and patients understand the potential effect of adding liraglutide 3.0 mg/day to their weight loss efforts,” she told this news organization in an email.

However, “given that 42% of those on liraglutide reported gastrointestinal-related side effects, patients should also be counseled on this potential outcome and given suggestions for how to minimize such side effects,” Dr. King suggested.
 

Weight regain common, repeat surgery entails risk

Weight regain is common even years after bariatric surgery. Repeat surgery entails some risk, and lifestyle approaches alone are rarely successful in reversing weight regain, Dr. Lofton told the audience.

The researchers enrolled 132 adults who had a mean weight of 134 kg (295 pounds) when they underwent RYGB, and who lost at least 25% of their initial weight (mean weight loss of 38%) after the surgery, but who also regained at least 10% of their initial weight.

At enrollment of the current study (baseline), the patients had had RYGB 18 months to 10 years earlier (mean 5.7 years earlier) and now had a mean weight of 99 kg (218 pounds) and a mean BMI of 35.6 kg/m². None of the patients had diabetes.  

The patients were randomized to receive liraglutide (n = 89, 84% women) or placebo (n = 43, 88% women) for 56 weeks.

They were a mean age of 48 years, and about 59% were White and 25% were Black.

All patients had clinic visits every 3 months where they received lifestyle counseling from a registered dietitian.

At 12 months, patients in the liraglutide group had lost a mean of 8.8% of their baseline weight, whereas those in the placebo group had gained a mean of 1.48% of their baseline weight.

There were no significant between-group differences in cardiometabolic variables.

None of the patients in the control group attained a weight that was as low as their nadir weight after RYGB.

The rates of nausea (25%), constipation (16%), and abdominal pain (10%) in the liraglutide group were higher than in the placebo group (7%, 14%, and 5%, respectively) but similar to rates of gastrointestinal side effects in other trials of this agent.

Dr. Lofton has disclosed receiving consulting fees and being on a speaker bureau for Novo Nordisk and receiving research funds from Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, and Novo Nordisk. Dr. King has reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

The glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist liraglutide (Saxenda, Novo Nordisk) was safe and effective for treating weight regain after Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB), in a randomized controlled trial.

That is, 132 patients who had lost at least 25% of their initial weight after RYGB and then gained at least 10% back were randomized 2:1 to receive liraglutide plus frequent lifestyle advice from a registered dietitian or lifestyle advice alone.

After a year, 69%, 48%, and 24% of patients who had received liraglutide lost at least 5%, 10%, and 15% of their study entry weight, respectively. In contrast, only 5% of patients in the control group lost at least 5% of their weight and none lost at least 10% of their weight.

“Liraglutide 3.0 mg/day, with lifestyle modification, was significantly more effective than placebo in treating weight regain after RYGB without increased risk of serious adverse events,” Holly F. Lofton, MD, summarized this week in an oral session at ObesityWeek®, the annual meeting of The Obesity Society.

Dr. Lofton, a clinical associate professor of surgery and medicine, and director, weight management program, NYU, Langone Health, explained to this news organization that she initiated the study after attending a “packed” session about post bariatric surgery weight regain at a prior American Society of Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery conference.

“The lecturers recommended conservative measures (such as reiterating the diet recommendations, exercise, [and] counseling), and revisional surgeries,” she said in an email, but at the time “there was no literature that provided direction on which pharmacotherapies are best for this population.”

It was known that decreases in endogenous GLP-1 levels coincide with weight regain, and liraglutide (Saxenda) was the only GLP-1 agonist approved for chronic weight management at the time, so she devised the current study protocol.

The findings are especially helpful for patients who are not candidates for bariatric surgery revisions, she noted. Further research is needed to investigate the effect of newer GLP-1 agonists, such as semaglutide (Wegovy), on weight regain following different types of bariatric surgery.

Asked to comment, Wendy C. King, PhD, who was not involved with this research, said that more than two-thirds of patients treated with 3 mg/day subcutaneous liraglutide injections in the current study lost at least 5% of their initial weight a year later, and 20% of them attained a weight as low as, or lower than, their lowest weight after bariatric surgery (nadir weight).

“The fact that both groups received lifestyle counseling from registered dietitians for just over a year, but only patients in the liraglutide group lost weight, on average, speaks to the difficulty of losing weight following weight regain post–bariatric surgery,” added Dr. King, an associate professor of epidemiology at the University of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

This study “provides data that may help clinicians and patients understand the potential effect of adding liraglutide 3.0 mg/day to their weight loss efforts,” she told this news organization in an email.

However, “given that 42% of those on liraglutide reported gastrointestinal-related side effects, patients should also be counseled on this potential outcome and given suggestions for how to minimize such side effects,” Dr. King suggested.
 

Weight regain common, repeat surgery entails risk

Weight regain is common even years after bariatric surgery. Repeat surgery entails some risk, and lifestyle approaches alone are rarely successful in reversing weight regain, Dr. Lofton told the audience.

The researchers enrolled 132 adults who had a mean weight of 134 kg (295 pounds) when they underwent RYGB, and who lost at least 25% of their initial weight (mean weight loss of 38%) after the surgery, but who also regained at least 10% of their initial weight.

At enrollment of the current study (baseline), the patients had had RYGB 18 months to 10 years earlier (mean 5.7 years earlier) and now had a mean weight of 99 kg (218 pounds) and a mean BMI of 35.6 kg/m². None of the patients had diabetes.  

The patients were randomized to receive liraglutide (n = 89, 84% women) or placebo (n = 43, 88% women) for 56 weeks.

They were a mean age of 48 years, and about 59% were White and 25% were Black.

All patients had clinic visits every 3 months where they received lifestyle counseling from a registered dietitian.

At 12 months, patients in the liraglutide group had lost a mean of 8.8% of their baseline weight, whereas those in the placebo group had gained a mean of 1.48% of their baseline weight.

There were no significant between-group differences in cardiometabolic variables.

None of the patients in the control group attained a weight that was as low as their nadir weight after RYGB.

The rates of nausea (25%), constipation (16%), and abdominal pain (10%) in the liraglutide group were higher than in the placebo group (7%, 14%, and 5%, respectively) but similar to rates of gastrointestinal side effects in other trials of this agent.

Dr. Lofton has disclosed receiving consulting fees and being on a speaker bureau for Novo Nordisk and receiving research funds from Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, and Novo Nordisk. Dr. King has reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

The glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist liraglutide (Saxenda, Novo Nordisk) was safe and effective for treating weight regain after Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB), in a randomized controlled trial.

That is, 132 patients who had lost at least 25% of their initial weight after RYGB and then gained at least 10% back were randomized 2:1 to receive liraglutide plus frequent lifestyle advice from a registered dietitian or lifestyle advice alone.

After a year, 69%, 48%, and 24% of patients who had received liraglutide lost at least 5%, 10%, and 15% of their study entry weight, respectively. In contrast, only 5% of patients in the control group lost at least 5% of their weight and none lost at least 10% of their weight.

“Liraglutide 3.0 mg/day, with lifestyle modification, was significantly more effective than placebo in treating weight regain after RYGB without increased risk of serious adverse events,” Holly F. Lofton, MD, summarized this week in an oral session at ObesityWeek®, the annual meeting of The Obesity Society.

Dr. Lofton, a clinical associate professor of surgery and medicine, and director, weight management program, NYU, Langone Health, explained to this news organization that she initiated the study after attending a “packed” session about post bariatric surgery weight regain at a prior American Society of Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery conference.

“The lecturers recommended conservative measures (such as reiterating the diet recommendations, exercise, [and] counseling), and revisional surgeries,” she said in an email, but at the time “there was no literature that provided direction on which pharmacotherapies are best for this population.”

It was known that decreases in endogenous GLP-1 levels coincide with weight regain, and liraglutide (Saxenda) was the only GLP-1 agonist approved for chronic weight management at the time, so she devised the current study protocol.

The findings are especially helpful for patients who are not candidates for bariatric surgery revisions, she noted. Further research is needed to investigate the effect of newer GLP-1 agonists, such as semaglutide (Wegovy), on weight regain following different types of bariatric surgery.

Asked to comment, Wendy C. King, PhD, who was not involved with this research, said that more than two-thirds of patients treated with 3 mg/day subcutaneous liraglutide injections in the current study lost at least 5% of their initial weight a year later, and 20% of them attained a weight as low as, or lower than, their lowest weight after bariatric surgery (nadir weight).

“The fact that both groups received lifestyle counseling from registered dietitians for just over a year, but only patients in the liraglutide group lost weight, on average, speaks to the difficulty of losing weight following weight regain post–bariatric surgery,” added Dr. King, an associate professor of epidemiology at the University of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

This study “provides data that may help clinicians and patients understand the potential effect of adding liraglutide 3.0 mg/day to their weight loss efforts,” she told this news organization in an email.

However, “given that 42% of those on liraglutide reported gastrointestinal-related side effects, patients should also be counseled on this potential outcome and given suggestions for how to minimize such side effects,” Dr. King suggested.
 

Weight regain common, repeat surgery entails risk

Weight regain is common even years after bariatric surgery. Repeat surgery entails some risk, and lifestyle approaches alone are rarely successful in reversing weight regain, Dr. Lofton told the audience.

The researchers enrolled 132 adults who had a mean weight of 134 kg (295 pounds) when they underwent RYGB, and who lost at least 25% of their initial weight (mean weight loss of 38%) after the surgery, but who also regained at least 10% of their initial weight.

At enrollment of the current study (baseline), the patients had had RYGB 18 months to 10 years earlier (mean 5.7 years earlier) and now had a mean weight of 99 kg (218 pounds) and a mean BMI of 35.6 kg/m². None of the patients had diabetes.  

The patients were randomized to receive liraglutide (n = 89, 84% women) or placebo (n = 43, 88% women) for 56 weeks.

They were a mean age of 48 years, and about 59% were White and 25% were Black.

All patients had clinic visits every 3 months where they received lifestyle counseling from a registered dietitian.

At 12 months, patients in the liraglutide group had lost a mean of 8.8% of their baseline weight, whereas those in the placebo group had gained a mean of 1.48% of their baseline weight.

There were no significant between-group differences in cardiometabolic variables.

None of the patients in the control group attained a weight that was as low as their nadir weight after RYGB.

The rates of nausea (25%), constipation (16%), and abdominal pain (10%) in the liraglutide group were higher than in the placebo group (7%, 14%, and 5%, respectively) but similar to rates of gastrointestinal side effects in other trials of this agent.

Dr. Lofton has disclosed receiving consulting fees and being on a speaker bureau for Novo Nordisk and receiving research funds from Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, and Novo Nordisk. Dr. King has reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

The use of statins by patients with rheumatoid arthritis appears to provide an overall net benefit on cardiovascular disease outcomes that outweighs the risk of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) seen with the drugs in the general population, according to evidence from a cohort study of more than 16,000 people in the United Kingdom that was presented at the virtual annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.

“Our study emphasizes that RA patients should be assessed for statin initiation to improve CVD risk,” lead study author Gulsen Ozen, MD, a third-year resident at the University of Nebraska, Omaha, said in an interview. Because the risk of T2DM with statin use is no worse in patients with RA than in the general population, statin initiation “is actually a great opportunity to address the risk factors for T2DM such as activity and exercise, obesity and weight loss, and [use of glucocorticoids], which have other important health effects,” she said.

“Also, importantly, even if [patients] develop T2DM, statins still work on CVD and mortality outcomes as in patients without diabetes,” Dr. Ozen added. “Given all, the benefits of statins way outweigh the hazards.”

Dr. Ozen said this was the first large cohort study to evaluate CVD mortality and T2DM risks with statins in patients with RA, a claim with which rheumatologist Elena Myasoedova, MD, PhD, of the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., concurred.

Dr. Myasoedova, professor of rheumatology and epidemiology at Mayo, said in an interview that the study was “methodologically rigorous” using time-conditional propensity score (TCPS) matching and a prevalent new-user design, “thus addressing the immortal time bias” found in the design of studies in which patients enter a cohort but do not start a treatment before developing the outcome of interest and are assigned to the untreated group or when the period of delay from when patients enter the cohort to when they are treated is excluded from the analysis. An earlier study from the same authors did not use TCPS matching, she said.

“The study findings suggest that patients with RA can benefit from statin use in terms of CVD outcomes and mortality but physicians should use vigilance regarding increased T2DM risk and discuss this possibility with patients,” Dr. Myasoedova said. “Identifying patients who are at higher risk of developing T2DM after statin initiation would be important to personalize the approach to statin therapy.”
 

Study details

The study accessed records from the U.K. Clinical Practice Research Datalink and linked Hospital Episode Statistics and Office of National Statistics databases. It analyzed adult patients with RA who were diagnosed during 1989-2018 in two cohorts: One for CVD and all-cause mortality, consisting of 1,768 statin initiators and 3,528 TCPS-matched nonusers; and a T2DM cohort with 3,608 statin initiators and 7,208 TCPS-matched nonusers.

In the entire cohort, statin use was associated with a 32% reduction in CV events (composite endpoint of the nonfatal or fatal MI, stroke, hospitalized heart failure, or CVD mortality), a 54% reduction in all-cause mortality, and a 33% increase in risk for T2DM, Dr. Ozen said. Results were similar in both sexes, although CV event reduction with statins in men did not reach statistical significance, likely because of a smaller sample size, she said.

Patients with and without a history of CVD had a similar reduction in CV events and all-cause mortality, and risk for T2DM increased with statins, but the latter reached statistical significance only in patients without a history of CVD, Dr. Ozen said.

Patients with RA who are at risk for T2DM and who are taking statins require blood glucose monitoring, which is typically done in patients with RA on disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, and hemoglobin A1c testing when glucose levels are impaired, she said. “Any concerns for T2DM would be also communicated by the primary care providers of the patients to initiate further assessment and management,” she said.

But Dr. Ozen noted that confusion exists among primary care physicians and rheumatologists about who’s responsible for prescribing statins in these patients. “I would like to remind you that instead of assigning this role to a certain specialty, just good communication could improve this care gap of statin underutilization in RA,” she said. “Also, for rheumatologists, given that all-cause mortality reduction with statins was as high as CV event reduction, statins may be reducing other causes of mortality through improving disease activity.”

Bristol-Myers Squibb provided funding for the study. Dr. Ozen and Dr. Myasoedova have no relevant disclosures.

The use of statins by patients with rheumatoid arthritis appears to provide an overall net benefit on cardiovascular disease outcomes that outweighs the risk of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) seen with the drugs in the general population, according to evidence from a cohort study of more than 16,000 people in the United Kingdom that was presented at the virtual annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.

“Our study emphasizes that RA patients should be assessed for statin initiation to improve CVD risk,” lead study author Gulsen Ozen, MD, a third-year resident at the University of Nebraska, Omaha, said in an interview. Because the risk of T2DM with statin use is no worse in patients with RA than in the general population, statin initiation “is actually a great opportunity to address the risk factors for T2DM such as activity and exercise, obesity and weight loss, and [use of glucocorticoids], which have other important health effects,” she said.

“Also, importantly, even if [patients] develop T2DM, statins still work on CVD and mortality outcomes as in patients without diabetes,” Dr. Ozen added. “Given all, the benefits of statins way outweigh the hazards.”

Dr. Ozen said this was the first large cohort study to evaluate CVD mortality and T2DM risks with statins in patients with RA, a claim with which rheumatologist Elena Myasoedova, MD, PhD, of the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., concurred.

Dr. Myasoedova, professor of rheumatology and epidemiology at Mayo, said in an interview that the study was “methodologically rigorous” using time-conditional propensity score (TCPS) matching and a prevalent new-user design, “thus addressing the immortal time bias” found in the design of studies in which patients enter a cohort but do not start a treatment before developing the outcome of interest and are assigned to the untreated group or when the period of delay from when patients enter the cohort to when they are treated is excluded from the analysis. An earlier study from the same authors did not use TCPS matching, she said.

“The study findings suggest that patients with RA can benefit from statin use in terms of CVD outcomes and mortality but physicians should use vigilance regarding increased T2DM risk and discuss this possibility with patients,” Dr. Myasoedova said. “Identifying patients who are at higher risk of developing T2DM after statin initiation would be important to personalize the approach to statin therapy.”
 

Study details

The study accessed records from the U.K. Clinical Practice Research Datalink and linked Hospital Episode Statistics and Office of National Statistics databases. It analyzed adult patients with RA who were diagnosed during 1989-2018 in two cohorts: One for CVD and all-cause mortality, consisting of 1,768 statin initiators and 3,528 TCPS-matched nonusers; and a T2DM cohort with 3,608 statin initiators and 7,208 TCPS-matched nonusers.

In the entire cohort, statin use was associated with a 32% reduction in CV events (composite endpoint of the nonfatal or fatal MI, stroke, hospitalized heart failure, or CVD mortality), a 54% reduction in all-cause mortality, and a 33% increase in risk for T2DM, Dr. Ozen said. Results were similar in both sexes, although CV event reduction with statins in men did not reach statistical significance, likely because of a smaller sample size, she said.

Patients with and without a history of CVD had a similar reduction in CV events and all-cause mortality, and risk for T2DM increased with statins, but the latter reached statistical significance only in patients without a history of CVD, Dr. Ozen said.

Patients with RA who are at risk for T2DM and who are taking statins require blood glucose monitoring, which is typically done in patients with RA on disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, and hemoglobin A1c testing when glucose levels are impaired, she said. “Any concerns for T2DM would be also communicated by the primary care providers of the patients to initiate further assessment and management,” she said.

But Dr. Ozen noted that confusion exists among primary care physicians and rheumatologists about who’s responsible for prescribing statins in these patients. “I would like to remind you that instead of assigning this role to a certain specialty, just good communication could improve this care gap of statin underutilization in RA,” she said. “Also, for rheumatologists, given that all-cause mortality reduction with statins was as high as CV event reduction, statins may be reducing other causes of mortality through improving disease activity.”

Bristol-Myers Squibb provided funding for the study. Dr. Ozen and Dr. Myasoedova have no relevant disclosures.

The use of statins by patients with rheumatoid arthritis appears to provide an overall net benefit on cardiovascular disease outcomes that outweighs the risk of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) seen with the drugs in the general population, according to evidence from a cohort study of more than 16,000 people in the United Kingdom that was presented at the virtual annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.

“Our study emphasizes that RA patients should be assessed for statin initiation to improve CVD risk,” lead study author Gulsen Ozen, MD, a third-year resident at the University of Nebraska, Omaha, said in an interview. Because the risk of T2DM with statin use is no worse in patients with RA than in the general population, statin initiation “is actually a great opportunity to address the risk factors for T2DM such as activity and exercise, obesity and weight loss, and [use of glucocorticoids], which have other important health effects,” she said.

“Also, importantly, even if [patients] develop T2DM, statins still work on CVD and mortality outcomes as in patients without diabetes,” Dr. Ozen added. “Given all, the benefits of statins way outweigh the hazards.”

Dr. Ozen said this was the first large cohort study to evaluate CVD mortality and T2DM risks with statins in patients with RA, a claim with which rheumatologist Elena Myasoedova, MD, PhD, of the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., concurred.

Dr. Myasoedova, professor of rheumatology and epidemiology at Mayo, said in an interview that the study was “methodologically rigorous” using time-conditional propensity score (TCPS) matching and a prevalent new-user design, “thus addressing the immortal time bias” found in the design of studies in which patients enter a cohort but do not start a treatment before developing the outcome of interest and are assigned to the untreated group or when the period of delay from when patients enter the cohort to when they are treated is excluded from the analysis. An earlier study from the same authors did not use TCPS matching, she said.

“The study findings suggest that patients with RA can benefit from statin use in terms of CVD outcomes and mortality but physicians should use vigilance regarding increased T2DM risk and discuss this possibility with patients,” Dr. Myasoedova said. “Identifying patients who are at higher risk of developing T2DM after statin initiation would be important to personalize the approach to statin therapy.”
 

Study details

The study accessed records from the U.K. Clinical Practice Research Datalink and linked Hospital Episode Statistics and Office of National Statistics databases. It analyzed adult patients with RA who were diagnosed during 1989-2018 in two cohorts: One for CVD and all-cause mortality, consisting of 1,768 statin initiators and 3,528 TCPS-matched nonusers; and a T2DM cohort with 3,608 statin initiators and 7,208 TCPS-matched nonusers.

In the entire cohort, statin use was associated with a 32% reduction in CV events (composite endpoint of the nonfatal or fatal MI, stroke, hospitalized heart failure, or CVD mortality), a 54% reduction in all-cause mortality, and a 33% increase in risk for T2DM, Dr. Ozen said. Results were similar in both sexes, although CV event reduction with statins in men did not reach statistical significance, likely because of a smaller sample size, she said.

Patients with and without a history of CVD had a similar reduction in CV events and all-cause mortality, and risk for T2DM increased with statins, but the latter reached statistical significance only in patients without a history of CVD, Dr. Ozen said.

Patients with RA who are at risk for T2DM and who are taking statins require blood glucose monitoring, which is typically done in patients with RA on disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, and hemoglobin A1c testing when glucose levels are impaired, she said. “Any concerns for T2DM would be also communicated by the primary care providers of the patients to initiate further assessment and management,” she said.

But Dr. Ozen noted that confusion exists among primary care physicians and rheumatologists about who’s responsible for prescribing statins in these patients. “I would like to remind you that instead of assigning this role to a certain specialty, just good communication could improve this care gap of statin underutilization in RA,” she said. “Also, for rheumatologists, given that all-cause mortality reduction with statins was as high as CV event reduction, statins may be reducing other causes of mortality through improving disease activity.”

Bristol-Myers Squibb provided funding for the study. Dr. Ozen and Dr. Myasoedova have no relevant disclosures.

Early trials are under way to test medicinal mushrooms and Chinese herbs to treat COVID-19 patients with mild to moderate symptoms.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved the MACH-19 trials (the acronym for Mushrooms and Chinese Herbs for COVID-19) after researchers applied for approval in April.

The first two phase 1 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials have begun at UCLA and the University of California San Diego to treat COVID-19 patients quarantining at home with mild to moderate symptoms. A third trial is investigating the use of medicinal mushrooms as an adjuvant to COVID-19 vaccines.

The researchers have also launched a fourth trial testing the mushrooms against placebo as an adjunct to a COVID booster shot. It looks at the effect in people who have comorbidities that would reduce their vaccine response. An article in JAMA  described the trials.

The two mushroom varieties being tested — turkey tail and agarikon — are available as over-the-counter supplements, according to the report. They are a separate class from hallucinogenic or “magic” mushrooms being tested for other uses in medicine.

“They are not even as psychoactive as a cup of tea,” Gordon Saxe, MD, PhD, MPH, principal investigator for the MACH-19 trials, told this news organization.

For each of the MACH-19 treatment trials, researchers plan to recruit 66 people who are quarantined at home with mild to moderate COVID-19 symptoms. Participants will be randomly assigned either to receive the mushroom combination, the Chinese herbs, or a placebo for 2 weeks, according to the JAMA paper.

D. Craig Hopp, PhD, deputy director of the division of extramural research at the National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health (NCCIH), told JAMA in an interview that he was “mildly concerned” about using mushrooms to treat people with active SARS-CoV-2 infection.

“We know that a cytokine storm poses the greatest risk of COVID mortality, not the virus itself,” Dr. Hopp said. “The danger is that an immune-stimulating agent like mushrooms might supercharge an individual’s immune response, leading to a cytokine storm.”

Stephen Wilson, PhD, an immunologist who consulted on the trials when he was chief operating officer of the La Jolla Institute for Immunology, says in the JAMA article that a cytokine storm is unlikely for these patients because the mushroom components “don’t mimic inflammatory cytokines.” Dr. Wilson is now chief innovations officer at Statera Biopharma.

“We think the mushrooms increase the number of immunologic opportunities to better see and respond to a specific threat. In the doses used, the mushrooms perturb the immune system in a good way but fall far short of driving hyper or sustained inflammation,” Dr. Wilson said.

Dr. Saxe said the FDA process was extensive and rigorous and FDA investigators also asked about potential cytokine storms before approving the trials. Cytokine storm is not an issue with a healthy response, Dr. Saxe pointed out. It’s a response that’s not balanced or modulated.

“Mushrooms are immunomodulatory,” he said. “In some ways they very specifically enhance immunity. In other ways they calm down overimmunity.” Dr. Saxe noted that they did a sentinel study for the storm potential “and we didn’t see any evidence for it.”

“Not a crazy concept”

Dr. Saxe pointed out that one of the mushrooms in the combo they use — agarikon — was used to treat pulmonary infections 2,300 years ago.

“Hippocrates, the father of western medicine, used mushrooms,” he said. “Penicillin comes from fungi. It’s not a crazy concept. Most people who oppose this or are skeptics — to some extent, it’s a lack of information.”

Dr. Saxe explained that there are receptors on human cells that bind specific mushroom polysaccharides.

“There’s a hand-in-glove fit there,” Dr. Saxe said, and that’s one way mushrooms can modulate immune cell behavior, which could have an effect against SARS-CoV-2.

Daniel Kuritzkes, MD, chief of the division of infectious diseases at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, who was not part of the study, told this news organization that he wasn’t surprised the FDA approved moving forward with the trials.

“As long as you can demonstrate that there is a rationale for doing the trial and that you have some safety data or a plan to collect safety data, they are fairly liberal about doing early-phase studies. It would be a much different issue, I think, if they were proposing to do a study for actual licensing or approval of a drug,” Dr. Kuritzkes said.

As yet unanswered, he noted, is which component of the mushrooms or herbs is having the effect. It will be a challenge, he said, to know from one batch of the compound to the next that you have the same amount of material and that it’s going to have the same potency among lots.

Another challenge is how the mushrooms and herbs might interact with other therapies, Dr. Kuritzkes said.

He gave the example of St. John’s Wort, which has been problematic in HIV treatment.

“If someone is on certain HIV medicines and they also are taking St. John’s Wort, they basically are causing the liver to eat up the HIV drug and they don’t get adequate levels of the drug,” he said.

Though there are many challenges ahead, Dr. Kuritzkes acknowledged, but added that “this is a great starting point.”

He, too, pointed out that many traditional medicines were discovered from plants.

“The most famous of these is quinine, which came from cinchona bark that was used to treat malaria.” Dr. Kuritzkes said. Digitalis, often used to treat heart failure, comes from the fox glove plant, he added.

He said it’s important to remember that “people shouldn’t be seeking experimental therapies in place of proven therapies, they should be thinking of them in addition to proven therapies.»

A co-author reports an investment in the dietary supplement company Mycomedica Life Sciences, for which he also serves as an unpaid scientific adviser. Another co-author is a medical consultant for Evergreen Herbs and Medical Supplies. Dr. Hopp, Dr. Saxe, and Dr. Wilson have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Kuritzkes consults for Merck, Gilead, and GlaxoSmithKline.

Early trials are under way to test medicinal mushrooms and Chinese herbs to treat COVID-19 patients with mild to moderate symptoms.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved the MACH-19 trials (the acronym for Mushrooms and Chinese Herbs for COVID-19) after researchers applied for approval in April.

The first two phase 1 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials have begun at UCLA and the University of California San Diego to treat COVID-19 patients quarantining at home with mild to moderate symptoms. A third trial is investigating the use of medicinal mushrooms as an adjuvant to COVID-19 vaccines.

The researchers have also launched a fourth trial testing the mushrooms against placebo as an adjunct to a COVID booster shot. It looks at the effect in people who have comorbidities that would reduce their vaccine response. An article in JAMA  described the trials.

The two mushroom varieties being tested — turkey tail and agarikon — are available as over-the-counter supplements, according to the report. They are a separate class from hallucinogenic or “magic” mushrooms being tested for other uses in medicine.

“They are not even as psychoactive as a cup of tea,” Gordon Saxe, MD, PhD, MPH, principal investigator for the MACH-19 trials, told this news organization.

For each of the MACH-19 treatment trials, researchers plan to recruit 66 people who are quarantined at home with mild to moderate COVID-19 symptoms. Participants will be randomly assigned either to receive the mushroom combination, the Chinese herbs, or a placebo for 2 weeks, according to the JAMA paper.

D. Craig Hopp, PhD, deputy director of the division of extramural research at the National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health (NCCIH), told JAMA in an interview that he was “mildly concerned” about using mushrooms to treat people with active SARS-CoV-2 infection.

“We know that a cytokine storm poses the greatest risk of COVID mortality, not the virus itself,” Dr. Hopp said. “The danger is that an immune-stimulating agent like mushrooms might supercharge an individual’s immune response, leading to a cytokine storm.”

Stephen Wilson, PhD, an immunologist who consulted on the trials when he was chief operating officer of the La Jolla Institute for Immunology, says in the JAMA article that a cytokine storm is unlikely for these patients because the mushroom components “don’t mimic inflammatory cytokines.” Dr. Wilson is now chief innovations officer at Statera Biopharma.

“We think the mushrooms increase the number of immunologic opportunities to better see and respond to a specific threat. In the doses used, the mushrooms perturb the immune system in a good way but fall far short of driving hyper or sustained inflammation,” Dr. Wilson said.

Dr. Saxe said the FDA process was extensive and rigorous and FDA investigators also asked about potential cytokine storms before approving the trials. Cytokine storm is not an issue with a healthy response, Dr. Saxe pointed out. It’s a response that’s not balanced or modulated.

“Mushrooms are immunomodulatory,” he said. “In some ways they very specifically enhance immunity. In other ways they calm down overimmunity.” Dr. Saxe noted that they did a sentinel study for the storm potential “and we didn’t see any evidence for it.”

“Not a crazy concept”

Dr. Saxe pointed out that one of the mushrooms in the combo they use — agarikon — was used to treat pulmonary infections 2,300 years ago.

“Hippocrates, the father of western medicine, used mushrooms,” he said. “Penicillin comes from fungi. It’s not a crazy concept. Most people who oppose this or are skeptics — to some extent, it’s a lack of information.”

Dr. Saxe explained that there are receptors on human cells that bind specific mushroom polysaccharides.

“There’s a hand-in-glove fit there,” Dr. Saxe said, and that’s one way mushrooms can modulate immune cell behavior, which could have an effect against SARS-CoV-2.

Daniel Kuritzkes, MD, chief of the division of infectious diseases at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, who was not part of the study, told this news organization that he wasn’t surprised the FDA approved moving forward with the trials.

“As long as you can demonstrate that there is a rationale for doing the trial and that you have some safety data or a plan to collect safety data, they are fairly liberal about doing early-phase studies. It would be a much different issue, I think, if they were proposing to do a study for actual licensing or approval of a drug,” Dr. Kuritzkes said.

As yet unanswered, he noted, is which component of the mushrooms or herbs is having the effect. It will be a challenge, he said, to know from one batch of the compound to the next that you have the same amount of material and that it’s going to have the same potency among lots.

Another challenge is how the mushrooms and herbs might interact with other therapies, Dr. Kuritzkes said.

He gave the example of St. John’s Wort, which has been problematic in HIV treatment.

“If someone is on certain HIV medicines and they also are taking St. John’s Wort, they basically are causing the liver to eat up the HIV drug and they don’t get adequate levels of the drug,” he said.

Though there are many challenges ahead, Dr. Kuritzkes acknowledged, but added that “this is a great starting point.”

He, too, pointed out that many traditional medicines were discovered from plants.

“The most famous of these is quinine, which came from cinchona bark that was used to treat malaria.” Dr. Kuritzkes said. Digitalis, often used to treat heart failure, comes from the fox glove plant, he added.

He said it’s important to remember that “people shouldn’t be seeking experimental therapies in place of proven therapies, they should be thinking of them in addition to proven therapies.»

A co-author reports an investment in the dietary supplement company Mycomedica Life Sciences, for which he also serves as an unpaid scientific adviser. Another co-author is a medical consultant for Evergreen Herbs and Medical Supplies. Dr. Hopp, Dr. Saxe, and Dr. Wilson have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Kuritzkes consults for Merck, Gilead, and GlaxoSmithKline.

Early trials are under way to test medicinal mushrooms and Chinese herbs to treat COVID-19 patients with mild to moderate symptoms.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved the MACH-19 trials (the acronym for Mushrooms and Chinese Herbs for COVID-19) after researchers applied for approval in April.

The first two phase 1 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials have begun at UCLA and the University of California San Diego to treat COVID-19 patients quarantining at home with mild to moderate symptoms. A third trial is investigating the use of medicinal mushrooms as an adjuvant to COVID-19 vaccines.

The researchers have also launched a fourth trial testing the mushrooms against placebo as an adjunct to a COVID booster shot. It looks at the effect in people who have comorbidities that would reduce their vaccine response. An article in JAMA  described the trials.

The two mushroom varieties being tested — turkey tail and agarikon — are available as over-the-counter supplements, according to the report. They are a separate class from hallucinogenic or “magic” mushrooms being tested for other uses in medicine.

“They are not even as psychoactive as a cup of tea,” Gordon Saxe, MD, PhD, MPH, principal investigator for the MACH-19 trials, told this news organization.

For each of the MACH-19 treatment trials, researchers plan to recruit 66 people who are quarantined at home with mild to moderate COVID-19 symptoms. Participants will be randomly assigned either to receive the mushroom combination, the Chinese herbs, or a placebo for 2 weeks, according to the JAMA paper.

D. Craig Hopp, PhD, deputy director of the division of extramural research at the National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health (NCCIH), told JAMA in an interview that he was “mildly concerned” about using mushrooms to treat people with active SARS-CoV-2 infection.

“We know that a cytokine storm poses the greatest risk of COVID mortality, not the virus itself,” Dr. Hopp said. “The danger is that an immune-stimulating agent like mushrooms might supercharge an individual’s immune response, leading to a cytokine storm.”

Stephen Wilson, PhD, an immunologist who consulted on the trials when he was chief operating officer of the La Jolla Institute for Immunology, says in the JAMA article that a cytokine storm is unlikely for these patients because the mushroom components “don’t mimic inflammatory cytokines.” Dr. Wilson is now chief innovations officer at Statera Biopharma.

“We think the mushrooms increase the number of immunologic opportunities to better see and respond to a specific threat. In the doses used, the mushrooms perturb the immune system in a good way but fall far short of driving hyper or sustained inflammation,” Dr. Wilson said.

Dr. Saxe said the FDA process was extensive and rigorous and FDA investigators also asked about potential cytokine storms before approving the trials. Cytokine storm is not an issue with a healthy response, Dr. Saxe pointed out. It’s a response that’s not balanced or modulated.

“Mushrooms are immunomodulatory,” he said. “In some ways they very specifically enhance immunity. In other ways they calm down overimmunity.” Dr. Saxe noted that they did a sentinel study for the storm potential “and we didn’t see any evidence for it.”

“Not a crazy concept”

Dr. Saxe pointed out that one of the mushrooms in the combo they use — agarikon — was used to treat pulmonary infections 2,300 years ago.

“Hippocrates, the father of western medicine, used mushrooms,” he said. “Penicillin comes from fungi. It’s not a crazy concept. Most people who oppose this or are skeptics — to some extent, it’s a lack of information.”

Dr. Saxe explained that there are receptors on human cells that bind specific mushroom polysaccharides.

“There’s a hand-in-glove fit there,” Dr. Saxe said, and that’s one way mushrooms can modulate immune cell behavior, which could have an effect against SARS-CoV-2.

Daniel Kuritzkes, MD, chief of the division of infectious diseases at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, who was not part of the study, told this news organization that he wasn’t surprised the FDA approved moving forward with the trials.

“As long as you can demonstrate that there is a rationale for doing the trial and that you have some safety data or a plan to collect safety data, they are fairly liberal about doing early-phase studies. It would be a much different issue, I think, if they were proposing to do a study for actual licensing or approval of a drug,” Dr. Kuritzkes said.

As yet unanswered, he noted, is which component of the mushrooms or herbs is having the effect. It will be a challenge, he said, to know from one batch of the compound to the next that you have the same amount of material and that it’s going to have the same potency among lots.

Another challenge is how the mushrooms and herbs might interact with other therapies, Dr. Kuritzkes said.

He gave the example of St. John’s Wort, which has been problematic in HIV treatment.

“If someone is on certain HIV medicines and they also are taking St. John’s Wort, they basically are causing the liver to eat up the HIV drug and they don’t get adequate levels of the drug,” he said.

Though there are many challenges ahead, Dr. Kuritzkes acknowledged, but added that “this is a great starting point.”

He, too, pointed out that many traditional medicines were discovered from plants.

“The most famous of these is quinine, which came from cinchona bark that was used to treat malaria.” Dr. Kuritzkes said. Digitalis, often used to treat heart failure, comes from the fox glove plant, he added.

He said it’s important to remember that “people shouldn’t be seeking experimental therapies in place of proven therapies, they should be thinking of them in addition to proven therapies.»

A co-author reports an investment in the dietary supplement company Mycomedica Life Sciences, for which he also serves as an unpaid scientific adviser. Another co-author is a medical consultant for Evergreen Herbs and Medical Supplies. Dr. Hopp, Dr. Saxe, and Dr. Wilson have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Kuritzkes consults for Merck, Gilead, and GlaxoSmithKline.

Certain antihypertensive medications, particularly diuretics, are linked to lower Alzheimer’s disease neuropathology and other brain disease processes, new research shows.

Investigators found that use of any antihypertensive was associated with an 18% decrease in Alzheimer’s disease neuropathology, a 22% decrease in Lewy bodies, and a 40% decrease in TAR DNA-binding protein 43 (TDP-43), a protein relevant to several neurodegenerative diseases. Diuretics in particular appear to be driving the association.

Although diuretics might be a better option for preventing brain neuropathology, it’s too early to make firm recommendations solely on the basis of these results as to what blood pressure–lowering agent to prescribe a particular patient, said study investigator Ahmad Sajjadi, MD, assistant professor of neurology, University of California, Irvine.

“This is early stages and preliminary results,” said Dr. Sajjadi, “but it’s food for thought.”

The findings were presented at the 2021 annual meeting of the American Neurological Association.
 

Autopsy data

The study included 3,315 individuals who had donated their brains to research. The National Alzheimer’s Coordinating Center maintains a database that includes data from 32 Alzheimer’s disease research centers in the United States. Participants in the study must have visited one of these centers within 4 years of death. Each person whose brain was included in the study underwent two or more BP measurements on at least 50% of visits.

The mean age at death was 81.7 years, and the mean time between last visit and death was 13.1 months. About 44.4% of participants were women, 57.0% had at least a college degree, and 84.7% had cognitive impairment.

Researchers defined hypertension as systolic BP of at least 130 mm Hg, diastolic BP of at least 80 mm Hg, mean arterial pressure of at least 100 mm Hg, and pulse pressure of at least 60 mm Hg.

Antihypertensive medications that were evaluated included antiadrenergic agents, ACE inhibitors, angiotensin II receptor blockers, beta blockers, calcium channel blockers, diuretics, vasodilators, and combination therapies.

The investigators assessed the number of neuropathologies. In addition to Alzheimer’s disease neuropathology, which included amyloid-beta, tau, Lewy bodies, and TDP-43, they also assessed for atherosclerosis, arteriolosclerosis, cerebral amyloid angiopathy, frontotemporal lobar degeneration, and hippocampal sclerosis.

Results showed that use of any antihypertensive was associated with a lower likelihood of Alzheimer’s disease neuropathology (odds ratio, 0.822), Lewy bodies (OR, 0.786), and TDP 43 (OR, 0.597). Use of antihypertensives was also associated with increased odds of atherosclerosis (OR, 1.217) (all P < .5.)

The study showed that hypertensive systolic BP was associated with higher odds of Alzheimer’s disease neuropathology (OR, 1.28; P < .5).

Differences by drug type

Results differed in accordance with antihypertensive class. Angiotensin II receptor blockers decreased the odds of Alzheimer’s disease neuropathology by 40% (OR, 0.60; P < .5). Diuretics decreased the odds of Alzheimer’s disease by 36% (OR, 0.64; P < .001) and of hippocampal sclerosis by 32% (OR, 0.68; P < .5).

“We see diuretics are a main driver, especially for lower odds of Alzheimer’s disease and lower odds of hippocampal sclerosis,” said lead author Hanna L. Nguyen, a first-year medical student at the University of California, Irvine.

The results indicate that it is the medications, not BP levels, that account for these associations, she added.

One potential mechanism linking antihypertensives to brain pathology is that with these agents, BP is maintained in the target zone. Blood pressure that’s too high can damage blood vessels, whereas BP that’s too low may result in less than adequate perfusion, said Ms. Nguyen.

These medications may also alter pathways leading to degeneration and could, for example, affect the apo E mechanism of Alzheimer’s disease, she added.

The researchers plan to conduct subset analyses using apo E genetic status and age of death.

Although this is a “massive database,” it has limitations. For example, said Dr. Sajjadi, it does not reveal when patients started taking BP medication, how long they had been taking it, or why.

“We don’t know the exact the reason they were taking these medications. Was it just hypertension, or did they also have heart disease, stroke, a kidney problem, or was there another explanation,” he said.

Following the study presentation, session comoderator Krish Sathian, MBBS, PhD, professor of neurology, neural, and behavioral sciences, and psychology and director of the Neuroscience Institute, Penn State University, Hershey, called this work “fascinating. It provides a lot of data that really touches on everyday practice,” inasmuch as clinicians often prescribe antihypertensive medications and see patients with these kinds of brain disorders.

The investigators and Dr. Sathian reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Certain antihypertensive medications, particularly diuretics, are linked to lower Alzheimer’s disease neuropathology and other brain disease processes, new research shows.

Investigators found that use of any antihypertensive was associated with an 18% decrease in Alzheimer’s disease neuropathology, a 22% decrease in Lewy bodies, and a 40% decrease in TAR DNA-binding protein 43 (TDP-43), a protein relevant to several neurodegenerative diseases. Diuretics in particular appear to be driving the association.

Although diuretics might be a better option for preventing brain neuropathology, it’s too early to make firm recommendations solely on the basis of these results as to what blood pressure–lowering agent to prescribe a particular patient, said study investigator Ahmad Sajjadi, MD, assistant professor of neurology, University of California, Irvine.

“This is early stages and preliminary results,” said Dr. Sajjadi, “but it’s food for thought.”

The findings were presented at the 2021 annual meeting of the American Neurological Association.
 

Autopsy data

The study included 3,315 individuals who had donated their brains to research. The National Alzheimer’s Coordinating Center maintains a database that includes data from 32 Alzheimer’s disease research centers in the United States. Participants in the study must have visited one of these centers within 4 years of death. Each person whose brain was included in the study underwent two or more BP measurements on at least 50% of visits.

The mean age at death was 81.7 years, and the mean time between last visit and death was 13.1 months. About 44.4% of participants were women, 57.0% had at least a college degree, and 84.7% had cognitive impairment.

Researchers defined hypertension as systolic BP of at least 130 mm Hg, diastolic BP of at least 80 mm Hg, mean arterial pressure of at least 100 mm Hg, and pulse pressure of at least 60 mm Hg.

Antihypertensive medications that were evaluated included antiadrenergic agents, ACE inhibitors, angiotensin II receptor blockers, beta blockers, calcium channel blockers, diuretics, vasodilators, and combination therapies.

The investigators assessed the number of neuropathologies. In addition to Alzheimer’s disease neuropathology, which included amyloid-beta, tau, Lewy bodies, and TDP-43, they also assessed for atherosclerosis, arteriolosclerosis, cerebral amyloid angiopathy, frontotemporal lobar degeneration, and hippocampal sclerosis.

Results showed that use of any antihypertensive was associated with a lower likelihood of Alzheimer’s disease neuropathology (odds ratio, 0.822), Lewy bodies (OR, 0.786), and TDP 43 (OR, 0.597). Use of antihypertensives was also associated with increased odds of atherosclerosis (OR, 1.217) (all P < .5.)

The study showed that hypertensive systolic BP was associated with higher odds of Alzheimer’s disease neuropathology (OR, 1.28; P < .5).

Differences by drug type

Results differed in accordance with antihypertensive class. Angiotensin II receptor blockers decreased the odds of Alzheimer’s disease neuropathology by 40% (OR, 0.60; P < .5). Diuretics decreased the odds of Alzheimer’s disease by 36% (OR, 0.64; P < .001) and of hippocampal sclerosis by 32% (OR, 0.68; P < .5).

“We see diuretics are a main driver, especially for lower odds of Alzheimer’s disease and lower odds of hippocampal sclerosis,” said lead author Hanna L. Nguyen, a first-year medical student at the University of California, Irvine.

The results indicate that it is the medications, not BP levels, that account for these associations, she added.

One potential mechanism linking antihypertensives to brain pathology is that with these agents, BP is maintained in the target zone. Blood pressure that’s too high can damage blood vessels, whereas BP that’s too low may result in less than adequate perfusion, said Ms. Nguyen.

These medications may also alter pathways leading to degeneration and could, for example, affect the apo E mechanism of Alzheimer’s disease, she added.

The researchers plan to conduct subset analyses using apo E genetic status and age of death.

Although this is a “massive database,” it has limitations. For example, said Dr. Sajjadi, it does not reveal when patients started taking BP medication, how long they had been taking it, or why.

“We don’t know the exact the reason they were taking these medications. Was it just hypertension, or did they also have heart disease, stroke, a kidney problem, or was there another explanation,” he said.

Following the study presentation, session comoderator Krish Sathian, MBBS, PhD, professor of neurology, neural, and behavioral sciences, and psychology and director of the Neuroscience Institute, Penn State University, Hershey, called this work “fascinating. It provides a lot of data that really touches on everyday practice,” inasmuch as clinicians often prescribe antihypertensive medications and see patients with these kinds of brain disorders.

The investigators and Dr. Sathian reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Certain antihypertensive medications, particularly diuretics, are linked to lower Alzheimer’s disease neuropathology and other brain disease processes, new research shows.

Investigators found that use of any antihypertensive was associated with an 18% decrease in Alzheimer’s disease neuropathology, a 22% decrease in Lewy bodies, and a 40% decrease in TAR DNA-binding protein 43 (TDP-43), a protein relevant to several neurodegenerative diseases. Diuretics in particular appear to be driving the association.

Although diuretics might be a better option for preventing brain neuropathology, it’s too early to make firm recommendations solely on the basis of these results as to what blood pressure–lowering agent to prescribe a particular patient, said study investigator Ahmad Sajjadi, MD, assistant professor of neurology, University of California, Irvine.

“This is early stages and preliminary results,” said Dr. Sajjadi, “but it’s food for thought.”

The findings were presented at the 2021 annual meeting of the American Neurological Association.
 

Autopsy data

The study included 3,315 individuals who had donated their brains to research. The National Alzheimer’s Coordinating Center maintains a database that includes data from 32 Alzheimer’s disease research centers in the United States. Participants in the study must have visited one of these centers within 4 years of death. Each person whose brain was included in the study underwent two or more BP measurements on at least 50% of visits.

The mean age at death was 81.7 years, and the mean time between last visit and death was 13.1 months. About 44.4% of participants were women, 57.0% had at least a college degree, and 84.7% had cognitive impairment.

Researchers defined hypertension as systolic BP of at least 130 mm Hg, diastolic BP of at least 80 mm Hg, mean arterial pressure of at least 100 mm Hg, and pulse pressure of at least 60 mm Hg.

Antihypertensive medications that were evaluated included antiadrenergic agents, ACE inhibitors, angiotensin II receptor blockers, beta blockers, calcium channel blockers, diuretics, vasodilators, and combination therapies.

The investigators assessed the number of neuropathologies. In addition to Alzheimer’s disease neuropathology, which included amyloid-beta, tau, Lewy bodies, and TDP-43, they also assessed for atherosclerosis, arteriolosclerosis, cerebral amyloid angiopathy, frontotemporal lobar degeneration, and hippocampal sclerosis.

Results showed that use of any antihypertensive was associated with a lower likelihood of Alzheimer’s disease neuropathology (odds ratio, 0.822), Lewy bodies (OR, 0.786), and TDP 43 (OR, 0.597). Use of antihypertensives was also associated with increased odds of atherosclerosis (OR, 1.217) (all P < .5.)

The study showed that hypertensive systolic BP was associated with higher odds of Alzheimer’s disease neuropathology (OR, 1.28; P < .5).

Differences by drug type

Results differed in accordance with antihypertensive class. Angiotensin II receptor blockers decreased the odds of Alzheimer’s disease neuropathology by 40% (OR, 0.60; P < .5). Diuretics decreased the odds of Alzheimer’s disease by 36% (OR, 0.64; P < .001) and of hippocampal sclerosis by 32% (OR, 0.68; P < .5).

“We see diuretics are a main driver, especially for lower odds of Alzheimer’s disease and lower odds of hippocampal sclerosis,” said lead author Hanna L. Nguyen, a first-year medical student at the University of California, Irvine.

The results indicate that it is the medications, not BP levels, that account for these associations, she added.

One potential mechanism linking antihypertensives to brain pathology is that with these agents, BP is maintained in the target zone. Blood pressure that’s too high can damage blood vessels, whereas BP that’s too low may result in less than adequate perfusion, said Ms. Nguyen.

These medications may also alter pathways leading to degeneration and could, for example, affect the apo E mechanism of Alzheimer’s disease, she added.

The researchers plan to conduct subset analyses using apo E genetic status and age of death.

Although this is a “massive database,” it has limitations. For example, said Dr. Sajjadi, it does not reveal when patients started taking BP medication, how long they had been taking it, or why.

“We don’t know the exact the reason they were taking these medications. Was it just hypertension, or did they also have heart disease, stroke, a kidney problem, or was there another explanation,” he said.

Following the study presentation, session comoderator Krish Sathian, MBBS, PhD, professor of neurology, neural, and behavioral sciences, and psychology and director of the Neuroscience Institute, Penn State University, Hershey, called this work “fascinating. It provides a lot of data that really touches on everyday practice,” inasmuch as clinicians often prescribe antihypertensive medications and see patients with these kinds of brain disorders.

The investigators and Dr. Sathian reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Many years ago, drug development in psychiatry turned to control of specific symptoms across disorders rather than within disorders, but regulatory agencies are still not yet on board, according to an expert psychopharmacologist outlining the ongoing evolution at the virtual Psychopharmacology Update presented by Current Psychiatry and the American Academy of Clinical Psychiatrists, sponsored by Medscape Live.

If this reorientation is going to lead to the broad indications the newer drugs likely deserve, which is control of specific types of symptoms regardless of the diagnosis, “we have to move the [Food and Drug Administration] along,” said Stephen M. Stahl, MD, PhD, chairman of the Neuroscience Institute and an adjunct professor of psychiatry at the University of California, San Diego.

On the side of drug development and clinical practice, the reorientation has already taken place. Dr. Stahl described numerous brain circuits known to produce symptoms when function is altered that are now treatment targets. This includes the ventral medial prefrontal cortex where deficient information processing leads to depression and the orbital frontal cortex where altered function leads to impulsivity.

“It is not like each part of the brain does a little bit of everything. Rather, each part of the brain has an assignment and duty and function,” Dr. Stahl explained. By addressing the disturbed signaling in brain circuits that lead to depression, impulsivity, agitation, or other symptoms, there is an opportunity for control, regardless of the psychiatric diagnosis with which the symptom is associated.

For example, Dr. Stahl predicted that pimavanserin, a highly selective 5-HT_2A inverse agonist that is already approved for psychosis in Parkinson’s disease, is now likely to be approved for psychosis associated with other conditions on the basis of recent positive clinical studies in these other disorders.

Brexpiprazole, a serotonin-dopamine activity modulator already known to be useful for control of the agitation characteristic of schizophrenia, is now showing the same type of activity against agitation when it is associated with Alzheimer’s disease. Again, Dr. Stahl thinks this drug is on course for an indication across diseases once studies are conducted in each disease individually.

Another drug being evaluated for agitation, the N-methyl-D-aspartate receptor antagonist dextromethorphan bupropion, is also being tested for treatment of symptoms across multiple disorders, he reported.

However, the FDA has so far taken the position that each drug must be tested separately for a given symptom in each disorder for which it is being considered despite the underlying premise that it is the symptom, not the disease, that is important.

“Psychiatric disorders are syndromes, categorized by a collection of symptoms defined descriptively but not neurobiologically,” Dr. Stahl said. Unlike physiological diseases where symptoms, like a fever or abdominal cramps, are the product of a disease, psychiatric symptoms are the disease and a fundamental target – regardless of the DSM-based diagnosis.

To some degree, the symptoms of psychiatric disorders have always been the focus of treatment, but a pivot toward developing therapies that will control a symptom regardless of the underlying diagnosis is an important conceptual change. It is being made possible by advances in the detail with which the neuropathology of these symptoms is understood .

“By my count, 79 symptoms are described in DSM-5, but they are spread across hundreds of syndromes because they are grouped together in different ways,” Dr. Stahl observed.

He noted that clinicians make a diagnosis on the basis symptom groupings, but their interventions are selected to address the manifestations of the disease, not the disease itself.

“If you are a real psychopharmacologist treating real patients, you are treating the specific symptoms of the specific patient,” according to Dr. Stahl.

So far, the FDA has not made this leap, insisting on trials in these categorical disorders rather than permitting trial designs that allow benefit to be demonstrated against a symptom regardless of the syndrome with which it is associated.

Of egregious examples, Dr. Stahl recounted a recent trial of a 5-HT₂ antagonist that looked so promising against psychosis in Alzheimer’s disease that the trialists enrolled patients with psychosis regardless of type of dementia, such as vascular dementia and Lewy body disease. The efficacy was impressive.

“It worked so well that they stopped the trial, but the FDA declined to approve it,” Dr. Stahl recounted. Despite clear evidence of benefit, the regulators insisted that the investigators needed to show a significant benefit in each condition individually.

While the trial investigators acknowledged that there was not enough power in the trial to show a statistically significant benefit in each category, they argued that the overall benefit and the consistent response across categories required them to stop the trial for ethical reasons.

“That’s your problem, the FDA said to the investigators,” according to Dr. Stahl.

The failure of the FDA to recognize the efficacy of psychopharmacologic therapies across symptoms regardless of the associated disease is a failure to stay current with an important evolution in medicine, Dr. Stahl indicated.

“What we have come to understand is the neurobiology of any given symptom is likely to be the same across disorders,” he said.
 

Agency’s arbitrary decisions cited

“I completely agree with Dr. Stahl,” said Henry A. Nasrallah, MD, professor of psychiatry, neurology, and neuroscience, University of Cincinnati.

In addition to the fact that symptoms are present across multiple categories, many patients manifest multiple symptoms at one time, Dr. Nasrallah pointed out. For neurodegenerative disorders associated with psychosis, depression, anxiety, aggression, and other symptoms, it is already well known that the heterogeneous symptoms “cannot be treated with a single drug,” he said. Rather different drugs targeting each symptom individually is essential for effective management.

Dr. Nasrallah, who chaired the Psychopharmacology Update meeting, has made this point many times in the past, including in his role as the editor of Current Psychiatry. In one editorial 10 years ago, he wrote that “it makes little sense for the FDA to mandate that a drug must work for a DSM diagnosis instead of specific symptoms.”

“The FDA must update its old policy, which has led to the widespread off-label use of psychiatric drugs, an artificial concept, simply because the FDA arbitrarily decided a long time ago that new drugs must be approved for a specific DSM diagnosis,” Dr. Nasrallah said.

Dr. Stahl reported financial relationships with more than 20 pharmaceutical companies, including those that are involved in the development of drugs included in his talk. Medscape Live and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

Many years ago, drug development in psychiatry turned to control of specific symptoms across disorders rather than within disorders, but regulatory agencies are still not yet on board, according to an expert psychopharmacologist outlining the ongoing evolution at the virtual Psychopharmacology Update presented by Current Psychiatry and the American Academy of Clinical Psychiatrists, sponsored by Medscape Live.

If this reorientation is going to lead to the broad indications the newer drugs likely deserve, which is control of specific types of symptoms regardless of the diagnosis, “we have to move the [Food and Drug Administration] along,” said Stephen M. Stahl, MD, PhD, chairman of the Neuroscience Institute and an adjunct professor of psychiatry at the University of California, San Diego.

On the side of drug development and clinical practice, the reorientation has already taken place. Dr. Stahl described numerous brain circuits known to produce symptoms when function is altered that are now treatment targets. This includes the ventral medial prefrontal cortex where deficient information processing leads to depression and the orbital frontal cortex where altered function leads to impulsivity.

“It is not like each part of the brain does a little bit of everything. Rather, each part of the brain has an assignment and duty and function,” Dr. Stahl explained. By addressing the disturbed signaling in brain circuits that lead to depression, impulsivity, agitation, or other symptoms, there is an opportunity for control, regardless of the psychiatric diagnosis with which the symptom is associated.

For example, Dr. Stahl predicted that pimavanserin, a highly selective 5-HT_2A inverse agonist that is already approved for psychosis in Parkinson’s disease, is now likely to be approved for psychosis associated with other conditions on the basis of recent positive clinical studies in these other disorders.

Brexpiprazole, a serotonin-dopamine activity modulator already known to be useful for control of the agitation characteristic of schizophrenia, is now showing the same type of activity against agitation when it is associated with Alzheimer’s disease. Again, Dr. Stahl thinks this drug is on course for an indication across diseases once studies are conducted in each disease individually.

Another drug being evaluated for agitation, the N-methyl-D-aspartate receptor antagonist dextromethorphan bupropion, is also being tested for treatment of symptoms across multiple disorders, he reported.

However, the FDA has so far taken the position that each drug must be tested separately for a given symptom in each disorder for which it is being considered despite the underlying premise that it is the symptom, not the disease, that is important.

“Psychiatric disorders are syndromes, categorized by a collection of symptoms defined descriptively but not neurobiologically,” Dr. Stahl said. Unlike physiological diseases where symptoms, like a fever or abdominal cramps, are the product of a disease, psychiatric symptoms are the disease and a fundamental target – regardless of the DSM-based diagnosis.

To some degree, the symptoms of psychiatric disorders have always been the focus of treatment, but a pivot toward developing therapies that will control a symptom regardless of the underlying diagnosis is an important conceptual change. It is being made possible by advances in the detail with which the neuropathology of these symptoms is understood .

“By my count, 79 symptoms are described in DSM-5, but they are spread across hundreds of syndromes because they are grouped together in different ways,” Dr. Stahl observed.

He noted that clinicians make a diagnosis on the basis symptom groupings, but their interventions are selected to address the manifestations of the disease, not the disease itself.

“If you are a real psychopharmacologist treating real patients, you are treating the specific symptoms of the specific patient,” according to Dr. Stahl.

So far, the FDA has not made this leap, insisting on trials in these categorical disorders rather than permitting trial designs that allow benefit to be demonstrated against a symptom regardless of the syndrome with which it is associated.

Of egregious examples, Dr. Stahl recounted a recent trial of a 5-HT₂ antagonist that looked so promising against psychosis in Alzheimer’s disease that the trialists enrolled patients with psychosis regardless of type of dementia, such as vascular dementia and Lewy body disease. The efficacy was impressive.

“It worked so well that they stopped the trial, but the FDA declined to approve it,” Dr. Stahl recounted. Despite clear evidence of benefit, the regulators insisted that the investigators needed to show a significant benefit in each condition individually.

While the trial investigators acknowledged that there was not enough power in the trial to show a statistically significant benefit in each category, they argued that the overall benefit and the consistent response across categories required them to stop the trial for ethical reasons.

“That’s your problem, the FDA said to the investigators,” according to Dr. Stahl.

The failure of the FDA to recognize the efficacy of psychopharmacologic therapies across symptoms regardless of the associated disease is a failure to stay current with an important evolution in medicine, Dr. Stahl indicated.

“What we have come to understand is the neurobiology of any given symptom is likely to be the same across disorders,” he said.
 

Agency’s arbitrary decisions cited

“I completely agree with Dr. Stahl,” said Henry A. Nasrallah, MD, professor of psychiatry, neurology, and neuroscience, University of Cincinnati.

In addition to the fact that symptoms are present across multiple categories, many patients manifest multiple symptoms at one time, Dr. Nasrallah pointed out. For neurodegenerative disorders associated with psychosis, depression, anxiety, aggression, and other symptoms, it is already well known that the heterogeneous symptoms “cannot be treated with a single drug,” he said. Rather different drugs targeting each symptom individually is essential for effective management.

Dr. Nasrallah, who chaired the Psychopharmacology Update meeting, has made this point many times in the past, including in his role as the editor of Current Psychiatry. In one editorial 10 years ago, he wrote that “it makes little sense for the FDA to mandate that a drug must work for a DSM diagnosis instead of specific symptoms.”

“The FDA must update its old policy, which has led to the widespread off-label use of psychiatric drugs, an artificial concept, simply because the FDA arbitrarily decided a long time ago that new drugs must be approved for a specific DSM diagnosis,” Dr. Nasrallah said.

Dr. Stahl reported financial relationships with more than 20 pharmaceutical companies, including those that are involved in the development of drugs included in his talk. Medscape Live and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

Many years ago, drug development in psychiatry turned to control of specific symptoms across disorders rather than within disorders, but regulatory agencies are still not yet on board, according to an expert psychopharmacologist outlining the ongoing evolution at the virtual Psychopharmacology Update presented by Current Psychiatry and the American Academy of Clinical Psychiatrists, sponsored by Medscape Live.

If this reorientation is going to lead to the broad indications the newer drugs likely deserve, which is control of specific types of symptoms regardless of the diagnosis, “we have to move the [Food and Drug Administration] along,” said Stephen M. Stahl, MD, PhD, chairman of the Neuroscience Institute and an adjunct professor of psychiatry at the University of California, San Diego.

On the side of drug development and clinical practice, the reorientation has already taken place. Dr. Stahl described numerous brain circuits known to produce symptoms when function is altered that are now treatment targets. This includes the ventral medial prefrontal cortex where deficient information processing leads to depression and the orbital frontal cortex where altered function leads to impulsivity.

“It is not like each part of the brain does a little bit of everything. Rather, each part of the brain has an assignment and duty and function,” Dr. Stahl explained. By addressing the disturbed signaling in brain circuits that lead to depression, impulsivity, agitation, or other symptoms, there is an opportunity for control, regardless of the psychiatric diagnosis with which the symptom is associated.

For example, Dr. Stahl predicted that pimavanserin, a highly selective 5-HT_2A inverse agonist that is already approved for psychosis in Parkinson’s disease, is now likely to be approved for psychosis associated with other conditions on the basis of recent positive clinical studies in these other disorders.

Brexpiprazole, a serotonin-dopamine activity modulator already known to be useful for control of the agitation characteristic of schizophrenia, is now showing the same type of activity against agitation when it is associated with Alzheimer’s disease. Again, Dr. Stahl thinks this drug is on course for an indication across diseases once studies are conducted in each disease individually.

Another drug being evaluated for agitation, the N-methyl-D-aspartate receptor antagonist dextromethorphan bupropion, is also being tested for treatment of symptoms across multiple disorders, he reported.

However, the FDA has so far taken the position that each drug must be tested separately for a given symptom in each disorder for which it is being considered despite the underlying premise that it is the symptom, not the disease, that is important.

“Psychiatric disorders are syndromes, categorized by a collection of symptoms defined descriptively but not neurobiologically,” Dr. Stahl said. Unlike physiological diseases where symptoms, like a fever or abdominal cramps, are the product of a disease, psychiatric symptoms are the disease and a fundamental target – regardless of the DSM-based diagnosis.

To some degree, the symptoms of psychiatric disorders have always been the focus of treatment, but a pivot toward developing therapies that will control a symptom regardless of the underlying diagnosis is an important conceptual change. It is being made possible by advances in the detail with which the neuropathology of these symptoms is understood .

“By my count, 79 symptoms are described in DSM-5, but they are spread across hundreds of syndromes because they are grouped together in different ways,” Dr. Stahl observed.

He noted that clinicians make a diagnosis on the basis symptom groupings, but their interventions are selected to address the manifestations of the disease, not the disease itself.

“If you are a real psychopharmacologist treating real patients, you are treating the specific symptoms of the specific patient,” according to Dr. Stahl.

So far, the FDA has not made this leap, insisting on trials in these categorical disorders rather than permitting trial designs that allow benefit to be demonstrated against a symptom regardless of the syndrome with which it is associated.

Of egregious examples, Dr. Stahl recounted a recent trial of a 5-HT₂ antagonist that looked so promising against psychosis in Alzheimer’s disease that the trialists enrolled patients with psychosis regardless of type of dementia, such as vascular dementia and Lewy body disease. The efficacy was impressive.

“It worked so well that they stopped the trial, but the FDA declined to approve it,” Dr. Stahl recounted. Despite clear evidence of benefit, the regulators insisted that the investigators needed to show a significant benefit in each condition individually.

While the trial investigators acknowledged that there was not enough power in the trial to show a statistically significant benefit in each category, they argued that the overall benefit and the consistent response across categories required them to stop the trial for ethical reasons.

“That’s your problem, the FDA said to the investigators,” according to Dr. Stahl.

The failure of the FDA to recognize the efficacy of psychopharmacologic therapies across symptoms regardless of the associated disease is a failure to stay current with an important evolution in medicine, Dr. Stahl indicated.

“What we have come to understand is the neurobiology of any given symptom is likely to be the same across disorders,” he said.
 

Agency’s arbitrary decisions cited

“I completely agree with Dr. Stahl,” said Henry A. Nasrallah, MD, professor of psychiatry, neurology, and neuroscience, University of Cincinnati.

In addition to the fact that symptoms are present across multiple categories, many patients manifest multiple symptoms at one time, Dr. Nasrallah pointed out. For neurodegenerative disorders associated with psychosis, depression, anxiety, aggression, and other symptoms, it is already well known that the heterogeneous symptoms “cannot be treated with a single drug,” he said. Rather different drugs targeting each symptom individually is essential for effective management.

Dr. Nasrallah, who chaired the Psychopharmacology Update meeting, has made this point many times in the past, including in his role as the editor of Current Psychiatry. In one editorial 10 years ago, he wrote that “it makes little sense for the FDA to mandate that a drug must work for a DSM diagnosis instead of specific symptoms.”

“The FDA must update its old policy, which has led to the widespread off-label use of psychiatric drugs, an artificial concept, simply because the FDA arbitrarily decided a long time ago that new drugs must be approved for a specific DSM diagnosis,” Dr. Nasrallah said.

Dr. Stahl reported financial relationships with more than 20 pharmaceutical companies, including those that are involved in the development of drugs included in his talk. Medscape Live and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

Oral drug administration was significantly associated with a shorter length of stay for patients treated for headache in the emergency department setting, based on data from approximately 7,000 patients.

Headache is the fourth-most common chief complaint in the ED, accounting for approximately 3% of all ED visits, said Philip Wang, a medical student at the Cleveland Clinic, in a presentation at the annual meeting of the American College of Emergency Physicians.

A variety of pharmacotherapies are used to manage headache, which leads to a range of resource use, he said.

To understand the association between route of drug administration and length of ED stay, Mr. Wang and colleagues reviewed data from 7,233 visits by 6,715 patients at any of the 21 Cleveland Clinic Health System EDs in 2018 with headache as the primary discharge diagnosis. Patients admitted to the hospital were excluded; those treated with opioids, antiemetics, and/or NSAIDs were included. The average age of the study population was 31 years, 57% were White, and approximately half were Medicaid or Medicare patients.

Approximately 68% of patients received antiemetics, 66.8% received NSAIDs, and 9.8% received opioids. Approximately 42% of patients received parenteral-only treatment and 42% received oral-only treatment; 15% received mixed treatment. The average length of ED stay was 202 minutes.

In a multivariate analysis adjusted for sex, age, income, race, insurance status, ED type, and arrival time, treatment with oral drugs only was associated with an 11% reduction of length of stay, compared with treatment with parenteral medication only (P < .001). However, the length of stay for patients treated with mixed route of administration was 10% longer, compared with parenteral only (P < .001).

In terms of drug class (a secondary outcome), patients treated with opioids had a 10% increase in length of stay (P < .01) and those treated with antiemetics had a 14% increase in length of stay; however, patients treated with NSAIDs had a 7% decrease in length of stay.

The study findings were limited in part by the challenge of isolating patients presenting with a primary headache diagnosis, Mr. Wang noted in the presentation.

The challenge of controlling for all the potential factors impacting length of stay, which is “provider, resource, and situation dependent,” is an additional limitation, he said.

However, the results show that route of administration has a significant impact on length of ED stay in patients presenting with headache, he concluded.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Oral drug administration was significantly associated with a shorter length of stay for patients treated for headache in the emergency department setting, based on data from approximately 7,000 patients.

Headache is the fourth-most common chief complaint in the ED, accounting for approximately 3% of all ED visits, said Philip Wang, a medical student at the Cleveland Clinic, in a presentation at the annual meeting of the American College of Emergency Physicians.

A variety of pharmacotherapies are used to manage headache, which leads to a range of resource use, he said.

To understand the association between route of drug administration and length of ED stay, Mr. Wang and colleagues reviewed data from 7,233 visits by 6,715 patients at any of the 21 Cleveland Clinic Health System EDs in 2018 with headache as the primary discharge diagnosis. Patients admitted to the hospital were excluded; those treated with opioids, antiemetics, and/or NSAIDs were included. The average age of the study population was 31 years, 57% were White, and approximately half were Medicaid or Medicare patients.

Approximately 68% of patients received antiemetics, 66.8% received NSAIDs, and 9.8% received opioids. Approximately 42% of patients received parenteral-only treatment and 42% received oral-only treatment; 15% received mixed treatment. The average length of ED stay was 202 minutes.

In a multivariate analysis adjusted for sex, age, income, race, insurance status, ED type, and arrival time, treatment with oral drugs only was associated with an 11% reduction of length of stay, compared with treatment with parenteral medication only (P < .001). However, the length of stay for patients treated with mixed route of administration was 10% longer, compared with parenteral only (P < .001).

In terms of drug class (a secondary outcome), patients treated with opioids had a 10% increase in length of stay (P < .01) and those treated with antiemetics had a 14% increase in length of stay; however, patients treated with NSAIDs had a 7% decrease in length of stay.

The study findings were limited in part by the challenge of isolating patients presenting with a primary headache diagnosis, Mr. Wang noted in the presentation.

The challenge of controlling for all the potential factors impacting length of stay, which is “provider, resource, and situation dependent,” is an additional limitation, he said.

However, the results show that route of administration has a significant impact on length of ED stay in patients presenting with headache, he concluded.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Oral drug administration was significantly associated with a shorter length of stay for patients treated for headache in the emergency department setting, based on data from approximately 7,000 patients.

Headache is the fourth-most common chief complaint in the ED, accounting for approximately 3% of all ED visits, said Philip Wang, a medical student at the Cleveland Clinic, in a presentation at the annual meeting of the American College of Emergency Physicians.

A variety of pharmacotherapies are used to manage headache, which leads to a range of resource use, he said.

To understand the association between route of drug administration and length of ED stay, Mr. Wang and colleagues reviewed data from 7,233 visits by 6,715 patients at any of the 21 Cleveland Clinic Health System EDs in 2018 with headache as the primary discharge diagnosis. Patients admitted to the hospital were excluded; those treated with opioids, antiemetics, and/or NSAIDs were included. The average age of the study population was 31 years, 57% were White, and approximately half were Medicaid or Medicare patients.

Approximately 68% of patients received antiemetics, 66.8% received NSAIDs, and 9.8% received opioids. Approximately 42% of patients received parenteral-only treatment and 42% received oral-only treatment; 15% received mixed treatment. The average length of ED stay was 202 minutes.

In a multivariate analysis adjusted for sex, age, income, race, insurance status, ED type, and arrival time, treatment with oral drugs only was associated with an 11% reduction of length of stay, compared with treatment with parenteral medication only (P < .001). However, the length of stay for patients treated with mixed route of administration was 10% longer, compared with parenteral only (P < .001).

In terms of drug class (a secondary outcome), patients treated with opioids had a 10% increase in length of stay (P < .01) and those treated with antiemetics had a 14% increase in length of stay; however, patients treated with NSAIDs had a 7% decrease in length of stay.

The study findings were limited in part by the challenge of isolating patients presenting with a primary headache diagnosis, Mr. Wang noted in the presentation.

The challenge of controlling for all the potential factors impacting length of stay, which is “provider, resource, and situation dependent,” is an additional limitation, he said.

However, the results show that route of administration has a significant impact on length of ED stay in patients presenting with headache, he concluded.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

U.S. regulators have made it easier for physicians, patients, and researchers to determine the status of cancer medicines cleared for sale based on limited evidence, including a public list detailing cases where accelerated approvals have been rescinded for lack of evidence.

On Oct. 29, the Food and Drug Administration posted new websites detailing the status of oncology medicines given these special clearances:

• Ongoing | Cancer Accelerated Approvals 
• Verified Clinical Benefit | Cancer Accelerated Approvals
• Withdrawn | Cancer Accelerated Approvals

The FDA’s cancer center also has created a web page called Project Confirm to provide more information on the way it uses accelerated approvals.

There has been increased concern about medicines cleared by accelerated approvals in recent years, culminating in an uproar over the controversial June approval of aducanumab (Aduhelm) for Alzheimer’s disease. This drew more attention to a debate already underway about how much data supports some of the indications for some cancer drugs.

Federal and state officials and advisers are putting more pressure on pharmaceutical companies to prove that medicines that are put on the market through accelerated approval do deliver meaningful benefits for patients.

In addition, earlier this month two of the top health advisers in Barack Obama’s administration proposed a new model through which Medicare could reduce payments for certain cancer drugs cleared through accelerated approvals – and even cut off reimbursements in cases where companies fail to deliver confirmatory evidence for expected benefits.

This “Pay for Drugs That Work Model” was proposed by Richard Frank, PhD, and Ezekiel Emanuel, MD, PhD, in a recent JAMA article. In their view, the FDA’s accelerated drug approval process allows for too many delays in obtaining answers as to whether medicines cleared this way provide expected benefits.

“The proposed Pay for Drugs That Work model could test a modified approach for incentivizing rapid completion of confirmatory trials to inform clinicians and patients about the true risks and benefits of new drugs and improve the value for money of cancer drugs that receive accelerated approval,” they wrote.
 

Excel files, regular updates

For the FDA, accelerated approvals require balancing an estimated potential benefit for people facing serious diseases (for example, cancer) against serious risks, including potentially exposing patients to costly, toxic drugs that will later be shown not to work for their conditions.

For many years, there has been significant pressure on the FDA to lean toward speedier approvals, with members of Congress, advocacy groups, and drugmakers advocating for broad use of surrogate data in deciding on clearances. The FDA posts biannual reports on its website that highlight how quickly approvals have been granted. But these biannual reports don’t provide much information on the status of accelerated-approval drugs, other than to say if they have been given full approval or withdrawn.

The newly created websites from the FDA’s oncology division appear to reflect growing public interest in knowing what standards the agency sets for confirmatory trials and what deadlines companies face to deliver evidence of significant benefit for their drugs.

The new sortable websites also include details on trials and have links to Excel files which will help researchers and others seeking to track patterns with accelerated approvals. The FDA said in an interview that it intends to update these sites when there are developments with accelerated approvals for cancer drugs, such as new clearances of this type, conversions to regular approvals, and withdrawn approvals.

Julia Beaver, MD, chief of medical oncology at the FDA’s Oncology Center of Excellence, and acting deputy director of the Office of Oncologic Diseases of the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, described the new websites as part of a “commitment to preserve the integrity” of the accelerated approval program.

“These new web pages will make information on our accelerated approvals more transparent,” Dr. Beaver said in an email to this news organization.

The FDA has been able to speed many medicines to market and clear additional uses for drugs already sold through the program, giving people earlier access in many cases to critical medicines, Dr. Beaver said.

More than 165 oncology indications have received accelerated approval, with almost half converted to regular approval in a median of 3 years. Less than 10% of these indications were withdrawn, Dr. Beaver said.

“Of those accelerated approvals that were converted to regular approval, many demonstrated survival advantages to patients with several types of cancer or provided meaningful therapeutic options where none previously existed,” she said.

However, Dr. Beaver also has made public the FDA’s concerns with what she and Richard Pazdur, MD, director of the Oncology Center of Excellence, have described as “dangling” accelerated approvals. 

These are cases where the required trials did not end up confirming benefit for a medicine, yet the manufacturer did not move to withdraw an accelerated approval. The FDA’s cancer center has already announced that it is doing an “industry-wide evaluation of accelerated approvals in oncology in which confirmatory trials did not confirm clinical benefit.”

This stems in part from what can be called the FDA’s “growing pains” in its efforts to manage the rapidly changing landscape for these immunotherapy checkpoint inhibitors. This field of medicine has experienced an “unprecedented level of drug development” in recent years, FDA officials said in briefing materials for an Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee (ODAC) meeting last April on dangling accelerated approvals.

A newly posted chart on withdrawn oncology accelerated approvals, posted by the FDA’s cancer division, makes it clear that the pace of these rescinded clearances has picked up. The chart lists a total 14 withdrawn indications of oncology accelerated approvals.

Six of these withdrawals happened this year.

There were two withdrawals in 2020, including the December withdrawal of nivolumab, (Opdivo) for a form of metastatic lung cancer.

Then there was a significant gap, with no withdrawals going back to 2013 (when there was one). There were two withdrawals in 2012 and three in 2011.

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

U.S. regulators have made it easier for physicians, patients, and researchers to determine the status of cancer medicines cleared for sale based on limited evidence, including a public list detailing cases where accelerated approvals have been rescinded for lack of evidence.

On Oct. 29, the Food and Drug Administration posted new websites detailing the status of oncology medicines given these special clearances:

• Ongoing | Cancer Accelerated Approvals 
• Verified Clinical Benefit | Cancer Accelerated Approvals
• Withdrawn | Cancer Accelerated Approvals

The FDA’s cancer center also has created a web page called Project Confirm to provide more information on the way it uses accelerated approvals.

There has been increased concern about medicines cleared by accelerated approvals in recent years, culminating in an uproar over the controversial June approval of aducanumab (Aduhelm) for Alzheimer’s disease. This drew more attention to a debate already underway about how much data supports some of the indications for some cancer drugs.

Federal and state officials and advisers are putting more pressure on pharmaceutical companies to prove that medicines that are put on the market through accelerated approval do deliver meaningful benefits for patients.

In addition, earlier this month two of the top health advisers in Barack Obama’s administration proposed a new model through which Medicare could reduce payments for certain cancer drugs cleared through accelerated approvals – and even cut off reimbursements in cases where companies fail to deliver confirmatory evidence for expected benefits.

This “Pay for Drugs That Work Model” was proposed by Richard Frank, PhD, and Ezekiel Emanuel, MD, PhD, in a recent JAMA article. In their view, the FDA’s accelerated drug approval process allows for too many delays in obtaining answers as to whether medicines cleared this way provide expected benefits.

“The proposed Pay for Drugs That Work model could test a modified approach for incentivizing rapid completion of confirmatory trials to inform clinicians and patients about the true risks and benefits of new drugs and improve the value for money of cancer drugs that receive accelerated approval,” they wrote.
 

Excel files, regular updates

For the FDA, accelerated approvals require balancing an estimated potential benefit for people facing serious diseases (for example, cancer) against serious risks, including potentially exposing patients to costly, toxic drugs that will later be shown not to work for their conditions.

For many years, there has been significant pressure on the FDA to lean toward speedier approvals, with members of Congress, advocacy groups, and drugmakers advocating for broad use of surrogate data in deciding on clearances. The FDA posts biannual reports on its website that highlight how quickly approvals have been granted. But these biannual reports don’t provide much information on the status of accelerated-approval drugs, other than to say if they have been given full approval or withdrawn.

The newly created websites from the FDA’s oncology division appear to reflect growing public interest in knowing what standards the agency sets for confirmatory trials and what deadlines companies face to deliver evidence of significant benefit for their drugs.

The new sortable websites also include details on trials and have links to Excel files which will help researchers and others seeking to track patterns with accelerated approvals. The FDA said in an interview that it intends to update these sites when there are developments with accelerated approvals for cancer drugs, such as new clearances of this type, conversions to regular approvals, and withdrawn approvals.

Julia Beaver, MD, chief of medical oncology at the FDA’s Oncology Center of Excellence, and acting deputy director of the Office of Oncologic Diseases of the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, described the new websites as part of a “commitment to preserve the integrity” of the accelerated approval program.

“These new web pages will make information on our accelerated approvals more transparent,” Dr. Beaver said in an email to this news organization.

The FDA has been able to speed many medicines to market and clear additional uses for drugs already sold through the program, giving people earlier access in many cases to critical medicines, Dr. Beaver said.

More than 165 oncology indications have received accelerated approval, with almost half converted to regular approval in a median of 3 years. Less than 10% of these indications were withdrawn, Dr. Beaver said.

“Of those accelerated approvals that were converted to regular approval, many demonstrated survival advantages to patients with several types of cancer or provided meaningful therapeutic options where none previously existed,” she said.

However, Dr. Beaver also has made public the FDA’s concerns with what she and Richard Pazdur, MD, director of the Oncology Center of Excellence, have described as “dangling” accelerated approvals. 

These are cases where the required trials did not end up confirming benefit for a medicine, yet the manufacturer did not move to withdraw an accelerated approval. The FDA’s cancer center has already announced that it is doing an “industry-wide evaluation of accelerated approvals in oncology in which confirmatory trials did not confirm clinical benefit.”

This stems in part from what can be called the FDA’s “growing pains” in its efforts to manage the rapidly changing landscape for these immunotherapy checkpoint inhibitors. This field of medicine has experienced an “unprecedented level of drug development” in recent years, FDA officials said in briefing materials for an Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee (ODAC) meeting last April on dangling accelerated approvals.

A newly posted chart on withdrawn oncology accelerated approvals, posted by the FDA’s cancer division, makes it clear that the pace of these rescinded clearances has picked up. The chart lists a total 14 withdrawn indications of oncology accelerated approvals.

Six of these withdrawals happened this year.

There were two withdrawals in 2020, including the December withdrawal of nivolumab, (Opdivo) for a form of metastatic lung cancer.

Then there was a significant gap, with no withdrawals going back to 2013 (when there was one). There were two withdrawals in 2012 and three in 2011.

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

U.S. regulators have made it easier for physicians, patients, and researchers to determine the status of cancer medicines cleared for sale based on limited evidence, including a public list detailing cases where accelerated approvals have been rescinded for lack of evidence.

On Oct. 29, the Food and Drug Administration posted new websites detailing the status of oncology medicines given these special clearances:

• Ongoing | Cancer Accelerated Approvals 
• Verified Clinical Benefit | Cancer Accelerated Approvals
• Withdrawn | Cancer Accelerated Approvals

The FDA’s cancer center also has created a web page called Project Confirm to provide more information on the way it uses accelerated approvals.

There has been increased concern about medicines cleared by accelerated approvals in recent years, culminating in an uproar over the controversial June approval of aducanumab (Aduhelm) for Alzheimer’s disease. This drew more attention to a debate already underway about how much data supports some of the indications for some cancer drugs.

Federal and state officials and advisers are putting more pressure on pharmaceutical companies to prove that medicines that are put on the market through accelerated approval do deliver meaningful benefits for patients.

In addition, earlier this month two of the top health advisers in Barack Obama’s administration proposed a new model through which Medicare could reduce payments for certain cancer drugs cleared through accelerated approvals – and even cut off reimbursements in cases where companies fail to deliver confirmatory evidence for expected benefits.

This “Pay for Drugs That Work Model” was proposed by Richard Frank, PhD, and Ezekiel Emanuel, MD, PhD, in a recent JAMA article. In their view, the FDA’s accelerated drug approval process allows for too many delays in obtaining answers as to whether medicines cleared this way provide expected benefits.

“The proposed Pay for Drugs That Work model could test a modified approach for incentivizing rapid completion of confirmatory trials to inform clinicians and patients about the true risks and benefits of new drugs and improve the value for money of cancer drugs that receive accelerated approval,” they wrote.
 

Excel files, regular updates

For the FDA, accelerated approvals require balancing an estimated potential benefit for people facing serious diseases (for example, cancer) against serious risks, including potentially exposing patients to costly, toxic drugs that will later be shown not to work for their conditions.

For many years, there has been significant pressure on the FDA to lean toward speedier approvals, with members of Congress, advocacy groups, and drugmakers advocating for broad use of surrogate data in deciding on clearances. The FDA posts biannual reports on its website that highlight how quickly approvals have been granted. But these biannual reports don’t provide much information on the status of accelerated-approval drugs, other than to say if they have been given full approval or withdrawn.

The newly created websites from the FDA’s oncology division appear to reflect growing public interest in knowing what standards the agency sets for confirmatory trials and what deadlines companies face to deliver evidence of significant benefit for their drugs.

The new sortable websites also include details on trials and have links to Excel files which will help researchers and others seeking to track patterns with accelerated approvals. The FDA said in an interview that it intends to update these sites when there are developments with accelerated approvals for cancer drugs, such as new clearances of this type, conversions to regular approvals, and withdrawn approvals.

Julia Beaver, MD, chief of medical oncology at the FDA’s Oncology Center of Excellence, and acting deputy director of the Office of Oncologic Diseases of the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, described the new websites as part of a “commitment to preserve the integrity” of the accelerated approval program.

“These new web pages will make information on our accelerated approvals more transparent,” Dr. Beaver said in an email to this news organization.

The FDA has been able to speed many medicines to market and clear additional uses for drugs already sold through the program, giving people earlier access in many cases to critical medicines, Dr. Beaver said.

More than 165 oncology indications have received accelerated approval, with almost half converted to regular approval in a median of 3 years. Less than 10% of these indications were withdrawn, Dr. Beaver said.

“Of those accelerated approvals that were converted to regular approval, many demonstrated survival advantages to patients with several types of cancer or provided meaningful therapeutic options where none previously existed,” she said.

However, Dr. Beaver also has made public the FDA’s concerns with what she and Richard Pazdur, MD, director of the Oncology Center of Excellence, have described as “dangling” accelerated approvals. 

These are cases where the required trials did not end up confirming benefit for a medicine, yet the manufacturer did not move to withdraw an accelerated approval. The FDA’s cancer center has already announced that it is doing an “industry-wide evaluation of accelerated approvals in oncology in which confirmatory trials did not confirm clinical benefit.”

This stems in part from what can be called the FDA’s “growing pains” in its efforts to manage the rapidly changing landscape for these immunotherapy checkpoint inhibitors. This field of medicine has experienced an “unprecedented level of drug development” in recent years, FDA officials said in briefing materials for an Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee (ODAC) meeting last April on dangling accelerated approvals.

A newly posted chart on withdrawn oncology accelerated approvals, posted by the FDA’s cancer division, makes it clear that the pace of these rescinded clearances has picked up. The chart lists a total 14 withdrawn indications of oncology accelerated approvals.

Six of these withdrawals happened this year.

There were two withdrawals in 2020, including the December withdrawal of nivolumab, (Opdivo) for a form of metastatic lung cancer.

Then there was a significant gap, with no withdrawals going back to 2013 (when there was one). There were two withdrawals in 2012 and three in 2011.

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

In patients with advanced cancer who are prescribed immune checkpoint inhibitors, comedications must be carefully assessed before patients start ICI therapy, most notably proton pump inhibitors, glucocorticoids, antibiotics, and psychotropic drugs.

“Our results confirm the detrimental impact on oncological outcomes of antibiotics and glucocorticoids at a dosage ≥10 mg/day when given within 1 month before or after ICI onset,” Marie Kostine, MD, of Bordeaux (France) University Hospital, and colleagues wrote in the European Journal of Cancer. “Moreover, we show that other comedications may significantly alter the antitumoral response of ICI, such as proton pump inhibitors, psychotropic drugs, morphine, aspirin, and insulin, whereas others seem to have no impact.”

While immune checkpoint inhibitors are transforming the treatment of advanced cancers, gut microbiota composition is an important determinant of response to ICIs. Antibiotic treatments are known to alter the gut microbiota. Other drugs, such as proton pump inhibitors, antidiabetic agents, aspirin, NSAIDs, glucocorticoids, immunomodulators, psychotropic drugs, and analgesics, have been associated with changes in microbiome composition. Since many patients with advanced cancer are exposed to such drugs, this study looked at the possible influence of these comedications on the antitumor effect and safety of ICIs.

The observational study included 635 patients with advanced cancer treated with ICIs between May 2015 and September 2017. Comedications given within 1 month before or 1 month after the first administration of an ICI were reviewed from medical records. Psychotropic drugs, proton pump inhibitors, ACE inhibitors and/or angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs), glucocorticoids, antibiotics, statins, and morphine were the most prescribed comedications.

Baseline use of antibiotics, glucocorticoids greater than 10 mg/day, proton pump inhibitors, psychotropic drugs, morphine, and insulin was associated with decreased overall survival and tumor response. However, the coadministration of statins, ACE inhibitors and/or ARBs, NSAIDs, aspirin, and oral diabetes drugs did not impact patient outcomes. Additionally, treatments that altered the response to ICIs were associated with a decreased incidence of immune-related adverse events.

“These results suggest some practical advice in a patient candidate to ICIs,” the authors wrote. “First, antibiotic treatment should be limited to documented infections,” and “withdrawal of proton pump inhibitors and psychotropic drugs should be considered.

“Regarding baseline glucocorticoids use, the cutoff of 10 mg/day should be respected, considering the deleterious effect of higher dosage. Moreover, because of the lack of impact of inhaled or topical glucocorticoids, local routes should be preferred,” the authors wrote. “Conversely, our study brings reassuring data regarding the use of glucocorticoids for the management of immune-related adverse events, which did not alter ICI efficacy, confirming previous reports.”

The authors noted that the observational nature of the study does not allow any causal conclusion, adding that it remains unknown whether the effect of comedications “on cancer outcomes is thoroughly mediated by changes in microbiota or other immunomodulatory properties.”

Along with the retrospective design, study limitations included reporting bias and missing data on baseline comedications, specific prognostic factors and cancer outcomes.

The authors noted no conflicts of interest.

In patients with advanced cancer who are prescribed immune checkpoint inhibitors, comedications must be carefully assessed before patients start ICI therapy, most notably proton pump inhibitors, glucocorticoids, antibiotics, and psychotropic drugs.

“Our results confirm the detrimental impact on oncological outcomes of antibiotics and glucocorticoids at a dosage ≥10 mg/day when given within 1 month before or after ICI onset,” Marie Kostine, MD, of Bordeaux (France) University Hospital, and colleagues wrote in the European Journal of Cancer. “Moreover, we show that other comedications may significantly alter the antitumoral response of ICI, such as proton pump inhibitors, psychotropic drugs, morphine, aspirin, and insulin, whereas others seem to have no impact.”

While immune checkpoint inhibitors are transforming the treatment of advanced cancers, gut microbiota composition is an important determinant of response to ICIs. Antibiotic treatments are known to alter the gut microbiota. Other drugs, such as proton pump inhibitors, antidiabetic agents, aspirin, NSAIDs, glucocorticoids, immunomodulators, psychotropic drugs, and analgesics, have been associated with changes in microbiome composition. Since many patients with advanced cancer are exposed to such drugs, this study looked at the possible influence of these comedications on the antitumor effect and safety of ICIs.

The observational study included 635 patients with advanced cancer treated with ICIs between May 2015 and September 2017. Comedications given within 1 month before or 1 month after the first administration of an ICI were reviewed from medical records. Psychotropic drugs, proton pump inhibitors, ACE inhibitors and/or angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs), glucocorticoids, antibiotics, statins, and morphine were the most prescribed comedications.

Baseline use of antibiotics, glucocorticoids greater than 10 mg/day, proton pump inhibitors, psychotropic drugs, morphine, and insulin was associated with decreased overall survival and tumor response. However, the coadministration of statins, ACE inhibitors and/or ARBs, NSAIDs, aspirin, and oral diabetes drugs did not impact patient outcomes. Additionally, treatments that altered the response to ICIs were associated with a decreased incidence of immune-related adverse events.

“These results suggest some practical advice in a patient candidate to ICIs,” the authors wrote. “First, antibiotic treatment should be limited to documented infections,” and “withdrawal of proton pump inhibitors and psychotropic drugs should be considered.

“Regarding baseline glucocorticoids use, the cutoff of 10 mg/day should be respected, considering the deleterious effect of higher dosage. Moreover, because of the lack of impact of inhaled or topical glucocorticoids, local routes should be preferred,” the authors wrote. “Conversely, our study brings reassuring data regarding the use of glucocorticoids for the management of immune-related adverse events, which did not alter ICI efficacy, confirming previous reports.”

The authors noted that the observational nature of the study does not allow any causal conclusion, adding that it remains unknown whether the effect of comedications “on cancer outcomes is thoroughly mediated by changes in microbiota or other immunomodulatory properties.”

Along with the retrospective design, study limitations included reporting bias and missing data on baseline comedications, specific prognostic factors and cancer outcomes.

The authors noted no conflicts of interest.

In patients with advanced cancer who are prescribed immune checkpoint inhibitors, comedications must be carefully assessed before patients start ICI therapy, most notably proton pump inhibitors, glucocorticoids, antibiotics, and psychotropic drugs.

“Our results confirm the detrimental impact on oncological outcomes of antibiotics and glucocorticoids at a dosage ≥10 mg/day when given within 1 month before or after ICI onset,” Marie Kostine, MD, of Bordeaux (France) University Hospital, and colleagues wrote in the European Journal of Cancer. “Moreover, we show that other comedications may significantly alter the antitumoral response of ICI, such as proton pump inhibitors, psychotropic drugs, morphine, aspirin, and insulin, whereas others seem to have no impact.”

While immune checkpoint inhibitors are transforming the treatment of advanced cancers, gut microbiota composition is an important determinant of response to ICIs. Antibiotic treatments are known to alter the gut microbiota. Other drugs, such as proton pump inhibitors, antidiabetic agents, aspirin, NSAIDs, glucocorticoids, immunomodulators, psychotropic drugs, and analgesics, have been associated with changes in microbiome composition. Since many patients with advanced cancer are exposed to such drugs, this study looked at the possible influence of these comedications on the antitumor effect and safety of ICIs.

The observational study included 635 patients with advanced cancer treated with ICIs between May 2015 and September 2017. Comedications given within 1 month before or 1 month after the first administration of an ICI were reviewed from medical records. Psychotropic drugs, proton pump inhibitors, ACE inhibitors and/or angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs), glucocorticoids, antibiotics, statins, and morphine were the most prescribed comedications.

Baseline use of antibiotics, glucocorticoids greater than 10 mg/day, proton pump inhibitors, psychotropic drugs, morphine, and insulin was associated with decreased overall survival and tumor response. However, the coadministration of statins, ACE inhibitors and/or ARBs, NSAIDs, aspirin, and oral diabetes drugs did not impact patient outcomes. Additionally, treatments that altered the response to ICIs were associated with a decreased incidence of immune-related adverse events.

“These results suggest some practical advice in a patient candidate to ICIs,” the authors wrote. “First, antibiotic treatment should be limited to documented infections,” and “withdrawal of proton pump inhibitors and psychotropic drugs should be considered.

“Regarding baseline glucocorticoids use, the cutoff of 10 mg/day should be respected, considering the deleterious effect of higher dosage. Moreover, because of the lack of impact of inhaled or topical glucocorticoids, local routes should be preferred,” the authors wrote. “Conversely, our study brings reassuring data regarding the use of glucocorticoids for the management of immune-related adverse events, which did not alter ICI efficacy, confirming previous reports.”

The authors noted that the observational nature of the study does not allow any causal conclusion, adding that it remains unknown whether the effect of comedications “on cancer outcomes is thoroughly mediated by changes in microbiota or other immunomodulatory properties.”

Along with the retrospective design, study limitations included reporting bias and missing data on baseline comedications, specific prognostic factors and cancer outcomes.

The authors noted no conflicts of interest.

For patients with moderate to severe asthma, blockade with itepekimab, a new human IgG4P monoclonal antibody against the upstream alarmin interleukin-33, led to a reduction in events that indicate loss of asthma control. Treatment with itepekimab also led to an improvement in lung function compared with placebo, according to results of a phase 2 trial.

However, findings for a subgroup of patients treated with itepekimab in combination with dupilumab, an anti–interleukin-4–receptor alpha subunit and IL-13 monoclonal antibody, were not favorable in comparison with placebo, noted M. E. Wechsler, MD, and colleagues in an article published online in the New England Journal of Medicine.
 

New target

Despite the demonstrated efficacy of available biologic therapies targeting IgE, interleukin-4, interleukin-13, and interleukin-5 for treating moderate to severe type 2 asthma, many patients with type 2 or non–type 2 asthma continue to have symptoms, exacerbations, and reduced lung function. New therapies targeting alternative pathophysiologic pathways are needed.

Genomewide studies show that type 2 and non–type 2 inflammation that contributes to asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) are genetically associated with interleukin-33. This inflammation occurs when interleukin-33 binds to its cognate receptor (ST2) and engages the coreceptor interleukin-1 receptor accessory protein to initiate downstream signaling, activating cells of both the innate and adaptive immune systems.
 

Study details

The investigators conducted a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group (four groups), proof-of-concept trial to evaluate the efficacy and safety of the interleukin-33 targeting itepekimab in comparison with placebo for adults with moderate to severe asthma. Dupilumab, which was the active comparator, was administered in combination with itepekimab to evaluate potential additive effects. Dupilumab’s efficacy in this population had been demonstrated previously.

All 296 patients (mean age, 49.1 years; 64% women) were receiving inhaled glucocorticoids plus long-acting beta-agonists (LABAs). They were randomly assigned in a 1:1:1:1 ratio to receive subcutaneous itepekimab (300 mg), itepekimab plus dupilumab (both at 300 mg; combination therapy), dupilumab (300 mg), or placebo every 2 weeks for 12 weeks. LABAs were discontinued at week 4, and inhaled glucocorticoids were tapered over weeks 6 through 9. The primary endpoint was the occurrence of an event indicating the loss of asthma control.
 

Promising results

Primary endpoint analysis at 12 weeks revealed a lower rate of asthma control–loss events in the itepekimab and dupilumab monotherapy groups but not in the combination group, compared with patients who received placebo. Events occurred in 22% of patients in the itepekimab group, in 27% of those in the combination group, in 19% of the dupilumab group, and in 41% of the placebo group. The odds ratios for comparisons with placebo were 0.42 for the itepekimab group (95% confidence interval, 0.20-0.88; P = .02); 0.33 in the dupilumab group (95% CI, 0.15-.70); and 0.52 in the combination group (95% CI, 0.26-1.06; P = .07) .

Following a similar pattern, forced expiratory volume in 1 second before use of a bronchodilator increased with both monotherapies but not with the combination or placebo. Although the trial was not powered to determine differences between itepekimab and dupilumab, the effects of dupilumab therapy were generally greater than those observed with itepekimab, especially for patients with type 2 asthma.

Also, asthma control and quality of life were improved with itepekimab and dupilumab monotherapy in comparison with placebo. There were also greater reductions in the mean blood eosinophil count.

The authors urge further research into the complexities of asthma physiology and encourage researchers to look for predictive biomarkers of anti–interleukin-33 blockade response. They conclude, “In this trial, we found that itepekimab monotherapy led to a lower incidence of events indicating loss of asthma control and to improved lung function, findings that are consistent with a role for interleukin-33 in the pathogenesis of exacerbations and airflow limitation in asthma.”
 

Examining results

In an accompanying editorial, Philip G. Bardin, PhD, and Paul S. Foster, DSc, ask why itepekimab and dupilumab, a combination based on a sound scientific rationale, failed. As monotherapies, both itepekimab and dupilumab are roughly similar in reducing asthma events and improving lung function; thus, is unlikely that inadequate dosing led to the failure of itepekimab.

Interleukin-33 is an attractive target because the cells it promotes secrete cytokines that induce asthma’s pathognomonic features, and biologic agents that target those cytokines (interleukin-5/-5R/-4/-13 axes) have been highly effective. They do not, however, prevent exacerbations after treatment.

Alternative pathways within or outside that paradigm are operant, and other epithelial alarmins, such as interleukin-25 and thymic stromal lymphopoietin, promote type 2 inflammation, Dr. Bardin and Dr. Foster state.

“Combination therapy with itepekimab and dupilumab may have failed because these pathways bypass interleukin-33,” they write. Also, preexisting ILC2 and TH2 cells may have residual capacity to release mediators. The short-term trial design, the editorialists write, may have contributed to the failure of the itepekimab/dupilumab combination; interleukin-33 may be appropriate as a target in a longer-term exacerbation-type trial “in which epithelial infection and other relevant stimuli instigate exacerbated disease. Combination therapy may be capable of lowering exacerbations rather than preventing loss of control in chronic disease.

“Clinical translation of basic science in asthma remains a challenge to be pursued. ... It is imperative to harness scientific insights from translational studies that frustrate our hopeful expectations – so that something can also be gained,” they conclude.
 

The role of interleukin-33

“Our study of itepekimab provides valuable insight into pathophysiology of severe asthma,” said Dr. Wechsler, professor of medicine at the NJH Cohen Family Asthma Institute, Denver, in an interview. “As blocking IL-33 reduced asthma worsening and improved lung function compared to placebo, it suggests that IL-33 plays an important role in asthma pathophysiology and may be a valuable target for a subset of patients with severe asthma,” he stated.

“Since the effect of itepekimab is comparable to that of dupilumab, it is suggested that patients may benefit from blockade of this pathway, but what remains to be seen is identifying which patients are more likely to respond better to one therapy vs. another. The future of blocking IL-33 remains exciting, and studies are being planned to evaluate its efficacy in airways diseases, including COPD,” he concluded.

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

For patients with moderate to severe asthma, blockade with itepekimab, a new human IgG4P monoclonal antibody against the upstream alarmin interleukin-33, led to a reduction in events that indicate loss of asthma control. Treatment with itepekimab also led to an improvement in lung function compared with placebo, according to results of a phase 2 trial.

However, findings for a subgroup of patients treated with itepekimab in combination with dupilumab, an anti–interleukin-4–receptor alpha subunit and IL-13 monoclonal antibody, were not favorable in comparison with placebo, noted M. E. Wechsler, MD, and colleagues in an article published online in the New England Journal of Medicine.
 

New target

Despite the demonstrated efficacy of available biologic therapies targeting IgE, interleukin-4, interleukin-13, and interleukin-5 for treating moderate to severe type 2 asthma, many patients with type 2 or non–type 2 asthma continue to have symptoms, exacerbations, and reduced lung function. New therapies targeting alternative pathophysiologic pathways are needed.

Genomewide studies show that type 2 and non–type 2 inflammation that contributes to asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) are genetically associated with interleukin-33. This inflammation occurs when interleukin-33 binds to its cognate receptor (ST2) and engages the coreceptor interleukin-1 receptor accessory protein to initiate downstream signaling, activating cells of both the innate and adaptive immune systems.
 

Study details

The investigators conducted a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group (four groups), proof-of-concept trial to evaluate the efficacy and safety of the interleukin-33 targeting itepekimab in comparison with placebo for adults with moderate to severe asthma. Dupilumab, which was the active comparator, was administered in combination with itepekimab to evaluate potential additive effects. Dupilumab’s efficacy in this population had been demonstrated previously.

All 296 patients (mean age, 49.1 years; 64% women) were receiving inhaled glucocorticoids plus long-acting beta-agonists (LABAs). They were randomly assigned in a 1:1:1:1 ratio to receive subcutaneous itepekimab (300 mg), itepekimab plus dupilumab (both at 300 mg; combination therapy), dupilumab (300 mg), or placebo every 2 weeks for 12 weeks. LABAs were discontinued at week 4, and inhaled glucocorticoids were tapered over weeks 6 through 9. The primary endpoint was the occurrence of an event indicating the loss of asthma control.
 

Promising results

Primary endpoint analysis at 12 weeks revealed a lower rate of asthma control–loss events in the itepekimab and dupilumab monotherapy groups but not in the combination group, compared with patients who received placebo. Events occurred in 22% of patients in the itepekimab group, in 27% of those in the combination group, in 19% of the dupilumab group, and in 41% of the placebo group. The odds ratios for comparisons with placebo were 0.42 for the itepekimab group (95% confidence interval, 0.20-0.88; P = .02); 0.33 in the dupilumab group (95% CI, 0.15-.70); and 0.52 in the combination group (95% CI, 0.26-1.06; P = .07) .

Following a similar pattern, forced expiratory volume in 1 second before use of a bronchodilator increased with both monotherapies but not with the combination or placebo. Although the trial was not powered to determine differences between itepekimab and dupilumab, the effects of dupilumab therapy were generally greater than those observed with itepekimab, especially for patients with type 2 asthma.

Also, asthma control and quality of life were improved with itepekimab and dupilumab monotherapy in comparison with placebo. There were also greater reductions in the mean blood eosinophil count.

The authors urge further research into the complexities of asthma physiology and encourage researchers to look for predictive biomarkers of anti–interleukin-33 blockade response. They conclude, “In this trial, we found that itepekimab monotherapy led to a lower incidence of events indicating loss of asthma control and to improved lung function, findings that are consistent with a role for interleukin-33 in the pathogenesis of exacerbations and airflow limitation in asthma.”
 

Examining results

In an accompanying editorial, Philip G. Bardin, PhD, and Paul S. Foster, DSc, ask why itepekimab and dupilumab, a combination based on a sound scientific rationale, failed. As monotherapies, both itepekimab and dupilumab are roughly similar in reducing asthma events and improving lung function; thus, is unlikely that inadequate dosing led to the failure of itepekimab.

Interleukin-33 is an attractive target because the cells it promotes secrete cytokines that induce asthma’s pathognomonic features, and biologic agents that target those cytokines (interleukin-5/-5R/-4/-13 axes) have been highly effective. They do not, however, prevent exacerbations after treatment.

Alternative pathways within or outside that paradigm are operant, and other epithelial alarmins, such as interleukin-25 and thymic stromal lymphopoietin, promote type 2 inflammation, Dr. Bardin and Dr. Foster state.

“Combination therapy with itepekimab and dupilumab may have failed because these pathways bypass interleukin-33,” they write. Also, preexisting ILC2 and TH2 cells may have residual capacity to release mediators. The short-term trial design, the editorialists write, may have contributed to the failure of the itepekimab/dupilumab combination; interleukin-33 may be appropriate as a target in a longer-term exacerbation-type trial “in which epithelial infection and other relevant stimuli instigate exacerbated disease. Combination therapy may be capable of lowering exacerbations rather than preventing loss of control in chronic disease.

“Clinical translation of basic science in asthma remains a challenge to be pursued. ... It is imperative to harness scientific insights from translational studies that frustrate our hopeful expectations – so that something can also be gained,” they conclude.
 

The role of interleukin-33

“Our study of itepekimab provides valuable insight into pathophysiology of severe asthma,” said Dr. Wechsler, professor of medicine at the NJH Cohen Family Asthma Institute, Denver, in an interview. “As blocking IL-33 reduced asthma worsening and improved lung function compared to placebo, it suggests that IL-33 plays an important role in asthma pathophysiology and may be a valuable target for a subset of patients with severe asthma,” he stated.

“Since the effect of itepekimab is comparable to that of dupilumab, it is suggested that patients may benefit from blockade of this pathway, but what remains to be seen is identifying which patients are more likely to respond better to one therapy vs. another. The future of blocking IL-33 remains exciting, and studies are being planned to evaluate its efficacy in airways diseases, including COPD,” he concluded.

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

For patients with moderate to severe asthma, blockade with itepekimab, a new human IgG4P monoclonal antibody against the upstream alarmin interleukin-33, led to a reduction in events that indicate loss of asthma control. Treatment with itepekimab also led to an improvement in lung function compared with placebo, according to results of a phase 2 trial.

However, findings for a subgroup of patients treated with itepekimab in combination with dupilumab, an anti–interleukin-4–receptor alpha subunit and IL-13 monoclonal antibody, were not favorable in comparison with placebo, noted M. E. Wechsler, MD, and colleagues in an article published online in the New England Journal of Medicine.
 

New target

Despite the demonstrated efficacy of available biologic therapies targeting IgE, interleukin-4, interleukin-13, and interleukin-5 for treating moderate to severe type 2 asthma, many patients with type 2 or non–type 2 asthma continue to have symptoms, exacerbations, and reduced lung function. New therapies targeting alternative pathophysiologic pathways are needed.

Genomewide studies show that type 2 and non–type 2 inflammation that contributes to asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) are genetically associated with interleukin-33. This inflammation occurs when interleukin-33 binds to its cognate receptor (ST2) and engages the coreceptor interleukin-1 receptor accessory protein to initiate downstream signaling, activating cells of both the innate and adaptive immune systems.
 

Study details

The investigators conducted a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group (four groups), proof-of-concept trial to evaluate the efficacy and safety of the interleukin-33 targeting itepekimab in comparison with placebo for adults with moderate to severe asthma. Dupilumab, which was the active comparator, was administered in combination with itepekimab to evaluate potential additive effects. Dupilumab’s efficacy in this population had been demonstrated previously.

All 296 patients (mean age, 49.1 years; 64% women) were receiving inhaled glucocorticoids plus long-acting beta-agonists (LABAs). They were randomly assigned in a 1:1:1:1 ratio to receive subcutaneous itepekimab (300 mg), itepekimab plus dupilumab (both at 300 mg; combination therapy), dupilumab (300 mg), or placebo every 2 weeks for 12 weeks. LABAs were discontinued at week 4, and inhaled glucocorticoids were tapered over weeks 6 through 9. The primary endpoint was the occurrence of an event indicating the loss of asthma control.
 

Promising results

Primary endpoint analysis at 12 weeks revealed a lower rate of asthma control–loss events in the itepekimab and dupilumab monotherapy groups but not in the combination group, compared with patients who received placebo. Events occurred in 22% of patients in the itepekimab group, in 27% of those in the combination group, in 19% of the dupilumab group, and in 41% of the placebo group. The odds ratios for comparisons with placebo were 0.42 for the itepekimab group (95% confidence interval, 0.20-0.88; P = .02); 0.33 in the dupilumab group (95% CI, 0.15-.70); and 0.52 in the combination group (95% CI, 0.26-1.06; P = .07) .

Following a similar pattern, forced expiratory volume in 1 second before use of a bronchodilator increased with both monotherapies but not with the combination or placebo. Although the trial was not powered to determine differences between itepekimab and dupilumab, the effects of dupilumab therapy were generally greater than those observed with itepekimab, especially for patients with type 2 asthma.

Also, asthma control and quality of life were improved with itepekimab and dupilumab monotherapy in comparison with placebo. There were also greater reductions in the mean blood eosinophil count.

The authors urge further research into the complexities of asthma physiology and encourage researchers to look for predictive biomarkers of anti–interleukin-33 blockade response. They conclude, “In this trial, we found that itepekimab monotherapy led to a lower incidence of events indicating loss of asthma control and to improved lung function, findings that are consistent with a role for interleukin-33 in the pathogenesis of exacerbations and airflow limitation in asthma.”
 

Examining results

In an accompanying editorial, Philip G. Bardin, PhD, and Paul S. Foster, DSc, ask why itepekimab and dupilumab, a combination based on a sound scientific rationale, failed. As monotherapies, both itepekimab and dupilumab are roughly similar in reducing asthma events and improving lung function; thus, is unlikely that inadequate dosing led to the failure of itepekimab.

Interleukin-33 is an attractive target because the cells it promotes secrete cytokines that induce asthma’s pathognomonic features, and biologic agents that target those cytokines (interleukin-5/-5R/-4/-13 axes) have been highly effective. They do not, however, prevent exacerbations after treatment.

Alternative pathways within or outside that paradigm are operant, and other epithelial alarmins, such as interleukin-25 and thymic stromal lymphopoietin, promote type 2 inflammation, Dr. Bardin and Dr. Foster state.

“Combination therapy with itepekimab and dupilumab may have failed because these pathways bypass interleukin-33,” they write. Also, preexisting ILC2 and TH2 cells may have residual capacity to release mediators. The short-term trial design, the editorialists write, may have contributed to the failure of the itepekimab/dupilumab combination; interleukin-33 may be appropriate as a target in a longer-term exacerbation-type trial “in which epithelial infection and other relevant stimuli instigate exacerbated disease. Combination therapy may be capable of lowering exacerbations rather than preventing loss of control in chronic disease.

“Clinical translation of basic science in asthma remains a challenge to be pursued. ... It is imperative to harness scientific insights from translational studies that frustrate our hopeful expectations – so that something can also be gained,” they conclude.
 

The role of interleukin-33

“Our study of itepekimab provides valuable insight into pathophysiology of severe asthma,” said Dr. Wechsler, professor of medicine at the NJH Cohen Family Asthma Institute, Denver, in an interview. “As blocking IL-33 reduced asthma worsening and improved lung function compared to placebo, it suggests that IL-33 plays an important role in asthma pathophysiology and may be a valuable target for a subset of patients with severe asthma,” he stated.

“Since the effect of itepekimab is comparable to that of dupilumab, it is suggested that patients may benefit from blockade of this pathway, but what remains to be seen is identifying which patients are more likely to respond better to one therapy vs. another. The future of blocking IL-33 remains exciting, and studies are being planned to evaluate its efficacy in airways diseases, including COPD,” he concluded.

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