Pharmacology

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.

Placebo treatment was found to be superior to treatment with risankizumab with respect to time to first asthma worsening and annualized rate of asthma worsening for adults with severe persistent asthma in a phase 2a clinical trial.

The randomized, double-blind, 24-week, parallel group, multicenter trial assessed risankizumab efficacy and safety in 214 adults with severe persistent asthma. The results were reported in The New England Journal of Medicine.

Risankizumab is a humanized, monoclonal antibody directed against subunit p19 of interleukin-23. It is approved for the treatment of moderate to severe psoriasis.

Interleukin-23 has been implicated in airway inflammation mediated by type 2 and type 17 cytokines. Noting that inhibition of interleukin-23 is effective in the treatment of psoriasis and Crohn’s disease, Christopher E. Brightling, MD, and colleagues investigated whether targeting interleukin-23 in asthma patients would improve disease control and reduce airway inflammation.
 

Study details

Patients received either 90 mg of risankizumab (subcutaneous) (n = 105) or placebo (n = 109) once every 4 weeks. Time to first asthma worsening was the primary endpoint. Worsening was defined as decline from baseline on 2 or more consecutive days. Deterioration was defined as a decrease of at least 30% in the morning peak expiratory flow or an increase from baseline of at least 50% in rescue medication puffs over 24 hours. In addition, a severe asthma exacerbation or an increase of 0.75 or more points on the five-item Asthma Control Questionnaire (scores range from 0 to 6, with higher scores indicating less control) were considered to be evidence of worsening. Annualized rate of asthma worsening was a secondary endpoint.

The mean age of the patients was 53 years; 66.5% of the patients were women.
 

Disappointing results

In the risankizumab group, median time to first asthma worsening was 40 days, significantly worse than the 86 days reported for the placebo group (hazard ratio, 1.46; 95% confidence interval, 1.05-2.04; P = .03). For annualized asthma worsening, the rate ratio for the comparison of risankizumab with placebo was 1.49 (95% CI, 1.12-1.99).

Among key secondary endpoints, the adjusted mean change in trough forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV₁₎ from baseline to week 24 was –0.05 L in the risankizumab group and –0.01 L in the placebo group. The adjusted mean change in FEV₁ after bronchodilator use from baseline to week 24 was –0.10 L in the risankizumab group and –0.03 L in the placebo group. Sputum transcriptomic pathway analysis showed that genes involved in the activation of natural killer cells and cytotoxic T cells and the activation of type 1 helper T and type 17 helper T transcription factors were downregulated by risankizumab. Rates of adverse events were similar among patients receiving risankizumab and those taking placebo.
 

Further trials unwarranted

“The findings not only failed to show benefit for any outcome but also showed asthma worsening occurred earlier and more frequently in those treated with risankizumab versus placebo,” Dr. Brightling, professor in the department of respiratory sciences at University of Leicester, England, said in an interview. “This study does not support any further trials for anti-IL23 in asthma.” Dr. Brightling speculated on the cause of accelerated asthma worsening with risankizumab.

“We found that the gene expression of key molecules involved in our response to infection was decreased in airway samples in those treated with risankizumab versus placebo. It is possible that the increased asthma worsening following risankizumab was related to this suppression of antimicrobial immunity,” he said.

He noted that risankizumab did not affect type-2/eosinophilic inflammation, which is the target for current asthma biologics, or gene expression of T2 molecules. “That suggests that this type of inflammation would have continued in the asthma patients during the trial irrespective of receiving risankizumab or placebo,” he said.
 

Caution with investigating biologicals

Downstream biologic responses to risankizumab were detectable, Philip G. Bardin, PhD, and Paul S. Foster, DSc, observed in an accompanying editorial, but there was no discernible clinical benefit, implying attenuation of apposite pathways. Current understanding of the basic science relevant to asthma, they stated, offers clues to the failure of risankizumab to benefit these patients with severe asthma. Although targeting the interleukin-23 and Th17 axis with risankizumab can reduce development of pathogenic Th17 cells, interleukin-23 is not critical for the development of Th17 cells.

“In contrast to pathways operated by interleukin-5 and interleukin-4R alpha, interleukin-23 has only a limited auxiliary role in amplifying type 2 responses. It is possible that the trial conducted by Brightling and colleagues failed because signaling through alternative disease pathways nullified inhibition of inter-leukin-23,” the editorialists wrote.

Dr. Bardin and Dr. Foster further speculate that because interleukin-23 is vital for effective mucosal immunity, risankizumab may have conferred to patients a predisposition to more severe or more frequent virus-induced exacerbations. They stated that generally, however, the reasons for risankizumab’s poorer outcomes compared to placebo are unclear. “Overall, these findings support a cautious approach in future research investigating biologic therapies in asthma,” they concluded.

The clinical trial was sponsored and funded by BI/AbbVie.

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

Placebo treatment was found to be superior to treatment with risankizumab with respect to time to first asthma worsening and annualized rate of asthma worsening for adults with severe persistent asthma in a phase 2a clinical trial.

The randomized, double-blind, 24-week, parallel group, multicenter trial assessed risankizumab efficacy and safety in 214 adults with severe persistent asthma. The results were reported in The New England Journal of Medicine.

Risankizumab is a humanized, monoclonal antibody directed against subunit p19 of interleukin-23. It is approved for the treatment of moderate to severe psoriasis.

Interleukin-23 has been implicated in airway inflammation mediated by type 2 and type 17 cytokines. Noting that inhibition of interleukin-23 is effective in the treatment of psoriasis and Crohn’s disease, Christopher E. Brightling, MD, and colleagues investigated whether targeting interleukin-23 in asthma patients would improve disease control and reduce airway inflammation.
 

Study details

Patients received either 90 mg of risankizumab (subcutaneous) (n = 105) or placebo (n = 109) once every 4 weeks. Time to first asthma worsening was the primary endpoint. Worsening was defined as decline from baseline on 2 or more consecutive days. Deterioration was defined as a decrease of at least 30% in the morning peak expiratory flow or an increase from baseline of at least 50% in rescue medication puffs over 24 hours. In addition, a severe asthma exacerbation or an increase of 0.75 or more points on the five-item Asthma Control Questionnaire (scores range from 0 to 6, with higher scores indicating less control) were considered to be evidence of worsening. Annualized rate of asthma worsening was a secondary endpoint.

The mean age of the patients was 53 years; 66.5% of the patients were women.
 

Disappointing results

In the risankizumab group, median time to first asthma worsening was 40 days, significantly worse than the 86 days reported for the placebo group (hazard ratio, 1.46; 95% confidence interval, 1.05-2.04; P = .03). For annualized asthma worsening, the rate ratio for the comparison of risankizumab with placebo was 1.49 (95% CI, 1.12-1.99).

Among key secondary endpoints, the adjusted mean change in trough forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV₁₎ from baseline to week 24 was –0.05 L in the risankizumab group and –0.01 L in the placebo group. The adjusted mean change in FEV₁ after bronchodilator use from baseline to week 24 was –0.10 L in the risankizumab group and –0.03 L in the placebo group. Sputum transcriptomic pathway analysis showed that genes involved in the activation of natural killer cells and cytotoxic T cells and the activation of type 1 helper T and type 17 helper T transcription factors were downregulated by risankizumab. Rates of adverse events were similar among patients receiving risankizumab and those taking placebo.
 

Further trials unwarranted

“The findings not only failed to show benefit for any outcome but also showed asthma worsening occurred earlier and more frequently in those treated with risankizumab versus placebo,” Dr. Brightling, professor in the department of respiratory sciences at University of Leicester, England, said in an interview. “This study does not support any further trials for anti-IL23 in asthma.” Dr. Brightling speculated on the cause of accelerated asthma worsening with risankizumab.

“We found that the gene expression of key molecules involved in our response to infection was decreased in airway samples in those treated with risankizumab versus placebo. It is possible that the increased asthma worsening following risankizumab was related to this suppression of antimicrobial immunity,” he said.

He noted that risankizumab did not affect type-2/eosinophilic inflammation, which is the target for current asthma biologics, or gene expression of T2 molecules. “That suggests that this type of inflammation would have continued in the asthma patients during the trial irrespective of receiving risankizumab or placebo,” he said.
 

Caution with investigating biologicals

Downstream biologic responses to risankizumab were detectable, Philip G. Bardin, PhD, and Paul S. Foster, DSc, observed in an accompanying editorial, but there was no discernible clinical benefit, implying attenuation of apposite pathways. Current understanding of the basic science relevant to asthma, they stated, offers clues to the failure of risankizumab to benefit these patients with severe asthma. Although targeting the interleukin-23 and Th17 axis with risankizumab can reduce development of pathogenic Th17 cells, interleukin-23 is not critical for the development of Th17 cells.

“In contrast to pathways operated by interleukin-5 and interleukin-4R alpha, interleukin-23 has only a limited auxiliary role in amplifying type 2 responses. It is possible that the trial conducted by Brightling and colleagues failed because signaling through alternative disease pathways nullified inhibition of inter-leukin-23,” the editorialists wrote.

Dr. Bardin and Dr. Foster further speculate that because interleukin-23 is vital for effective mucosal immunity, risankizumab may have conferred to patients a predisposition to more severe or more frequent virus-induced exacerbations. They stated that generally, however, the reasons for risankizumab’s poorer outcomes compared to placebo are unclear. “Overall, these findings support a cautious approach in future research investigating biologic therapies in asthma,” they concluded.

The clinical trial was sponsored and funded by BI/AbbVie.

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

Placebo treatment was found to be superior to treatment with risankizumab with respect to time to first asthma worsening and annualized rate of asthma worsening for adults with severe persistent asthma in a phase 2a clinical trial.

The randomized, double-blind, 24-week, parallel group, multicenter trial assessed risankizumab efficacy and safety in 214 adults with severe persistent asthma. The results were reported in The New England Journal of Medicine.

Risankizumab is a humanized, monoclonal antibody directed against subunit p19 of interleukin-23. It is approved for the treatment of moderate to severe psoriasis.

Interleukin-23 has been implicated in airway inflammation mediated by type 2 and type 17 cytokines. Noting that inhibition of interleukin-23 is effective in the treatment of psoriasis and Crohn’s disease, Christopher E. Brightling, MD, and colleagues investigated whether targeting interleukin-23 in asthma patients would improve disease control and reduce airway inflammation.
 

Study details

Patients received either 90 mg of risankizumab (subcutaneous) (n = 105) or placebo (n = 109) once every 4 weeks. Time to first asthma worsening was the primary endpoint. Worsening was defined as decline from baseline on 2 or more consecutive days. Deterioration was defined as a decrease of at least 30% in the morning peak expiratory flow or an increase from baseline of at least 50% in rescue medication puffs over 24 hours. In addition, a severe asthma exacerbation or an increase of 0.75 or more points on the five-item Asthma Control Questionnaire (scores range from 0 to 6, with higher scores indicating less control) were considered to be evidence of worsening. Annualized rate of asthma worsening was a secondary endpoint.

The mean age of the patients was 53 years; 66.5% of the patients were women.
 

Disappointing results

In the risankizumab group, median time to first asthma worsening was 40 days, significantly worse than the 86 days reported for the placebo group (hazard ratio, 1.46; 95% confidence interval, 1.05-2.04; P = .03). For annualized asthma worsening, the rate ratio for the comparison of risankizumab with placebo was 1.49 (95% CI, 1.12-1.99).

Among key secondary endpoints, the adjusted mean change in trough forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV₁₎ from baseline to week 24 was –0.05 L in the risankizumab group and –0.01 L in the placebo group. The adjusted mean change in FEV₁ after bronchodilator use from baseline to week 24 was –0.10 L in the risankizumab group and –0.03 L in the placebo group. Sputum transcriptomic pathway analysis showed that genes involved in the activation of natural killer cells and cytotoxic T cells and the activation of type 1 helper T and type 17 helper T transcription factors were downregulated by risankizumab. Rates of adverse events were similar among patients receiving risankizumab and those taking placebo.
 

Further trials unwarranted

“The findings not only failed to show benefit for any outcome but also showed asthma worsening occurred earlier and more frequently in those treated with risankizumab versus placebo,” Dr. Brightling, professor in the department of respiratory sciences at University of Leicester, England, said in an interview. “This study does not support any further trials for anti-IL23 in asthma.” Dr. Brightling speculated on the cause of accelerated asthma worsening with risankizumab.

“We found that the gene expression of key molecules involved in our response to infection was decreased in airway samples in those treated with risankizumab versus placebo. It is possible that the increased asthma worsening following risankizumab was related to this suppression of antimicrobial immunity,” he said.

He noted that risankizumab did not affect type-2/eosinophilic inflammation, which is the target for current asthma biologics, or gene expression of T2 molecules. “That suggests that this type of inflammation would have continued in the asthma patients during the trial irrespective of receiving risankizumab or placebo,” he said.
 

Caution with investigating biologicals

Downstream biologic responses to risankizumab were detectable, Philip G. Bardin, PhD, and Paul S. Foster, DSc, observed in an accompanying editorial, but there was no discernible clinical benefit, implying attenuation of apposite pathways. Current understanding of the basic science relevant to asthma, they stated, offers clues to the failure of risankizumab to benefit these patients with severe asthma. Although targeting the interleukin-23 and Th17 axis with risankizumab can reduce development of pathogenic Th17 cells, interleukin-23 is not critical for the development of Th17 cells.

“In contrast to pathways operated by interleukin-5 and interleukin-4R alpha, interleukin-23 has only a limited auxiliary role in amplifying type 2 responses. It is possible that the trial conducted by Brightling and colleagues failed because signaling through alternative disease pathways nullified inhibition of inter-leukin-23,” the editorialists wrote.

Dr. Bardin and Dr. Foster further speculate that because interleukin-23 is vital for effective mucosal immunity, risankizumab may have conferred to patients a predisposition to more severe or more frequent virus-induced exacerbations. They stated that generally, however, the reasons for risankizumab’s poorer outcomes compared to placebo are unclear. “Overall, these findings support a cautious approach in future research investigating biologic therapies in asthma,” they concluded.

The clinical trial was sponsored and funded by BI/AbbVie.

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

LAS VEGAS –Data from the 28-week extension of the Liberty EoE TREET phase 3 clinical trial showed that the anti–interleukin-4/IL-13 antibody dupilumab led to long-term improvement in eosinophil count, histology, and patient-reported symptoms of eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) out to 28 weeks. Dupilumab is Food and Drug Administration approved for the treatment of atopic dermatitis, asthma, and chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyposis.

Many patients don’t respond to the standard therapies of proton pump inhibitors, steroids, or diet. Some evidence suggests that EoE might be driven by type 2 inflammation, and dupilumab’s effect on the shared receptor of IL-4 and IL-13 directly counters that pathway.

“The current treatments are [proton pump inhibitors], steroids, or diet – a good proportion of patients don’t respond to them. And they’re also not targeted,” Evan Dellon, MD, professor of medicine and epidemiology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, said in an interview. Dr. Dellon presented the research at the annual meeting of the American College of Gastroenterology.

“The bottom line is that people who responded up front to dupilumab maintain that response to a year, and the people on placebo gained a similar response as the people who were treated. It looked good. It was histologic, symptomatic, and endoscopic outcomes,” said Dr. Dellon.

Many of the patients in the new study were steroid refractory, making it a difficult population to treat, according to Dr. Dellon. “You can’t compare to the steroid-treated patients, but the 6-month data showed about a 60% response rate histologically, which is right up there with where steroids and diet are for easier to treat patients. So the fact that it’s a harder to treat cohort is pretty impressive from that standpoint,” said Dr. Dellon.

Data from the first 24 weeks was previously reported at UEG Week 2020 and showed that dupilumab outperformed placebo in EoE patients aged 12 years and older, with dupilumab producing better outcomes in peak esophageal intraepithelial eosinophil count and change in Dysphagia Symptom Questionnaire (DSQ) Score at 24 weeks.

At ACG 2021, Dr. Dellon reported on 52-week results, where all patients from both treated and placebo groups received dupilumab after the initial 24-week phase. Dupilumab reduced dysphagia symptoms as measured by the absolute change in DSQ score at 24 weeks (–21.9 vs. –9.6; P < .001). At 52 weeks, the dupilumab group showed a change of –23.4 from the start of the study, and the placebo-to-dupilumab group had a DSQ score change of –21.7. Dupilumab also led to a greater percentage reduction in DSQ score by 24 weeks (69.2% versus 31.7%; P < .001); at 52 weeks, the dupilumab group had a 75.9% reduction and the placebo-to-dupilumab group had a 65.9% reduction (no significant difference).

The dupilumab group had a greater proportion of patients who achieved peak esophageal eosinophil count of 6 eosinophils or less per high power field at 24 weeks (59.5% vs. 5.1%); at 52 weeks, 55.9% had achieved this measure, versus 60.0% of the placebo-to-dupilumab group. At 24 weeks, the dupilumab group had a 71.2% reduction in peak eosinophil count from baseline versus –3.0% in placebo (P < .001). At week 52, the reductions were 88.6% and 83.8%, respectively.

Histology features were improved with dupilumab. At week 24, the absolute change in histology scoring system mean grade score (histologic severity) from initial baseline was greater in the dupilumab group (least squares mean, –0.761 vs. –0.001; P < .001). The improvement continued at week 52 (LS mean, –0.87) and occurred in the placebo-to-dupilumab group (LS mean, –0.87). The dupilumab group had a greater absolute change in mean stage score at 24 weeks (histologic extent, LS mean, –0.753 vs. –0.012; P < .001) and 52 weeks (LS mean, –0.89), while the placebo-to-dupilumab group achieved a similar change at 52 weeks (LS mean, –0.87).

Endoscopic features improved in the dupilumab group as measured by endoscopic reference score at 24 weeks (LS mean, –3.2 versus –0.3; P <.001) and at 52 weeks (LS mean, –4.1). The placebo-to-dupilumab group had a similar outcome at 52 weeks (LS mean, –3.9).

Dupilumab was well tolerated, with the only significant difference in treatment-emergent adverse events being injection-site reactions and injection-site erythema.

“I thought the data was really impressive and compelling,” said Amy Oxentenko, MD, chair of medicine at the Mayo Clinic in Phoenix, who comoderated the session. “It’d be nice to have something like this that is a targeted therapy that clearly shows improvement in not only some of the symptoms and histology, but also having an impact possibly on that fibrotic piece, which I think is really the area of morbidity in these patients long term.”

If approved, dupilumab could improve compliance among patients, who sometimes struggle with taking topical steroids properly, said comoderator David Hass, MD, who is an associate clinical professor at Yale University, New Haven, Conn. He also agreed that the potential for remodeling would be a significant benefit over steroids.

One concern with dupilumab would be any potential for immune suppression. “It’s always something to think about,” Dr. Hass said.

LIBERTY EoE TREET was funded by Sanofi and Regeneron. Dr. Dellon has consulted and received research support from numerous pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Oxentenko and Dr. Hass have no relevant financial disclosures.

This article was updated Nov. 4, 2021.

LAS VEGAS –Data from the 28-week extension of the Liberty EoE TREET phase 3 clinical trial showed that the anti–interleukin-4/IL-13 antibody dupilumab led to long-term improvement in eosinophil count, histology, and patient-reported symptoms of eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) out to 28 weeks. Dupilumab is Food and Drug Administration approved for the treatment of atopic dermatitis, asthma, and chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyposis.

Many patients don’t respond to the standard therapies of proton pump inhibitors, steroids, or diet. Some evidence suggests that EoE might be driven by type 2 inflammation, and dupilumab’s effect on the shared receptor of IL-4 and IL-13 directly counters that pathway.

“The current treatments are [proton pump inhibitors], steroids, or diet – a good proportion of patients don’t respond to them. And they’re also not targeted,” Evan Dellon, MD, professor of medicine and epidemiology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, said in an interview. Dr. Dellon presented the research at the annual meeting of the American College of Gastroenterology.

“The bottom line is that people who responded up front to dupilumab maintain that response to a year, and the people on placebo gained a similar response as the people who were treated. It looked good. It was histologic, symptomatic, and endoscopic outcomes,” said Dr. Dellon.

Many of the patients in the new study were steroid refractory, making it a difficult population to treat, according to Dr. Dellon. “You can’t compare to the steroid-treated patients, but the 6-month data showed about a 60% response rate histologically, which is right up there with where steroids and diet are for easier to treat patients. So the fact that it’s a harder to treat cohort is pretty impressive from that standpoint,” said Dr. Dellon.

Data from the first 24 weeks was previously reported at UEG Week 2020 and showed that dupilumab outperformed placebo in EoE patients aged 12 years and older, with dupilumab producing better outcomes in peak esophageal intraepithelial eosinophil count and change in Dysphagia Symptom Questionnaire (DSQ) Score at 24 weeks.

At ACG 2021, Dr. Dellon reported on 52-week results, where all patients from both treated and placebo groups received dupilumab after the initial 24-week phase. Dupilumab reduced dysphagia symptoms as measured by the absolute change in DSQ score at 24 weeks (–21.9 vs. –9.6; P < .001). At 52 weeks, the dupilumab group showed a change of –23.4 from the start of the study, and the placebo-to-dupilumab group had a DSQ score change of –21.7. Dupilumab also led to a greater percentage reduction in DSQ score by 24 weeks (69.2% versus 31.7%; P < .001); at 52 weeks, the dupilumab group had a 75.9% reduction and the placebo-to-dupilumab group had a 65.9% reduction (no significant difference).

The dupilumab group had a greater proportion of patients who achieved peak esophageal eosinophil count of 6 eosinophils or less per high power field at 24 weeks (59.5% vs. 5.1%); at 52 weeks, 55.9% had achieved this measure, versus 60.0% of the placebo-to-dupilumab group. At 24 weeks, the dupilumab group had a 71.2% reduction in peak eosinophil count from baseline versus –3.0% in placebo (P < .001). At week 52, the reductions were 88.6% and 83.8%, respectively.

Histology features were improved with dupilumab. At week 24, the absolute change in histology scoring system mean grade score (histologic severity) from initial baseline was greater in the dupilumab group (least squares mean, –0.761 vs. –0.001; P < .001). The improvement continued at week 52 (LS mean, –0.87) and occurred in the placebo-to-dupilumab group (LS mean, –0.87). The dupilumab group had a greater absolute change in mean stage score at 24 weeks (histologic extent, LS mean, –0.753 vs. –0.012; P < .001) and 52 weeks (LS mean, –0.89), while the placebo-to-dupilumab group achieved a similar change at 52 weeks (LS mean, –0.87).

Endoscopic features improved in the dupilumab group as measured by endoscopic reference score at 24 weeks (LS mean, –3.2 versus –0.3; P <.001) and at 52 weeks (LS mean, –4.1). The placebo-to-dupilumab group had a similar outcome at 52 weeks (LS mean, –3.9).

Dupilumab was well tolerated, with the only significant difference in treatment-emergent adverse events being injection-site reactions and injection-site erythema.

“I thought the data was really impressive and compelling,” said Amy Oxentenko, MD, chair of medicine at the Mayo Clinic in Phoenix, who comoderated the session. “It’d be nice to have something like this that is a targeted therapy that clearly shows improvement in not only some of the symptoms and histology, but also having an impact possibly on that fibrotic piece, which I think is really the area of morbidity in these patients long term.”

If approved, dupilumab could improve compliance among patients, who sometimes struggle with taking topical steroids properly, said comoderator David Hass, MD, who is an associate clinical professor at Yale University, New Haven, Conn. He also agreed that the potential for remodeling would be a significant benefit over steroids.

One concern with dupilumab would be any potential for immune suppression. “It’s always something to think about,” Dr. Hass said.

LIBERTY EoE TREET was funded by Sanofi and Regeneron. Dr. Dellon has consulted and received research support from numerous pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Oxentenko and Dr. Hass have no relevant financial disclosures.

This article was updated Nov. 4, 2021.

LAS VEGAS –Data from the 28-week extension of the Liberty EoE TREET phase 3 clinical trial showed that the anti–interleukin-4/IL-13 antibody dupilumab led to long-term improvement in eosinophil count, histology, and patient-reported symptoms of eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) out to 28 weeks. Dupilumab is Food and Drug Administration approved for the treatment of atopic dermatitis, asthma, and chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyposis.

Many patients don’t respond to the standard therapies of proton pump inhibitors, steroids, or diet. Some evidence suggests that EoE might be driven by type 2 inflammation, and dupilumab’s effect on the shared receptor of IL-4 and IL-13 directly counters that pathway.

“The current treatments are [proton pump inhibitors], steroids, or diet – a good proportion of patients don’t respond to them. And they’re also not targeted,” Evan Dellon, MD, professor of medicine and epidemiology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, said in an interview. Dr. Dellon presented the research at the annual meeting of the American College of Gastroenterology.

“The bottom line is that people who responded up front to dupilumab maintain that response to a year, and the people on placebo gained a similar response as the people who were treated. It looked good. It was histologic, symptomatic, and endoscopic outcomes,” said Dr. Dellon.

Many of the patients in the new study were steroid refractory, making it a difficult population to treat, according to Dr. Dellon. “You can’t compare to the steroid-treated patients, but the 6-month data showed about a 60% response rate histologically, which is right up there with where steroids and diet are for easier to treat patients. So the fact that it’s a harder to treat cohort is pretty impressive from that standpoint,” said Dr. Dellon.

Data from the first 24 weeks was previously reported at UEG Week 2020 and showed that dupilumab outperformed placebo in EoE patients aged 12 years and older, with dupilumab producing better outcomes in peak esophageal intraepithelial eosinophil count and change in Dysphagia Symptom Questionnaire (DSQ) Score at 24 weeks.

At ACG 2021, Dr. Dellon reported on 52-week results, where all patients from both treated and placebo groups received dupilumab after the initial 24-week phase. Dupilumab reduced dysphagia symptoms as measured by the absolute change in DSQ score at 24 weeks (–21.9 vs. –9.6; P < .001). At 52 weeks, the dupilumab group showed a change of –23.4 from the start of the study, and the placebo-to-dupilumab group had a DSQ score change of –21.7. Dupilumab also led to a greater percentage reduction in DSQ score by 24 weeks (69.2% versus 31.7%; P < .001); at 52 weeks, the dupilumab group had a 75.9% reduction and the placebo-to-dupilumab group had a 65.9% reduction (no significant difference).

The dupilumab group had a greater proportion of patients who achieved peak esophageal eosinophil count of 6 eosinophils or less per high power field at 24 weeks (59.5% vs. 5.1%); at 52 weeks, 55.9% had achieved this measure, versus 60.0% of the placebo-to-dupilumab group. At 24 weeks, the dupilumab group had a 71.2% reduction in peak eosinophil count from baseline versus –3.0% in placebo (P < .001). At week 52, the reductions were 88.6% and 83.8%, respectively.

Histology features were improved with dupilumab. At week 24, the absolute change in histology scoring system mean grade score (histologic severity) from initial baseline was greater in the dupilumab group (least squares mean, –0.761 vs. –0.001; P < .001). The improvement continued at week 52 (LS mean, –0.87) and occurred in the placebo-to-dupilumab group (LS mean, –0.87). The dupilumab group had a greater absolute change in mean stage score at 24 weeks (histologic extent, LS mean, –0.753 vs. –0.012; P < .001) and 52 weeks (LS mean, –0.89), while the placebo-to-dupilumab group achieved a similar change at 52 weeks (LS mean, –0.87).

Endoscopic features improved in the dupilumab group as measured by endoscopic reference score at 24 weeks (LS mean, –3.2 versus –0.3; P <.001) and at 52 weeks (LS mean, –4.1). The placebo-to-dupilumab group had a similar outcome at 52 weeks (LS mean, –3.9).

Dupilumab was well tolerated, with the only significant difference in treatment-emergent adverse events being injection-site reactions and injection-site erythema.

“I thought the data was really impressive and compelling,” said Amy Oxentenko, MD, chair of medicine at the Mayo Clinic in Phoenix, who comoderated the session. “It’d be nice to have something like this that is a targeted therapy that clearly shows improvement in not only some of the symptoms and histology, but also having an impact possibly on that fibrotic piece, which I think is really the area of morbidity in these patients long term.”

If approved, dupilumab could improve compliance among patients, who sometimes struggle with taking topical steroids properly, said comoderator David Hass, MD, who is an associate clinical professor at Yale University, New Haven, Conn. He also agreed that the potential for remodeling would be a significant benefit over steroids.

One concern with dupilumab would be any potential for immune suppression. “It’s always something to think about,” Dr. Hass said.

LIBERTY EoE TREET was funded by Sanofi and Regeneron. Dr. Dellon has consulted and received research support from numerous pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Oxentenko and Dr. Hass have no relevant financial disclosures.

This article was updated Nov. 4, 2021.

Use of sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors does not appear to raise the risk for fractures in older adults, new research suggests.

The data come from a nationwide propensity score-matched study of U.S. Medicare recipients with type 2 diabetes who were new users of either an SGLT2 inhibitor, a dipeptidyl peptidase 4 (DPP-4) inhibitor, or a glucagon-like peptide (GLP-1) receptor agonist.

“The use of SGLT2 inhibitors was not associated with an increased risk of nontraumatic fractures compared with DPP-4 inhibitors or GLP-1 agonists. Results were consistent across categories of sex, frailty, age, and insulin use,” say Min Zhuo, MD, of Harvard Medical School, Boston, and colleagues, who published their work online October 27 in JAMA Network Open.

“Our results add to the evidence base evaluating the safety profile of SGLT2 inhibitors in older adults outside of [randomized controlled trials] and further characterize the risk-benefit balance of SGLT2 inhibitors in clinical practice,” they write.

Asked to comment, Simeon I. Taylor, MD, PhD, told this news organization, “This is a high-quality study that is generally reassuring that relatively short, less than 1 year, treatment with an SGLT2 inhibitor does not appear to significantly increase the risk of bone fractures.”

However, Dr. Taylor, of the Division of Endocrinology, Diabetes, and Nutrition, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, also noted: “Notwithstanding these reassuring data, the paper also does a good job of pointing out important limitations.”

“Most importantly, these data do not address questions related to the risk of long-term chronic therapy. It is instructive to refer back to the published data demonstrating an approximately 2-year lag before a significant increase in the risk of fracture was observed in rosiglitazone-treated patients in the ADOPT study. The length of the lag is likely related to the baseline bone mineral density at the time drug therapy is initiated. These considerations may contribute to the observed variation in bone-related outcomes in different studies.”

Concern about SGLT2 inhibitors and fractures first arose in 2017 from the CANVAS study, in which the overall fracture risk with canagliflozin was a significant 26% higher than placebo. However, subsequent larger randomized trials of canagliflozin and other SGLT2 inhibitors did not find the same risk.

In addition, previous observational studies in younger adults have also not found use of SGLT2 inhibitors to be associated with increased fracture risk compared with DPP-4 inhibitors or GLP-1 agonists.
 

Understanding fracture risk with SGLT2 inhibitors is ‘critical’

Older adults with type 2 diabetes may benefit from reductions in atherosclerotic cardiovascular events, hospitalization for heart failure, end-stage kidney disease, and death associated with SGLT2 inhibitors, but the fact that aging may have negative effects on bone metabolism means “understanding the fracture risk associated with SGLT2 inhibitors in older adults with type 2 diabetes is critical,” say Dr. Zhuo and colleagues.

In the current study, they analyzed claims data for Medicare beneficiaries aged 66 years and older (1 year past Medicare eligibility) who were newly prescribed an SGLT2 inhibitor, DPP-4 inhibitor, or GLP-1 agonist between April 1, 2013 and Dec. 31, 2017.

A total of 45,889 patients from each treatment group were propensity-matched using 58 baseline characteristics, for a total of 137,667 patients.

After matching, there were 501 events of the primary composite outcome (nontraumatic pelvic fracture, hip fracture requiring surgery, or humerus, radius, or ulna fracture requiring intervention) within 30 days. By treatment group, fracture rates per 1,000 person-years were 4.69, 5.26, and 4.71 for SGLT2 inhibitors, DPP-4 inhibitors, and GLP-1 agonists respectively.

The differences between patients taking DPP-4 inhibitors or GLP-1 agonists compared with SGLT2 inhibitors were not significant, with hazard ratios of 0.90 and 1.00, respectively.     

Results remained consistent in various sensitivity and subgroup analyses, including limiting the data to just the canagliflozin group. Overall, the fracture rate was greater with female sex, frailty, older age, and insulin use, consistent across drug classes.

The risks for falls and hypoglycemia were lower in the SGLT2 inhibitor versus matched DPP-4 inhibitor groups (hazard ratio, 0.82), and there was no difference in syncope. None of those differences were significant for the SGLT2 inhibitor group compared with the GLP-1 agonist group.

Consistent with previous data, the risk for diabetic ketoacidosis was higher with SGLT2 inhibitors versus DPP-4 inhibitors and GLP-1 agonists (HR, 1.29 and 1.58), and the risk for heart failure hospitalization was lower (HR, 0.42 and 0.69).

The study was funded by the Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics, department of medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School. Dr. Zhuo was supported by the National Institutes of Health National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. Dr. Taylor is a consultant for Ionis Pharmaceuticals.

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

Use of sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors does not appear to raise the risk for fractures in older adults, new research suggests.

The data come from a nationwide propensity score-matched study of U.S. Medicare recipients with type 2 diabetes who were new users of either an SGLT2 inhibitor, a dipeptidyl peptidase 4 (DPP-4) inhibitor, or a glucagon-like peptide (GLP-1) receptor agonist.

“The use of SGLT2 inhibitors was not associated with an increased risk of nontraumatic fractures compared with DPP-4 inhibitors or GLP-1 agonists. Results were consistent across categories of sex, frailty, age, and insulin use,” say Min Zhuo, MD, of Harvard Medical School, Boston, and colleagues, who published their work online October 27 in JAMA Network Open.

“Our results add to the evidence base evaluating the safety profile of SGLT2 inhibitors in older adults outside of [randomized controlled trials] and further characterize the risk-benefit balance of SGLT2 inhibitors in clinical practice,” they write.

Asked to comment, Simeon I. Taylor, MD, PhD, told this news organization, “This is a high-quality study that is generally reassuring that relatively short, less than 1 year, treatment with an SGLT2 inhibitor does not appear to significantly increase the risk of bone fractures.”

However, Dr. Taylor, of the Division of Endocrinology, Diabetes, and Nutrition, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, also noted: “Notwithstanding these reassuring data, the paper also does a good job of pointing out important limitations.”

“Most importantly, these data do not address questions related to the risk of long-term chronic therapy. It is instructive to refer back to the published data demonstrating an approximately 2-year lag before a significant increase in the risk of fracture was observed in rosiglitazone-treated patients in the ADOPT study. The length of the lag is likely related to the baseline bone mineral density at the time drug therapy is initiated. These considerations may contribute to the observed variation in bone-related outcomes in different studies.”

Concern about SGLT2 inhibitors and fractures first arose in 2017 from the CANVAS study, in which the overall fracture risk with canagliflozin was a significant 26% higher than placebo. However, subsequent larger randomized trials of canagliflozin and other SGLT2 inhibitors did not find the same risk.

In addition, previous observational studies in younger adults have also not found use of SGLT2 inhibitors to be associated with increased fracture risk compared with DPP-4 inhibitors or GLP-1 agonists.
 

Understanding fracture risk with SGLT2 inhibitors is ‘critical’

Older adults with type 2 diabetes may benefit from reductions in atherosclerotic cardiovascular events, hospitalization for heart failure, end-stage kidney disease, and death associated with SGLT2 inhibitors, but the fact that aging may have negative effects on bone metabolism means “understanding the fracture risk associated with SGLT2 inhibitors in older adults with type 2 diabetes is critical,” say Dr. Zhuo and colleagues.

In the current study, they analyzed claims data for Medicare beneficiaries aged 66 years and older (1 year past Medicare eligibility) who were newly prescribed an SGLT2 inhibitor, DPP-4 inhibitor, or GLP-1 agonist between April 1, 2013 and Dec. 31, 2017.

A total of 45,889 patients from each treatment group were propensity-matched using 58 baseline characteristics, for a total of 137,667 patients.

After matching, there were 501 events of the primary composite outcome (nontraumatic pelvic fracture, hip fracture requiring surgery, or humerus, radius, or ulna fracture requiring intervention) within 30 days. By treatment group, fracture rates per 1,000 person-years were 4.69, 5.26, and 4.71 for SGLT2 inhibitors, DPP-4 inhibitors, and GLP-1 agonists respectively.

The differences between patients taking DPP-4 inhibitors or GLP-1 agonists compared with SGLT2 inhibitors were not significant, with hazard ratios of 0.90 and 1.00, respectively.     

Results remained consistent in various sensitivity and subgroup analyses, including limiting the data to just the canagliflozin group. Overall, the fracture rate was greater with female sex, frailty, older age, and insulin use, consistent across drug classes.

The risks for falls and hypoglycemia were lower in the SGLT2 inhibitor versus matched DPP-4 inhibitor groups (hazard ratio, 0.82), and there was no difference in syncope. None of those differences were significant for the SGLT2 inhibitor group compared with the GLP-1 agonist group.

Consistent with previous data, the risk for diabetic ketoacidosis was higher with SGLT2 inhibitors versus DPP-4 inhibitors and GLP-1 agonists (HR, 1.29 and 1.58), and the risk for heart failure hospitalization was lower (HR, 0.42 and 0.69).

The study was funded by the Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics, department of medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School. Dr. Zhuo was supported by the National Institutes of Health National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. Dr. Taylor is a consultant for Ionis Pharmaceuticals.

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

Use of sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors does not appear to raise the risk for fractures in older adults, new research suggests.

The data come from a nationwide propensity score-matched study of U.S. Medicare recipients with type 2 diabetes who were new users of either an SGLT2 inhibitor, a dipeptidyl peptidase 4 (DPP-4) inhibitor, or a glucagon-like peptide (GLP-1) receptor agonist.

“The use of SGLT2 inhibitors was not associated with an increased risk of nontraumatic fractures compared with DPP-4 inhibitors or GLP-1 agonists. Results were consistent across categories of sex, frailty, age, and insulin use,” say Min Zhuo, MD, of Harvard Medical School, Boston, and colleagues, who published their work online October 27 in JAMA Network Open.

“Our results add to the evidence base evaluating the safety profile of SGLT2 inhibitors in older adults outside of [randomized controlled trials] and further characterize the risk-benefit balance of SGLT2 inhibitors in clinical practice,” they write.

Asked to comment, Simeon I. Taylor, MD, PhD, told this news organization, “This is a high-quality study that is generally reassuring that relatively short, less than 1 year, treatment with an SGLT2 inhibitor does not appear to significantly increase the risk of bone fractures.”

However, Dr. Taylor, of the Division of Endocrinology, Diabetes, and Nutrition, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, also noted: “Notwithstanding these reassuring data, the paper also does a good job of pointing out important limitations.”

“Most importantly, these data do not address questions related to the risk of long-term chronic therapy. It is instructive to refer back to the published data demonstrating an approximately 2-year lag before a significant increase in the risk of fracture was observed in rosiglitazone-treated patients in the ADOPT study. The length of the lag is likely related to the baseline bone mineral density at the time drug therapy is initiated. These considerations may contribute to the observed variation in bone-related outcomes in different studies.”

Concern about SGLT2 inhibitors and fractures first arose in 2017 from the CANVAS study, in which the overall fracture risk with canagliflozin was a significant 26% higher than placebo. However, subsequent larger randomized trials of canagliflozin and other SGLT2 inhibitors did not find the same risk.

In addition, previous observational studies in younger adults have also not found use of SGLT2 inhibitors to be associated with increased fracture risk compared with DPP-4 inhibitors or GLP-1 agonists.
 

Understanding fracture risk with SGLT2 inhibitors is ‘critical’

Older adults with type 2 diabetes may benefit from reductions in atherosclerotic cardiovascular events, hospitalization for heart failure, end-stage kidney disease, and death associated with SGLT2 inhibitors, but the fact that aging may have negative effects on bone metabolism means “understanding the fracture risk associated with SGLT2 inhibitors in older adults with type 2 diabetes is critical,” say Dr. Zhuo and colleagues.

In the current study, they analyzed claims data for Medicare beneficiaries aged 66 years and older (1 year past Medicare eligibility) who were newly prescribed an SGLT2 inhibitor, DPP-4 inhibitor, or GLP-1 agonist between April 1, 2013 and Dec. 31, 2017.

A total of 45,889 patients from each treatment group were propensity-matched using 58 baseline characteristics, for a total of 137,667 patients.

After matching, there were 501 events of the primary composite outcome (nontraumatic pelvic fracture, hip fracture requiring surgery, or humerus, radius, or ulna fracture requiring intervention) within 30 days. By treatment group, fracture rates per 1,000 person-years were 4.69, 5.26, and 4.71 for SGLT2 inhibitors, DPP-4 inhibitors, and GLP-1 agonists respectively.

The differences between patients taking DPP-4 inhibitors or GLP-1 agonists compared with SGLT2 inhibitors were not significant, with hazard ratios of 0.90 and 1.00, respectively.     

Results remained consistent in various sensitivity and subgroup analyses, including limiting the data to just the canagliflozin group. Overall, the fracture rate was greater with female sex, frailty, older age, and insulin use, consistent across drug classes.

The risks for falls and hypoglycemia were lower in the SGLT2 inhibitor versus matched DPP-4 inhibitor groups (hazard ratio, 0.82), and there was no difference in syncope. None of those differences were significant for the SGLT2 inhibitor group compared with the GLP-1 agonist group.

Consistent with previous data, the risk for diabetic ketoacidosis was higher with SGLT2 inhibitors versus DPP-4 inhibitors and GLP-1 agonists (HR, 1.29 and 1.58), and the risk for heart failure hospitalization was lower (HR, 0.42 and 0.69).

The study was funded by the Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics, department of medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School. Dr. Zhuo was supported by the National Institutes of Health National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. Dr. Taylor is a consultant for Ionis Pharmaceuticals.

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

Agents that form the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor class – including canagliflozin (Invokana), dapagliflozin (Farxiga), and empagliflozin (Jardiance) – have show remarkably consistent cardiovascular efficacy and safety for treating patients with heart failure, chronic kidney disease, and higher-risk patients with type 2 diabetes.

But despite an essential role now established for drugs in the SGLT2 inhibitor class for patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, progressive renal dysfunction, or – most recently – patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction, the scope may be less clear when using these agents in patients with type 2 diabetes because they fall across a broad spectrum of risk for cardiorenal disease.

“What makes patients with type 2 diabetes distinct from other patients in whom SGLT2 inhibitors have been studied, such as patients with heart failure, is that they have a much wider spectrum of risk. Low-risk patients with type 2 diabetes were not included in the SGLT2 inhibitor trials. Defining risk in patients with type 2 diabetes has the potential to inform prioritization” for treatment with an SGLT2 inhibitor, explained David D. Berg, MD, who has led one effort to develop risk scores that can risk-stratify patients with type 2 diabetes based on their vulnerability to incident heart failure and hospitalization for these episodes,

The hefty cost for these drugs, with retail prices that run over $6,000 annually for the most widely used and most potent agents in the class, has spurred researchers to try to find cost-effective ways to identify patients with type 2 diabetes who stand to benefit most from taking an SGLT2 inhibitor.
 

‘Cost must be considered’

“Cost must be considered, and at this point it’s probably more responsible on a societal level to advise using SGLT2 inhibitors mainly in patients [with type 2 diabetes] with compelling indications,” said Silvio Inzucchi, MD, professor and director of the Yale Medicine Diabetes Center in New Haven, Conn. Dr. Inzucchi added, however, that “I can easily foresee a day when these agents are considered foundational therapy for all patients with type 2 diabetes, after they go generic and cost is not a major issue. I’m starting to lean toward this very simplified approach, but the costs are prohibitive at this time.”

“If the SGLT2 inhibitors were available at a low cost, I’d argue that they should be used in all patients with type 2 diabetes who have no contraindications or tolerability issues; but we live in a world where they are not yet low cost,” agreed Mikhail N. Kosiborod, MD, a cardiologist and codirector of the Cardiometabolic Center of Excellence at Saint Luke’s Mid-America Heart Institute in Kansas City, Mo.

“We can’t give SGLT2 inhibitors to everyone with type 2 diabetes right now because that would be too costly; these agents are so expensive. You start by targeting the patients with the highest risk” for incident heart failure, said Ambarish Pandey, MD, a cardiologist at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas.

The spotlight the SGLT2 inhibitor class has received, based on its unexpectedly potent efficacy in cutting rates of acute heart failure episodes in patients with type 2 diabetes, has also sharply raised the profile of this complication of type 2 diabetes, an outcome that until recently many clinicians had largely ignored, overshadowed by a focus on adverse outcomes from atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease such as MIs and strokes.

“Results from the SGLT2 inhibitor trials have reignited interest in the relationship between type 2 diabetes and heart failure and have started to shift the mindset of clinicians toward thinking about reducing both atherothrombotic risk and heart failure risk in patients with type 2 diabetes,” said Dr. Berg, a cardiologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston.

“Prior to the SGLT2 inhibitor trials, heart failure was on the radar of diabetes clinicians only as something to watch for as a potential side effect of certain glucose-lowering therapies. Now that there are therapies that can lower heart failure hospitalization, it’s made us think more about heart failure, how common it is in patients with type 2 diabetes, and what can we do to lower this risk,” commented Alice Y.Y. Cheng, MD, a diabetes specialist at the University of Toronto.
 

Banking on biomarkers

Risk scores for assessing the likelihood of people developing incident heart failure date back more than a decade. More recent efforts have focused on patients with type 2 diabetes, starting with scores that relied entirely on clinical markers of risk such as prior heart failure, established coronary artery disease, and chronic kidney disease. Reports of two of these validated scores appeared in 2019, one from a team led by Dr. Berg and associates in 2019, and a second score developed by Dr. Pandey and associates.

More recently, both research teams behind these two scores validated newer versions that further refined assessment of patients with diabetes by including biomarkers of incipient heart failure, such as N-terminal of the prohormone brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP). The UT Southwestern group’s biomarker-based score relies on levels of NT-proBNP as well as on levels of high sensitivity troponin T (hsTnT) and C-reactive protein, plus ECG-based assessment of left ventricular hypertrophy to assess risk for incident heart failure. Developers reported in 2021 that this biomarker score could account for 74% (C-statistic) of the 5-year risk for heart failure among patients with diabetes.

The biomarker-based score devised by Dr. Berg and associates, relies on NT-proBNP, hsTnT, and a history of heart failure to predict the risk for a future hospitalization for heart failure. They reported in Diabetes Care that in validation testing this score accounted for 84% of the risk.

“I’m hopeful that both our original clinically-based risk score and our new biomarker-based score will be endorsed by professional society guidelines. The intent of the biomarker-based score is not to replace the clinical one,” Dr. Berg stressed in an interview. But he acknowledged that it uses biomarker values that currently are not routinely collected in U.S. practice. Biomarkers like NT-proBNP “are highly associated with future heart failure risk, but are not yet routinely assessed,” he said. Because of this, “widespread adoption of the [biomarker] risk tool will require some education.”

It may also require some sort of preliminary screening to determine the appropriateness of using it in a specific patient because of the relative expense of a test for NT-proBNP.

A Texas two-step process

“We can’t perform a [NT-proBNP] test on every patient with type 2 diabetes because cost is a huge barrier,” with a U.K. price of roughly £28 (about $40) per test, commented Naveed Sattar, MD, PhD, professor of metabolic medicine at the University of Glasgow. “NT-proBNP is the best biomarker by far to predict risk” for heart failure,” but “it’s too expensive. It’s not going to happen in everyone,” he said in an interview. He suggested taking a two-step approach to identify patients to test for NT-proBNP based on clinical measures like blood pressure, weight and height, lipid levels and renal function and the presence of suggestive symptoms like dyspnea, fatigue, and peripheral edema, an argument he recently spelled out in detail in an editorial he coauthored.

“More work is needed to define which patients would usefully have cardiac biomarkers measured,” Dr. Sattar wrote with his associate.

Two-step is the approach used in routine practice by clinicians at UT Southwestern Medical Center. “We screen all patients with type 2 diabetes and no diagnosed heart failure who are not already on an SGLT2 inhibitor” using their 2019 screening tool, called the WATCH-DM Risk score, said Dr. Pandey. Patients flagged at high risk by their clinical score receive an SGLT2 inhibitor (presuming no contraindications). The remaining patients with low or intermediate risk may then undergo biomarker-based assessment to find additional patients who warrant SGLT2 inhibitor treatment, he said in an interview.

Often, a record of the most important biomarker, NT-proBNP, is already in the patient’s record and less than a year old, in which case clinicians use that value. An NT-proBNP level of at least 125 pg/mL indicates increased risk in people with a body mass index of less than 30 kg/m², while for those with higher body mass indexes clinicians at Southwestern apply a threshold for higher risk of at least 100 pg/mL.

In addition to starting those patients on an SGLT2 inhibitor, the Southwestern protocol calls for intensified efforts at weight loss and improved fitness to further lower incident heart failure risk, and they are also considering targeting treatment with a glucagonlike peptide–1 receptor agonist to these patients as well. They have a research protocol in place, called WATCH-DM, that will prospectively assess the efficacy of this strategy.

Despite the cost, others also believe that the time is right for biomarker-based tests to boost access to the benefits that treatment with SGLT2 inhibitors can give patients with type 2 diabetes.

“In theory it’s reasonable” to use a risk score like the recent one reported by Dr. Berg and coauthors, said Vanita R. Aroda, MD, an endocrinologist and director of diabetes clinical research at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston. “We need to pay attention to heart failure as an outcome and use risk stratification” to decide which patients with type 2 diabetes but without established cardiovascular disease warrant treatment with an SGLT2 inhibitor, she said in an interview. “Given the data, we need more concrete recommendations” from medical societies on how to reasonably use biomarkers and imaging to identify patients with type 2 diabetes who are at increased risk for heart failure and hence would benefit from treatment. “This should be of high interest to guidelines committees,” she added.

The earlier version of Dr. Berg’s score, based exclusively on clinical observations and conventional measures like estimated glomerular filtration rate and urinary creatinine to albumin ratio, had overlap with established criteria for starting treatment with an SGLT2 inhibitor, such as the presence of chronic kidney disease, she noted. “A biomarker-based score may provide the additional level of discrimination needed to characterize risk and potential benefit.”
 

Asymptomatic diabetic cardiomyopathy

Dr. Aroda and several coauthors recently published a review that describes a subset of patients with type 2 diabetes who might get picked up by intensified screening for heart failure risk: those with asymptomatic diabetic cardiomyopathy, a clinical state that they said represents patients with stage B heart failure based on the new Universal Definition and Classification of Heart Failure. Until recently, these patients with type 2 diabetes and asymptomatic cardiomyopathy have mostly gone unrecognized.

A recent report from Dr. Pandey and associates reviewed records from 2,900 U.S. patients with diabetes and no symptoms who had been included in any of three cohort studies and found echocardiographic evidence of early-stage cardiomyopathy in as many as two-thirds. In an editorial about this report, Dr. Aroda and coauthors called these patients a potential “window of opportunity for prevention and treatment of heart failure.”

“There is evidence of structural cardiac changes that progress through the stages of heart failure,” and starting treatment with an SGLT2 inhibitor during an earlier stage can potentially slow or prevent this progression and thereby limit future functional decline, Dr. Aroda said.

Dr. Sattar agreed. Type 2 diabetes appears to help cause “fluid derangements” and abnormal hemodynamics that produces cardiac stress, changes in heart structure, and adverse remodeling of the heart, a process that “some call cardiomyopathy,” which is exacerbated by other pathologic forces that are also often present in these patients such as obesity and hypertension. SGLT2 inhibitors can help these patients by producing “reverse remodeling of the heart.”

“This process was neglected because for many years our focus was on ischemic heart disease in patients with type 2 diabetes. It was there in plain sight, but we were missing it,” explained Dr. Sattar. Having agents from the SGLT2 inhibitor class “has allowed us to better understand this mechanism.”

The SGLT2 inhibitors are “absolutely the driving reason” why the diabetes–heart failure link has become so important, said Dr. Inzucchi. Having drugs that reduce heart failure risk provided clinicians with a tool that has “changed our mindset.”

“Heart failure prevention has been largely neglected in patients with type 2 diabetes. Reprioritizing heart failure prevention to first and foremost among patients with type 2 diabetes is long overdue,” commented Gregg C. Fonarow, MD, professor and chief of cardiology at the University of California, Los Angeles.
 

Clinicians don’t like risk scores

Will systematic screening for heart failure risk in selected patients with type 2 diabetes take hold, and with it expanded and better-targeted use of SGLT2 inhibitors?

“I hope so,” said Dr. Kosiborod, but one challenge is that “for the most part clinicians don’t like using risk scores.” Only a few have ever been widely incorporated into practice; mostly they become tools for research. Plus, SGLT2 inhibitor uptake has in general been slow to catch on, which Dr. Kosiborod blames primarily on clinical inertia, a pervasive issue that has also hampered optimal use of drugs as commonplace as statins, ACE inhibitors, and angiotensin-receptor blockers.

“Given the avalanche of positive data, uptake of SGLT2 inhibitors will continue to improve and accelerate; but unfortunately, unless something dramatic happens we’ll likely see their continued underuse for several more years,” he predicted. “Designing better systems of care that prioritize prevention are absolutely needed to improve implementation of effective therapies, including SGLT2 inhibitors.”

Despite their underuse the SGLT2 inhibitor class has, in just 6 years since results from the EMPA-REG OUTCOME trial came out and launched the current treatment era, transformed thinking about the risk that heart failure poses to patients with type 2 diabetes and the need to manage this risk.

“I thank the SGLT2 inhibitors for raising awareness of heart failure risk in patients with diabetes,” and for giving clinicians a new way to mitigate this risk, said Dr. Cheng.

Dr. Berg has been a consultant to AstraZeneca, and received research grant support to his institution from AstraZeneca and Pfizer. Dr. Cheng has received personal fees from multiple pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Kosiborod has been an adviser and consultant to multiple pharmaceutical companies; has received research grants from AstraZeneca and Boehringer Ingelheim; and has received other research support from AstraZeneca. Dr. Pandey has been an adviser to Roche Diagnostics; has received nonfinancial support from Pfizer and Merck; and has received research support from Gilead Sciences, Myovista, and Applied Therapeutics. Dr. Sattar has received consulting honoraria from multiple pharmaceutical companies, and has received grant support from Boehringer Ingelheim, Roche Diagnostics, and Novartis. Dr. Aroda has been a consultant for several pharmaceutical companies; has a spouse employed with Janssen; and has received research support (institutional contracts) from multiple pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Fonarow has been a consultant to several pharmaceutical companies.

[email protected]

Agents that form the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor class – including canagliflozin (Invokana), dapagliflozin (Farxiga), and empagliflozin (Jardiance) – have show remarkably consistent cardiovascular efficacy and safety for treating patients with heart failure, chronic kidney disease, and higher-risk patients with type 2 diabetes.

But despite an essential role now established for drugs in the SGLT2 inhibitor class for patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, progressive renal dysfunction, or – most recently – patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction, the scope may be less clear when using these agents in patients with type 2 diabetes because they fall across a broad spectrum of risk for cardiorenal disease.

“What makes patients with type 2 diabetes distinct from other patients in whom SGLT2 inhibitors have been studied, such as patients with heart failure, is that they have a much wider spectrum of risk. Low-risk patients with type 2 diabetes were not included in the SGLT2 inhibitor trials. Defining risk in patients with type 2 diabetes has the potential to inform prioritization” for treatment with an SGLT2 inhibitor, explained David D. Berg, MD, who has led one effort to develop risk scores that can risk-stratify patients with type 2 diabetes based on their vulnerability to incident heart failure and hospitalization for these episodes,

The hefty cost for these drugs, with retail prices that run over $6,000 annually for the most widely used and most potent agents in the class, has spurred researchers to try to find cost-effective ways to identify patients with type 2 diabetes who stand to benefit most from taking an SGLT2 inhibitor.
 

‘Cost must be considered’

“Cost must be considered, and at this point it’s probably more responsible on a societal level to advise using SGLT2 inhibitors mainly in patients [with type 2 diabetes] with compelling indications,” said Silvio Inzucchi, MD, professor and director of the Yale Medicine Diabetes Center in New Haven, Conn. Dr. Inzucchi added, however, that “I can easily foresee a day when these agents are considered foundational therapy for all patients with type 2 diabetes, after they go generic and cost is not a major issue. I’m starting to lean toward this very simplified approach, but the costs are prohibitive at this time.”

“If the SGLT2 inhibitors were available at a low cost, I’d argue that they should be used in all patients with type 2 diabetes who have no contraindications or tolerability issues; but we live in a world where they are not yet low cost,” agreed Mikhail N. Kosiborod, MD, a cardiologist and codirector of the Cardiometabolic Center of Excellence at Saint Luke’s Mid-America Heart Institute in Kansas City, Mo.

“We can’t give SGLT2 inhibitors to everyone with type 2 diabetes right now because that would be too costly; these agents are so expensive. You start by targeting the patients with the highest risk” for incident heart failure, said Ambarish Pandey, MD, a cardiologist at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas.

The spotlight the SGLT2 inhibitor class has received, based on its unexpectedly potent efficacy in cutting rates of acute heart failure episodes in patients with type 2 diabetes, has also sharply raised the profile of this complication of type 2 diabetes, an outcome that until recently many clinicians had largely ignored, overshadowed by a focus on adverse outcomes from atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease such as MIs and strokes.

“Results from the SGLT2 inhibitor trials have reignited interest in the relationship between type 2 diabetes and heart failure and have started to shift the mindset of clinicians toward thinking about reducing both atherothrombotic risk and heart failure risk in patients with type 2 diabetes,” said Dr. Berg, a cardiologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston.

“Prior to the SGLT2 inhibitor trials, heart failure was on the radar of diabetes clinicians only as something to watch for as a potential side effect of certain glucose-lowering therapies. Now that there are therapies that can lower heart failure hospitalization, it’s made us think more about heart failure, how common it is in patients with type 2 diabetes, and what can we do to lower this risk,” commented Alice Y.Y. Cheng, MD, a diabetes specialist at the University of Toronto.
 

Banking on biomarkers

Risk scores for assessing the likelihood of people developing incident heart failure date back more than a decade. More recent efforts have focused on patients with type 2 diabetes, starting with scores that relied entirely on clinical markers of risk such as prior heart failure, established coronary artery disease, and chronic kidney disease. Reports of two of these validated scores appeared in 2019, one from a team led by Dr. Berg and associates in 2019, and a second score developed by Dr. Pandey and associates.

More recently, both research teams behind these two scores validated newer versions that further refined assessment of patients with diabetes by including biomarkers of incipient heart failure, such as N-terminal of the prohormone brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP). The UT Southwestern group’s biomarker-based score relies on levels of NT-proBNP as well as on levels of high sensitivity troponin T (hsTnT) and C-reactive protein, plus ECG-based assessment of left ventricular hypertrophy to assess risk for incident heart failure. Developers reported in 2021 that this biomarker score could account for 74% (C-statistic) of the 5-year risk for heart failure among patients with diabetes.

The biomarker-based score devised by Dr. Berg and associates, relies on NT-proBNP, hsTnT, and a history of heart failure to predict the risk for a future hospitalization for heart failure. They reported in Diabetes Care that in validation testing this score accounted for 84% of the risk.

“I’m hopeful that both our original clinically-based risk score and our new biomarker-based score will be endorsed by professional society guidelines. The intent of the biomarker-based score is not to replace the clinical one,” Dr. Berg stressed in an interview. But he acknowledged that it uses biomarker values that currently are not routinely collected in U.S. practice. Biomarkers like NT-proBNP “are highly associated with future heart failure risk, but are not yet routinely assessed,” he said. Because of this, “widespread adoption of the [biomarker] risk tool will require some education.”

It may also require some sort of preliminary screening to determine the appropriateness of using it in a specific patient because of the relative expense of a test for NT-proBNP.

A Texas two-step process

“We can’t perform a [NT-proBNP] test on every patient with type 2 diabetes because cost is a huge barrier,” with a U.K. price of roughly £28 (about $40) per test, commented Naveed Sattar, MD, PhD, professor of metabolic medicine at the University of Glasgow. “NT-proBNP is the best biomarker by far to predict risk” for heart failure,” but “it’s too expensive. It’s not going to happen in everyone,” he said in an interview. He suggested taking a two-step approach to identify patients to test for NT-proBNP based on clinical measures like blood pressure, weight and height, lipid levels and renal function and the presence of suggestive symptoms like dyspnea, fatigue, and peripheral edema, an argument he recently spelled out in detail in an editorial he coauthored.

“More work is needed to define which patients would usefully have cardiac biomarkers measured,” Dr. Sattar wrote with his associate.

Two-step is the approach used in routine practice by clinicians at UT Southwestern Medical Center. “We screen all patients with type 2 diabetes and no diagnosed heart failure who are not already on an SGLT2 inhibitor” using their 2019 screening tool, called the WATCH-DM Risk score, said Dr. Pandey. Patients flagged at high risk by their clinical score receive an SGLT2 inhibitor (presuming no contraindications). The remaining patients with low or intermediate risk may then undergo biomarker-based assessment to find additional patients who warrant SGLT2 inhibitor treatment, he said in an interview.

Often, a record of the most important biomarker, NT-proBNP, is already in the patient’s record and less than a year old, in which case clinicians use that value. An NT-proBNP level of at least 125 pg/mL indicates increased risk in people with a body mass index of less than 30 kg/m², while for those with higher body mass indexes clinicians at Southwestern apply a threshold for higher risk of at least 100 pg/mL.

In addition to starting those patients on an SGLT2 inhibitor, the Southwestern protocol calls for intensified efforts at weight loss and improved fitness to further lower incident heart failure risk, and they are also considering targeting treatment with a glucagonlike peptide–1 receptor agonist to these patients as well. They have a research protocol in place, called WATCH-DM, that will prospectively assess the efficacy of this strategy.

Despite the cost, others also believe that the time is right for biomarker-based tests to boost access to the benefits that treatment with SGLT2 inhibitors can give patients with type 2 diabetes.

“In theory it’s reasonable” to use a risk score like the recent one reported by Dr. Berg and coauthors, said Vanita R. Aroda, MD, an endocrinologist and director of diabetes clinical research at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston. “We need to pay attention to heart failure as an outcome and use risk stratification” to decide which patients with type 2 diabetes but without established cardiovascular disease warrant treatment with an SGLT2 inhibitor, she said in an interview. “Given the data, we need more concrete recommendations” from medical societies on how to reasonably use biomarkers and imaging to identify patients with type 2 diabetes who are at increased risk for heart failure and hence would benefit from treatment. “This should be of high interest to guidelines committees,” she added.

The earlier version of Dr. Berg’s score, based exclusively on clinical observations and conventional measures like estimated glomerular filtration rate and urinary creatinine to albumin ratio, had overlap with established criteria for starting treatment with an SGLT2 inhibitor, such as the presence of chronic kidney disease, she noted. “A biomarker-based score may provide the additional level of discrimination needed to characterize risk and potential benefit.”
 

Asymptomatic diabetic cardiomyopathy

Dr. Aroda and several coauthors recently published a review that describes a subset of patients with type 2 diabetes who might get picked up by intensified screening for heart failure risk: those with asymptomatic diabetic cardiomyopathy, a clinical state that they said represents patients with stage B heart failure based on the new Universal Definition and Classification of Heart Failure. Until recently, these patients with type 2 diabetes and asymptomatic cardiomyopathy have mostly gone unrecognized.

A recent report from Dr. Pandey and associates reviewed records from 2,900 U.S. patients with diabetes and no symptoms who had been included in any of three cohort studies and found echocardiographic evidence of early-stage cardiomyopathy in as many as two-thirds. In an editorial about this report, Dr. Aroda and coauthors called these patients a potential “window of opportunity for prevention and treatment of heart failure.”

“There is evidence of structural cardiac changes that progress through the stages of heart failure,” and starting treatment with an SGLT2 inhibitor during an earlier stage can potentially slow or prevent this progression and thereby limit future functional decline, Dr. Aroda said.

Dr. Sattar agreed. Type 2 diabetes appears to help cause “fluid derangements” and abnormal hemodynamics that produces cardiac stress, changes in heart structure, and adverse remodeling of the heart, a process that “some call cardiomyopathy,” which is exacerbated by other pathologic forces that are also often present in these patients such as obesity and hypertension. SGLT2 inhibitors can help these patients by producing “reverse remodeling of the heart.”

“This process was neglected because for many years our focus was on ischemic heart disease in patients with type 2 diabetes. It was there in plain sight, but we were missing it,” explained Dr. Sattar. Having agents from the SGLT2 inhibitor class “has allowed us to better understand this mechanism.”

The SGLT2 inhibitors are “absolutely the driving reason” why the diabetes–heart failure link has become so important, said Dr. Inzucchi. Having drugs that reduce heart failure risk provided clinicians with a tool that has “changed our mindset.”

“Heart failure prevention has been largely neglected in patients with type 2 diabetes. Reprioritizing heart failure prevention to first and foremost among patients with type 2 diabetes is long overdue,” commented Gregg C. Fonarow, MD, professor and chief of cardiology at the University of California, Los Angeles.
 

Clinicians don’t like risk scores

Will systematic screening for heart failure risk in selected patients with type 2 diabetes take hold, and with it expanded and better-targeted use of SGLT2 inhibitors?

“I hope so,” said Dr. Kosiborod, but one challenge is that “for the most part clinicians don’t like using risk scores.” Only a few have ever been widely incorporated into practice; mostly they become tools for research. Plus, SGLT2 inhibitor uptake has in general been slow to catch on, which Dr. Kosiborod blames primarily on clinical inertia, a pervasive issue that has also hampered optimal use of drugs as commonplace as statins, ACE inhibitors, and angiotensin-receptor blockers.

“Given the avalanche of positive data, uptake of SGLT2 inhibitors will continue to improve and accelerate; but unfortunately, unless something dramatic happens we’ll likely see their continued underuse for several more years,” he predicted. “Designing better systems of care that prioritize prevention are absolutely needed to improve implementation of effective therapies, including SGLT2 inhibitors.”

Despite their underuse the SGLT2 inhibitor class has, in just 6 years since results from the EMPA-REG OUTCOME trial came out and launched the current treatment era, transformed thinking about the risk that heart failure poses to patients with type 2 diabetes and the need to manage this risk.

“I thank the SGLT2 inhibitors for raising awareness of heart failure risk in patients with diabetes,” and for giving clinicians a new way to mitigate this risk, said Dr. Cheng.

Dr. Berg has been a consultant to AstraZeneca, and received research grant support to his institution from AstraZeneca and Pfizer. Dr. Cheng has received personal fees from multiple pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Kosiborod has been an adviser and consultant to multiple pharmaceutical companies; has received research grants from AstraZeneca and Boehringer Ingelheim; and has received other research support from AstraZeneca. Dr. Pandey has been an adviser to Roche Diagnostics; has received nonfinancial support from Pfizer and Merck; and has received research support from Gilead Sciences, Myovista, and Applied Therapeutics. Dr. Sattar has received consulting honoraria from multiple pharmaceutical companies, and has received grant support from Boehringer Ingelheim, Roche Diagnostics, and Novartis. Dr. Aroda has been a consultant for several pharmaceutical companies; has a spouse employed with Janssen; and has received research support (institutional contracts) from multiple pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Fonarow has been a consultant to several pharmaceutical companies.

[email protected]

Agents that form the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor class – including canagliflozin (Invokana), dapagliflozin (Farxiga), and empagliflozin (Jardiance) – have show remarkably consistent cardiovascular efficacy and safety for treating patients with heart failure, chronic kidney disease, and higher-risk patients with type 2 diabetes.

But despite an essential role now established for drugs in the SGLT2 inhibitor class for patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, progressive renal dysfunction, or – most recently – patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction, the scope may be less clear when using these agents in patients with type 2 diabetes because they fall across a broad spectrum of risk for cardiorenal disease.

“What makes patients with type 2 diabetes distinct from other patients in whom SGLT2 inhibitors have been studied, such as patients with heart failure, is that they have a much wider spectrum of risk. Low-risk patients with type 2 diabetes were not included in the SGLT2 inhibitor trials. Defining risk in patients with type 2 diabetes has the potential to inform prioritization” for treatment with an SGLT2 inhibitor, explained David D. Berg, MD, who has led one effort to develop risk scores that can risk-stratify patients with type 2 diabetes based on their vulnerability to incident heart failure and hospitalization for these episodes,

The hefty cost for these drugs, with retail prices that run over $6,000 annually for the most widely used and most potent agents in the class, has spurred researchers to try to find cost-effective ways to identify patients with type 2 diabetes who stand to benefit most from taking an SGLT2 inhibitor.
 

‘Cost must be considered’

“Cost must be considered, and at this point it’s probably more responsible on a societal level to advise using SGLT2 inhibitors mainly in patients [with type 2 diabetes] with compelling indications,” said Silvio Inzucchi, MD, professor and director of the Yale Medicine Diabetes Center in New Haven, Conn. Dr. Inzucchi added, however, that “I can easily foresee a day when these agents are considered foundational therapy for all patients with type 2 diabetes, after they go generic and cost is not a major issue. I’m starting to lean toward this very simplified approach, but the costs are prohibitive at this time.”

“If the SGLT2 inhibitors were available at a low cost, I’d argue that they should be used in all patients with type 2 diabetes who have no contraindications or tolerability issues; but we live in a world where they are not yet low cost,” agreed Mikhail N. Kosiborod, MD, a cardiologist and codirector of the Cardiometabolic Center of Excellence at Saint Luke’s Mid-America Heart Institute in Kansas City, Mo.

“We can’t give SGLT2 inhibitors to everyone with type 2 diabetes right now because that would be too costly; these agents are so expensive. You start by targeting the patients with the highest risk” for incident heart failure, said Ambarish Pandey, MD, a cardiologist at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas.

The spotlight the SGLT2 inhibitor class has received, based on its unexpectedly potent efficacy in cutting rates of acute heart failure episodes in patients with type 2 diabetes, has also sharply raised the profile of this complication of type 2 diabetes, an outcome that until recently many clinicians had largely ignored, overshadowed by a focus on adverse outcomes from atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease such as MIs and strokes.

“Results from the SGLT2 inhibitor trials have reignited interest in the relationship between type 2 diabetes and heart failure and have started to shift the mindset of clinicians toward thinking about reducing both atherothrombotic risk and heart failure risk in patients with type 2 diabetes,” said Dr. Berg, a cardiologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston.

“Prior to the SGLT2 inhibitor trials, heart failure was on the radar of diabetes clinicians only as something to watch for as a potential side effect of certain glucose-lowering therapies. Now that there are therapies that can lower heart failure hospitalization, it’s made us think more about heart failure, how common it is in patients with type 2 diabetes, and what can we do to lower this risk,” commented Alice Y.Y. Cheng, MD, a diabetes specialist at the University of Toronto.
 

Banking on biomarkers

Risk scores for assessing the likelihood of people developing incident heart failure date back more than a decade. More recent efforts have focused on patients with type 2 diabetes, starting with scores that relied entirely on clinical markers of risk such as prior heart failure, established coronary artery disease, and chronic kidney disease. Reports of two of these validated scores appeared in 2019, one from a team led by Dr. Berg and associates in 2019, and a second score developed by Dr. Pandey and associates.

More recently, both research teams behind these two scores validated newer versions that further refined assessment of patients with diabetes by including biomarkers of incipient heart failure, such as N-terminal of the prohormone brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP). The UT Southwestern group’s biomarker-based score relies on levels of NT-proBNP as well as on levels of high sensitivity troponin T (hsTnT) and C-reactive protein, plus ECG-based assessment of left ventricular hypertrophy to assess risk for incident heart failure. Developers reported in 2021 that this biomarker score could account for 74% (C-statistic) of the 5-year risk for heart failure among patients with diabetes.

The biomarker-based score devised by Dr. Berg and associates, relies on NT-proBNP, hsTnT, and a history of heart failure to predict the risk for a future hospitalization for heart failure. They reported in Diabetes Care that in validation testing this score accounted for 84% of the risk.

“I’m hopeful that both our original clinically-based risk score and our new biomarker-based score will be endorsed by professional society guidelines. The intent of the biomarker-based score is not to replace the clinical one,” Dr. Berg stressed in an interview. But he acknowledged that it uses biomarker values that currently are not routinely collected in U.S. practice. Biomarkers like NT-proBNP “are highly associated with future heart failure risk, but are not yet routinely assessed,” he said. Because of this, “widespread adoption of the [biomarker] risk tool will require some education.”

It may also require some sort of preliminary screening to determine the appropriateness of using it in a specific patient because of the relative expense of a test for NT-proBNP.

A Texas two-step process

“We can’t perform a [NT-proBNP] test on every patient with type 2 diabetes because cost is a huge barrier,” with a U.K. price of roughly £28 (about $40) per test, commented Naveed Sattar, MD, PhD, professor of metabolic medicine at the University of Glasgow. “NT-proBNP is the best biomarker by far to predict risk” for heart failure,” but “it’s too expensive. It’s not going to happen in everyone,” he said in an interview. He suggested taking a two-step approach to identify patients to test for NT-proBNP based on clinical measures like blood pressure, weight and height, lipid levels and renal function and the presence of suggestive symptoms like dyspnea, fatigue, and peripheral edema, an argument he recently spelled out in detail in an editorial he coauthored.

“More work is needed to define which patients would usefully have cardiac biomarkers measured,” Dr. Sattar wrote with his associate.

Two-step is the approach used in routine practice by clinicians at UT Southwestern Medical Center. “We screen all patients with type 2 diabetes and no diagnosed heart failure who are not already on an SGLT2 inhibitor” using their 2019 screening tool, called the WATCH-DM Risk score, said Dr. Pandey. Patients flagged at high risk by their clinical score receive an SGLT2 inhibitor (presuming no contraindications). The remaining patients with low or intermediate risk may then undergo biomarker-based assessment to find additional patients who warrant SGLT2 inhibitor treatment, he said in an interview.

Often, a record of the most important biomarker, NT-proBNP, is already in the patient’s record and less than a year old, in which case clinicians use that value. An NT-proBNP level of at least 125 pg/mL indicates increased risk in people with a body mass index of less than 30 kg/m², while for those with higher body mass indexes clinicians at Southwestern apply a threshold for higher risk of at least 100 pg/mL.

In addition to starting those patients on an SGLT2 inhibitor, the Southwestern protocol calls for intensified efforts at weight loss and improved fitness to further lower incident heart failure risk, and they are also considering targeting treatment with a glucagonlike peptide–1 receptor agonist to these patients as well. They have a research protocol in place, called WATCH-DM, that will prospectively assess the efficacy of this strategy.

Despite the cost, others also believe that the time is right for biomarker-based tests to boost access to the benefits that treatment with SGLT2 inhibitors can give patients with type 2 diabetes.

“In theory it’s reasonable” to use a risk score like the recent one reported by Dr. Berg and coauthors, said Vanita R. Aroda, MD, an endocrinologist and director of diabetes clinical research at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston. “We need to pay attention to heart failure as an outcome and use risk stratification” to decide which patients with type 2 diabetes but without established cardiovascular disease warrant treatment with an SGLT2 inhibitor, she said in an interview. “Given the data, we need more concrete recommendations” from medical societies on how to reasonably use biomarkers and imaging to identify patients with type 2 diabetes who are at increased risk for heart failure and hence would benefit from treatment. “This should be of high interest to guidelines committees,” she added.

The earlier version of Dr. Berg’s score, based exclusively on clinical observations and conventional measures like estimated glomerular filtration rate and urinary creatinine to albumin ratio, had overlap with established criteria for starting treatment with an SGLT2 inhibitor, such as the presence of chronic kidney disease, she noted. “A biomarker-based score may provide the additional level of discrimination needed to characterize risk and potential benefit.”
 

Asymptomatic diabetic cardiomyopathy

Dr. Aroda and several coauthors recently published a review that describes a subset of patients with type 2 diabetes who might get picked up by intensified screening for heart failure risk: those with asymptomatic diabetic cardiomyopathy, a clinical state that they said represents patients with stage B heart failure based on the new Universal Definition and Classification of Heart Failure. Until recently, these patients with type 2 diabetes and asymptomatic cardiomyopathy have mostly gone unrecognized.

A recent report from Dr. Pandey and associates reviewed records from 2,900 U.S. patients with diabetes and no symptoms who had been included in any of three cohort studies and found echocardiographic evidence of early-stage cardiomyopathy in as many as two-thirds. In an editorial about this report, Dr. Aroda and coauthors called these patients a potential “window of opportunity for prevention and treatment of heart failure.”

“There is evidence of structural cardiac changes that progress through the stages of heart failure,” and starting treatment with an SGLT2 inhibitor during an earlier stage can potentially slow or prevent this progression and thereby limit future functional decline, Dr. Aroda said.

Dr. Sattar agreed. Type 2 diabetes appears to help cause “fluid derangements” and abnormal hemodynamics that produces cardiac stress, changes in heart structure, and adverse remodeling of the heart, a process that “some call cardiomyopathy,” which is exacerbated by other pathologic forces that are also often present in these patients such as obesity and hypertension. SGLT2 inhibitors can help these patients by producing “reverse remodeling of the heart.”

“This process was neglected because for many years our focus was on ischemic heart disease in patients with type 2 diabetes. It was there in plain sight, but we were missing it,” explained Dr. Sattar. Having agents from the SGLT2 inhibitor class “has allowed us to better understand this mechanism.”

The SGLT2 inhibitors are “absolutely the driving reason” why the diabetes–heart failure link has become so important, said Dr. Inzucchi. Having drugs that reduce heart failure risk provided clinicians with a tool that has “changed our mindset.”

“Heart failure prevention has been largely neglected in patients with type 2 diabetes. Reprioritizing heart failure prevention to first and foremost among patients with type 2 diabetes is long overdue,” commented Gregg C. Fonarow, MD, professor and chief of cardiology at the University of California, Los Angeles.
 

Clinicians don’t like risk scores

Will systematic screening for heart failure risk in selected patients with type 2 diabetes take hold, and with it expanded and better-targeted use of SGLT2 inhibitors?

“I hope so,” said Dr. Kosiborod, but one challenge is that “for the most part clinicians don’t like using risk scores.” Only a few have ever been widely incorporated into practice; mostly they become tools for research. Plus, SGLT2 inhibitor uptake has in general been slow to catch on, which Dr. Kosiborod blames primarily on clinical inertia, a pervasive issue that has also hampered optimal use of drugs as commonplace as statins, ACE inhibitors, and angiotensin-receptor blockers.

“Given the avalanche of positive data, uptake of SGLT2 inhibitors will continue to improve and accelerate; but unfortunately, unless something dramatic happens we’ll likely see their continued underuse for several more years,” he predicted. “Designing better systems of care that prioritize prevention are absolutely needed to improve implementation of effective therapies, including SGLT2 inhibitors.”

Despite their underuse the SGLT2 inhibitor class has, in just 6 years since results from the EMPA-REG OUTCOME trial came out and launched the current treatment era, transformed thinking about the risk that heart failure poses to patients with type 2 diabetes and the need to manage this risk.

“I thank the SGLT2 inhibitors for raising awareness of heart failure risk in patients with diabetes,” and for giving clinicians a new way to mitigate this risk, said Dr. Cheng.

Dr. Berg has been a consultant to AstraZeneca, and received research grant support to his institution from AstraZeneca and Pfizer. Dr. Cheng has received personal fees from multiple pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Kosiborod has been an adviser and consultant to multiple pharmaceutical companies; has received research grants from AstraZeneca and Boehringer Ingelheim; and has received other research support from AstraZeneca. Dr. Pandey has been an adviser to Roche Diagnostics; has received nonfinancial support from Pfizer and Merck; and has received research support from Gilead Sciences, Myovista, and Applied Therapeutics. Dr. Sattar has received consulting honoraria from multiple pharmaceutical companies, and has received grant support from Boehringer Ingelheim, Roche Diagnostics, and Novartis. Dr. Aroda has been a consultant for several pharmaceutical companies; has a spouse employed with Janssen; and has received research support (institutional contracts) from multiple pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Fonarow has been a consultant to several pharmaceutical companies.

[email protected]

Among patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (IMIDs) who get COVID-19, the risk for hospitalization and death is lower if they are receiving tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitor monotherapy, compared with receiving most other common drugs for these conditions, with or without TNF inhibitors, according to a study published in JAMA Network Open The only combination not associated with an increased risk for hospitalization or death was TNF inhibitor therapy with methotrexate.

“These findings support the continued use of TNF inhibitor monotherapy during the pandemic and warrant further research investigating the association of other biologic therapies with COVID-19 outcomes,” write Zara Izadi, MPharm, of the University of California, San Francisco, and her colleagues. “Treatment with TNF inhibitor combination therapy was associated with a more favorable safety profile when methotrexate rather than azathioprine/6-mercaptopurine was used, suggesting that clinicians would benefit from weighing the risks versus benefits of deescalating treatment or changing medications when a patient is receiving concomitant TNF inhibitors and azathioprine/6-mercaptopurine,” they write.
 

Findings mirror those seen in other settings

These findings are in line with what has been found in other settings, according to Joel M. Gelfand, MD, director of the psoriasis and phototherapy treatment center, vice chair of clinical research, and medical director of the dermatology clinical studies unit at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

“In the beginning of the pandemic, there was concern about use of immune-modulating treatments, and many patients self-discontinued treatments like TNF inhibitors,” Dr. Gelfand, who was not involved in the study, told this news organization. “This has ultimately proved unnecessary and unfortunately resulted in harm to many patients due to flaring of their underlying disease.”

Dr. Gelfand emphasized the importance of vaccinating patients against COVID-19 as soon as possible and of getting a third dose for those who are already fully vaccinated with the Pfizer or Moderna shots, as recommended by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

“I typically recommend this third dose be taken 6 months after the second dose,” Dr. Gelfand said. “The good news is that TNF inhibitors do not seem to meaningfully impact response to mRNA vaccines.”
 

Study details

The researchers analyzed data from three international registries of adults with rheumatic diseases, inflammatory bowel disease, and psoriasis who had COVID-19 between March 12, 2020, and Feb. 1, 2021. The registries included the Secure Epidemiology of Coronavirus Under Research Exclusion for Inflammatory Bowel Disease (SECURE-IBD) registry, the Psoriasis Patient Registry for Outcomes, Therapy and Epidemiology of COVID-19 Infection (PsoProtect), and the physician-reported registry from the Global Rheumatology Alliance (GRA).

The population included 6,077 patients from 74 countries. About half of the cohort (52.9%) were from Europe; more than half were women (58.6%). The average age was 48 years. A little over one-third of the patients (35.3%) had rheumatoid arthritis, 25.3% had Crohn’s disease, 12.5% had ulcerative colitis, 10.3% had spondyloarthritis, and 9.3% had psoriatic arthritis. Smaller percentages had psoriasis (4.9%), another type of arthritis or multiple types (1.7%), or another inflammatory bowel disease (0.6%).

One in five patients (21.3%) were hospitalized, and 3.1% died. The researchers compared outcomes for those who were receiving TNF inhibitor therapy alone to outcomes for those who were taking azathioprine/6-mercaptopurine therapy (alone or with a TNF inhibitor), methotrexate (alone or with a TNF inhibitor), and Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors. They adjusted their analysis to account for active disease and common comorbidities, as well as geography and the period during the pandemic in which the person was admitted, because treatment regimens and hospitalization indications have varied over time.

All of the therapies except the combination of TNF inhibitors and methotrexate were associated with higher odds of hospitalization and death than TNF inhibitor monotherapy.

The researchers explored several possible explanations for the findings, including the possibility that high serum TNF concentrations may have been associated with more organ damage at the time of COVID-19 admission, owing to interaction with SARS-CoV-2–associated hyperinflammation.

“Therefore, blocking TNF could inhibit this detrimental immune response,” the authors write. “Multiple case series reporting favorable outcomes among patients receiving TNF inhibitor therapy support this assertion.”

Another possibility relates to the effects of taking non–TNF inhibitor medications for immunosuppression. The authors note that thiopurine medications are linked to a greater risk for opportunistic viral infections and that JAK inhibitors may reduce the body’s ability to clear the virus because of its suppression of innate immune response.

The authors also postulate that methotrexate may lower the likelihood of cytokine storm linked to COVID-19, even though methotrexate monotherapy was associated with poorer outcomes. “This association could mean that TNF inhibitor therapy is exerting a protective benefit or that methotrexate therapy is exerting a harmful consequence,” the authors write.

 

Caution needed in interpreting uncontrolled, registry-based data

The findings were not surprising to Stephen B. Hanauer, MD, medical director of the Digestive Health Center at Northwestern University, Chicago, who was not involved in the research.

Northwestern University

“We’ve been monitoring IBD [inflammatory bowel disease] patients through the Secure registry similar to the rheumatologic and dermatologic societies and have not identified a signal of harm from any international groups,” Dr. Hanauer told this news organization. He noted that these registries also have not shown an increased risk for COVID-19 complications among patients receiving TNF inhibitors, antiadhesion therapies, or anti–IL12/23 inhibitors, compared with the general population not taking these therapies.

The study’s size and the diversity of patients strengthen its findings. However, the registries’ use of convenience sampling increases the potential for reporting bias, although the results remained similar after a sensitivity analysis. The study also lacked a control group, and the registries did not collect data uniformly.

“These are databases that rely on reporting from investigators and are not comprehensive prospective studies,” Dr. Hanauer noted as another study limitation.

Dr. Gelfand similarly advised caution in interpreting these findings, inasmuch as the study is a “collection of spontaneous reports” that should be viewed as hypothesis-generating rather than testing.

“Fortunately, more rigorous studies have been conducted, typically in large medical record systems, and have confirmed the hypothesis that TNF inhibitors are associated with a lower risk of poor COVID-19 outcomes, compared to other treatments,” Dr. Gelfand said.

Previous smaller studies similarly found better outcomes among patients taking TNF inhibitors, compared with other therapies, but their participants were predominantly from North America and Europe, noted Licio A. Velloso, MD, PhD, of the University of Campinas, in São Paulo, in an accompanying commentary.

On the basis of the findings of this study, “which included a much larger sample comprising distinct diseases and patients with a multitude of genetic backgrounds, the evidence in favor of the continued use of TNF inhibitor monotherapy for patients with IMIDs during the COVID-19 pandemic has become more substantial,” Dr. Velloso writes. “The finding that maintenance of TNF inhibitor monotherapy is associated with reductions in the risk of severe COVID-19 among patients with IMIDs offers new perspective that may guide health care professionals in the difficult decisions regarding therapeutic approaches among this specific group of patients.”

The research was funded by the American College of Rheumatology, the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology, the United Kingdom’s National Institute for Health Research Biomedical Research Center, and the Psoriasis Association. Many authors reported receiving grants and/or personal fees from a variety of pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Velloso has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Hanauer has served as a consultant to companies that market TNF inhibitors. Dr. Gelfand has consulted for and received research grants from companies that market TNF inhibitors.

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

Among patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (IMIDs) who get COVID-19, the risk for hospitalization and death is lower if they are receiving tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitor monotherapy, compared with receiving most other common drugs for these conditions, with or without TNF inhibitors, according to a study published in JAMA Network Open The only combination not associated with an increased risk for hospitalization or death was TNF inhibitor therapy with methotrexate.

“These findings support the continued use of TNF inhibitor monotherapy during the pandemic and warrant further research investigating the association of other biologic therapies with COVID-19 outcomes,” write Zara Izadi, MPharm, of the University of California, San Francisco, and her colleagues. “Treatment with TNF inhibitor combination therapy was associated with a more favorable safety profile when methotrexate rather than azathioprine/6-mercaptopurine was used, suggesting that clinicians would benefit from weighing the risks versus benefits of deescalating treatment or changing medications when a patient is receiving concomitant TNF inhibitors and azathioprine/6-mercaptopurine,” they write.
 

Findings mirror those seen in other settings

These findings are in line with what has been found in other settings, according to Joel M. Gelfand, MD, director of the psoriasis and phototherapy treatment center, vice chair of clinical research, and medical director of the dermatology clinical studies unit at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

“In the beginning of the pandemic, there was concern about use of immune-modulating treatments, and many patients self-discontinued treatments like TNF inhibitors,” Dr. Gelfand, who was not involved in the study, told this news organization. “This has ultimately proved unnecessary and unfortunately resulted in harm to many patients due to flaring of their underlying disease.”

Dr. Gelfand emphasized the importance of vaccinating patients against COVID-19 as soon as possible and of getting a third dose for those who are already fully vaccinated with the Pfizer or Moderna shots, as recommended by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

“I typically recommend this third dose be taken 6 months after the second dose,” Dr. Gelfand said. “The good news is that TNF inhibitors do not seem to meaningfully impact response to mRNA vaccines.”
 

Study details

The researchers analyzed data from three international registries of adults with rheumatic diseases, inflammatory bowel disease, and psoriasis who had COVID-19 between March 12, 2020, and Feb. 1, 2021. The registries included the Secure Epidemiology of Coronavirus Under Research Exclusion for Inflammatory Bowel Disease (SECURE-IBD) registry, the Psoriasis Patient Registry for Outcomes, Therapy and Epidemiology of COVID-19 Infection (PsoProtect), and the physician-reported registry from the Global Rheumatology Alliance (GRA).

The population included 6,077 patients from 74 countries. About half of the cohort (52.9%) were from Europe; more than half were women (58.6%). The average age was 48 years. A little over one-third of the patients (35.3%) had rheumatoid arthritis, 25.3% had Crohn’s disease, 12.5% had ulcerative colitis, 10.3% had spondyloarthritis, and 9.3% had psoriatic arthritis. Smaller percentages had psoriasis (4.9%), another type of arthritis or multiple types (1.7%), or another inflammatory bowel disease (0.6%).

One in five patients (21.3%) were hospitalized, and 3.1% died. The researchers compared outcomes for those who were receiving TNF inhibitor therapy alone to outcomes for those who were taking azathioprine/6-mercaptopurine therapy (alone or with a TNF inhibitor), methotrexate (alone or with a TNF inhibitor), and Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors. They adjusted their analysis to account for active disease and common comorbidities, as well as geography and the period during the pandemic in which the person was admitted, because treatment regimens and hospitalization indications have varied over time.

All of the therapies except the combination of TNF inhibitors and methotrexate were associated with higher odds of hospitalization and death than TNF inhibitor monotherapy.

The researchers explored several possible explanations for the findings, including the possibility that high serum TNF concentrations may have been associated with more organ damage at the time of COVID-19 admission, owing to interaction with SARS-CoV-2–associated hyperinflammation.

“Therefore, blocking TNF could inhibit this detrimental immune response,” the authors write. “Multiple case series reporting favorable outcomes among patients receiving TNF inhibitor therapy support this assertion.”

Another possibility relates to the effects of taking non–TNF inhibitor medications for immunosuppression. The authors note that thiopurine medications are linked to a greater risk for opportunistic viral infections and that JAK inhibitors may reduce the body’s ability to clear the virus because of its suppression of innate immune response.

The authors also postulate that methotrexate may lower the likelihood of cytokine storm linked to COVID-19, even though methotrexate monotherapy was associated with poorer outcomes. “This association could mean that TNF inhibitor therapy is exerting a protective benefit or that methotrexate therapy is exerting a harmful consequence,” the authors write.

 

Caution needed in interpreting uncontrolled, registry-based data

The findings were not surprising to Stephen B. Hanauer, MD, medical director of the Digestive Health Center at Northwestern University, Chicago, who was not involved in the research.

Northwestern University

“We’ve been monitoring IBD [inflammatory bowel disease] patients through the Secure registry similar to the rheumatologic and dermatologic societies and have not identified a signal of harm from any international groups,” Dr. Hanauer told this news organization. He noted that these registries also have not shown an increased risk for COVID-19 complications among patients receiving TNF inhibitors, antiadhesion therapies, or anti–IL12/23 inhibitors, compared with the general population not taking these therapies.

The study’s size and the diversity of patients strengthen its findings. However, the registries’ use of convenience sampling increases the potential for reporting bias, although the results remained similar after a sensitivity analysis. The study also lacked a control group, and the registries did not collect data uniformly.

“These are databases that rely on reporting from investigators and are not comprehensive prospective studies,” Dr. Hanauer noted as another study limitation.

Dr. Gelfand similarly advised caution in interpreting these findings, inasmuch as the study is a “collection of spontaneous reports” that should be viewed as hypothesis-generating rather than testing.

“Fortunately, more rigorous studies have been conducted, typically in large medical record systems, and have confirmed the hypothesis that TNF inhibitors are associated with a lower risk of poor COVID-19 outcomes, compared to other treatments,” Dr. Gelfand said.

Previous smaller studies similarly found better outcomes among patients taking TNF inhibitors, compared with other therapies, but their participants were predominantly from North America and Europe, noted Licio A. Velloso, MD, PhD, of the University of Campinas, in São Paulo, in an accompanying commentary.

On the basis of the findings of this study, “which included a much larger sample comprising distinct diseases and patients with a multitude of genetic backgrounds, the evidence in favor of the continued use of TNF inhibitor monotherapy for patients with IMIDs during the COVID-19 pandemic has become more substantial,” Dr. Velloso writes. “The finding that maintenance of TNF inhibitor monotherapy is associated with reductions in the risk of severe COVID-19 among patients with IMIDs offers new perspective that may guide health care professionals in the difficult decisions regarding therapeutic approaches among this specific group of patients.”

The research was funded by the American College of Rheumatology, the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology, the United Kingdom’s National Institute for Health Research Biomedical Research Center, and the Psoriasis Association. Many authors reported receiving grants and/or personal fees from a variety of pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Velloso has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Hanauer has served as a consultant to companies that market TNF inhibitors. Dr. Gelfand has consulted for and received research grants from companies that market TNF inhibitors.

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

Among patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (IMIDs) who get COVID-19, the risk for hospitalization and death is lower if they are receiving tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitor monotherapy, compared with receiving most other common drugs for these conditions, with or without TNF inhibitors, according to a study published in JAMA Network Open The only combination not associated with an increased risk for hospitalization or death was TNF inhibitor therapy with methotrexate.

“These findings support the continued use of TNF inhibitor monotherapy during the pandemic and warrant further research investigating the association of other biologic therapies with COVID-19 outcomes,” write Zara Izadi, MPharm, of the University of California, San Francisco, and her colleagues. “Treatment with TNF inhibitor combination therapy was associated with a more favorable safety profile when methotrexate rather than azathioprine/6-mercaptopurine was used, suggesting that clinicians would benefit from weighing the risks versus benefits of deescalating treatment or changing medications when a patient is receiving concomitant TNF inhibitors and azathioprine/6-mercaptopurine,” they write.
 

Findings mirror those seen in other settings

These findings are in line with what has been found in other settings, according to Joel M. Gelfand, MD, director of the psoriasis and phototherapy treatment center, vice chair of clinical research, and medical director of the dermatology clinical studies unit at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

“In the beginning of the pandemic, there was concern about use of immune-modulating treatments, and many patients self-discontinued treatments like TNF inhibitors,” Dr. Gelfand, who was not involved in the study, told this news organization. “This has ultimately proved unnecessary and unfortunately resulted in harm to many patients due to flaring of their underlying disease.”

Dr. Gelfand emphasized the importance of vaccinating patients against COVID-19 as soon as possible and of getting a third dose for those who are already fully vaccinated with the Pfizer or Moderna shots, as recommended by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

“I typically recommend this third dose be taken 6 months after the second dose,” Dr. Gelfand said. “The good news is that TNF inhibitors do not seem to meaningfully impact response to mRNA vaccines.”
 

Study details

The researchers analyzed data from three international registries of adults with rheumatic diseases, inflammatory bowel disease, and psoriasis who had COVID-19 between March 12, 2020, and Feb. 1, 2021. The registries included the Secure Epidemiology of Coronavirus Under Research Exclusion for Inflammatory Bowel Disease (SECURE-IBD) registry, the Psoriasis Patient Registry for Outcomes, Therapy and Epidemiology of COVID-19 Infection (PsoProtect), and the physician-reported registry from the Global Rheumatology Alliance (GRA).

The population included 6,077 patients from 74 countries. About half of the cohort (52.9%) were from Europe; more than half were women (58.6%). The average age was 48 years. A little over one-third of the patients (35.3%) had rheumatoid arthritis, 25.3% had Crohn’s disease, 12.5% had ulcerative colitis, 10.3% had spondyloarthritis, and 9.3% had psoriatic arthritis. Smaller percentages had psoriasis (4.9%), another type of arthritis or multiple types (1.7%), or another inflammatory bowel disease (0.6%).

One in five patients (21.3%) were hospitalized, and 3.1% died. The researchers compared outcomes for those who were receiving TNF inhibitor therapy alone to outcomes for those who were taking azathioprine/6-mercaptopurine therapy (alone or with a TNF inhibitor), methotrexate (alone or with a TNF inhibitor), and Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors. They adjusted their analysis to account for active disease and common comorbidities, as well as geography and the period during the pandemic in which the person was admitted, because treatment regimens and hospitalization indications have varied over time.

All of the therapies except the combination of TNF inhibitors and methotrexate were associated with higher odds of hospitalization and death than TNF inhibitor monotherapy.

The researchers explored several possible explanations for the findings, including the possibility that high serum TNF concentrations may have been associated with more organ damage at the time of COVID-19 admission, owing to interaction with SARS-CoV-2–associated hyperinflammation.

“Therefore, blocking TNF could inhibit this detrimental immune response,” the authors write. “Multiple case series reporting favorable outcomes among patients receiving TNF inhibitor therapy support this assertion.”

Another possibility relates to the effects of taking non–TNF inhibitor medications for immunosuppression. The authors note that thiopurine medications are linked to a greater risk for opportunistic viral infections and that JAK inhibitors may reduce the body’s ability to clear the virus because of its suppression of innate immune response.

The authors also postulate that methotrexate may lower the likelihood of cytokine storm linked to COVID-19, even though methotrexate monotherapy was associated with poorer outcomes. “This association could mean that TNF inhibitor therapy is exerting a protective benefit or that methotrexate therapy is exerting a harmful consequence,” the authors write.

 

Caution needed in interpreting uncontrolled, registry-based data

The findings were not surprising to Stephen B. Hanauer, MD, medical director of the Digestive Health Center at Northwestern University, Chicago, who was not involved in the research.

Northwestern University

“We’ve been monitoring IBD [inflammatory bowel disease] patients through the Secure registry similar to the rheumatologic and dermatologic societies and have not identified a signal of harm from any international groups,” Dr. Hanauer told this news organization. He noted that these registries also have not shown an increased risk for COVID-19 complications among patients receiving TNF inhibitors, antiadhesion therapies, or anti–IL12/23 inhibitors, compared with the general population not taking these therapies.

The study’s size and the diversity of patients strengthen its findings. However, the registries’ use of convenience sampling increases the potential for reporting bias, although the results remained similar after a sensitivity analysis. The study also lacked a control group, and the registries did not collect data uniformly.

“These are databases that rely on reporting from investigators and are not comprehensive prospective studies,” Dr. Hanauer noted as another study limitation.

Dr. Gelfand similarly advised caution in interpreting these findings, inasmuch as the study is a “collection of spontaneous reports” that should be viewed as hypothesis-generating rather than testing.

“Fortunately, more rigorous studies have been conducted, typically in large medical record systems, and have confirmed the hypothesis that TNF inhibitors are associated with a lower risk of poor COVID-19 outcomes, compared to other treatments,” Dr. Gelfand said.

Previous smaller studies similarly found better outcomes among patients taking TNF inhibitors, compared with other therapies, but their participants were predominantly from North America and Europe, noted Licio A. Velloso, MD, PhD, of the University of Campinas, in São Paulo, in an accompanying commentary.

On the basis of the findings of this study, “which included a much larger sample comprising distinct diseases and patients with a multitude of genetic backgrounds, the evidence in favor of the continued use of TNF inhibitor monotherapy for patients with IMIDs during the COVID-19 pandemic has become more substantial,” Dr. Velloso writes. “The finding that maintenance of TNF inhibitor monotherapy is associated with reductions in the risk of severe COVID-19 among patients with IMIDs offers new perspective that may guide health care professionals in the difficult decisions regarding therapeutic approaches among this specific group of patients.”

The research was funded by the American College of Rheumatology, the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology, the United Kingdom’s National Institute for Health Research Biomedical Research Center, and the Psoriasis Association. Many authors reported receiving grants and/or personal fees from a variety of pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Velloso has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Hanauer has served as a consultant to companies that market TNF inhibitors. Dr. Gelfand has consulted for and received research grants from companies that market TNF inhibitors.

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

Targeted agents for the treatment of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) should be used in the context of oncogenic addictions within the lymphoma cells, and a thorough molecular analysis should be conducted prior to using specific agents, a review of the relevant literature suggests.

“In addition ... single-agent regimens are most likely not efficient enough to substantially improve the outcome of patients with DLBCL,” Wendan Xu and colleagues at University Hospital Munster, Germany, concluded, based on their review.

Indeed, novel combinations that include B-cell receptor (BCR) signaling and phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase (PI3K) inhibitors are needed for DLBCL treatment, and treatment should also include conventional chemoimmunotherapeutic regimens as well as other targeted agents and novel immunologic approaches, they wrote. Such novel combinations could overcome mechanisms of resistance and increase cure rates in individuals with DLBCL, they contended.

The authors’ observations are based on a search of the available data, from which they summarized the “current understanding of BCR signaling with a special focus on the PI3K pathway and its role in the pathogenesis of DLBCL.”

The addition of the anti-CD20 antibody rituximab to the CHOP regimen (cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone) significantly improved outcomes for patients with DLBCL, but about a third of patients are not cured by the rituximab-CHOP (R-CHOP) regimen and subsequent therapies, they said, explaining their rationale for the review.

“A better understanding of the molecular pathogenesis is warranted to use novel targeted agents in an optimal manner,” they said.

The authors also addressed clinical implications of the findings, and mechanisms of resistance to PI3k inhibitors. For example, they noted that:

–Bruton’s tyrosine kinase (BTK) inhibitors may be beneficial when added to R-CHOP.

In the randomized phase 3 PHOENIX trial, ibrutinib plus R-CHOP versus R-CHOP alone in patients with non–germinal center B-cell (non-GCB) DLBCL showed a survival benefit in patients over 60 years of age, which suggests a possible role for “an intensified R-CHOP regimen that includes a BTK inhibitor” in these patients, they said. They added that confirmatory trials are under way, including the ESCALADE trial looking at the second-generation BTK inhibitor acalabrutinib combined with R-CHOP versus R-CHOP alone in patients with untreated DLBCL.

–Results have been mixed with PI3K inhibitors.

Various PI3K inhibitors have been evaluated for the treatment of patients with DLBCL.

Idelalisib, a first-in-class PI3K-specific inhibitor approved for treatment of relapsed/refractory (r/r) follicular lymphoma, small lymphocytic lymphoma, and chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), showed only modest activity in preclinical DLBCL models, and no responses were detectable in a small trial of patients with r/r DLBCL, the authors said. “Severe toxic side effects and treatment-related deaths occurred in several clinical trials that tested idelalisib in combination with antibodies alone or with antibodies and chemotherapy, leading to the premature discontinuation of some of these studies,” they noted.

Other studies investigating idelalisib plus lenalidomide and rituximab or the spleen tyrosine kinase (SYK) inhibitor entospletinib in patients with r/r CLL or lymphoma were also halted because of “overwhelming, immune-mediated pulmonary and/or hepatic toxicities.”

Copanlisib, an intravenous pan-class I PI3K inhibitor with preferential inhibition of PI3Ka and PI3Kd, showed some promise as monotherapy in a phase 2 trial of patients with r/r DLBCL. The overall response rate was about 20%, and response was “numerically higher” in activated B-cell like (ABC) DLBCL, compared with GCB DLBCL (32% vs. 13%), confirming preclinical data that showed PI3Ka/d inhibition effectiveness mainly in ABC DLBCL.

“Compared with idelalisib, copanlisib appears to have a more favorable toxicity profile, with a lower incidence of severe complications,” they said, adding that a phase 2 trial of copanlisib plus R-CHOP as first-line therapy for patients with DLBCL is under way.

Further, monotherapy with buparlisib, a pan-class I PI3K inhibitor, was associated with a low response rate of 11.5% in a DLBCL subcohort in a phase 2 study, whereas parsaclisib, a next-generation inhibitor with specificity to the PI3Kd isoform, showed efficacy as a monotherapy in patients with r/r DLBCL in a phase 2 study (overall response rate, 25.5%), they said, adding that other PI3K inhibitors with additional inhibitory effects are under clinical development.

–Various molecular mechanisms of resistance to PI3K inhibitors have been described preclinically and clinically.

In an unbiased exploratory analysis of samples from patients treated with copanlisib, a 16-gene mutation signature that separated responders from nonresponders was identified, the authors said.

The finding suggests that genetic aberrations dictate response to PI3K inhibitors, they noted.

“This 16-gene signature included TNFAIP3, CREBBP, and PRDM1, which are known to be important in the molecular pathogenesis of DLBCL,” they wrote. A composite score was developed to reflect the numerical presence or absence of mutations in the gene set, they explained, adding that patients with a high composite score had a significantly higher overall response rate and longer progression-free survival than did patients with a lower score.

In addition, idelalisib treatment resulted in a feedback activation of PI3Ka in ABC DLBCL cells.

“This rebound of PI3K activity was overcome by subsequent PI3Ka inhibition in preclinical DLBCL models, further underscoring the necessity of inhibiting both PI3Ka and PI3Kd to achieve responses in ABC DLBCL,” they wrote, adding that “[i]n ABC DLBCL models treated with the PI3Ka/PI3Kd inhibitor AZD8835, activated CARD11 mutations were identified as a mechanism of resistance.”

Investigations looking at various treatment combinations to overcome resistance to PI3K inhibition and improve the efficacy of targeted approaches are under way, they said.

For example, copanlisib plus the BCL-2 inhibitor venetoclax showed “synergistic activity in BCR-dependent DLBCLs, with genetic bases for BCL-2 dysregulation in vitro and in vivo,” and combination treatment with umbralisib and the proteasome inhibitor carfilzomib showed synergistic cytotoxicity in B-cell lymphoma, they said, noting that the latter combination is currently being evaluated in patients with DLBCL.

This work was supported by a research grant from the Deutsche Krebshilfe. Dr. Xu reported having no financial disclosures.

[email protected]

Targeted agents for the treatment of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) should be used in the context of oncogenic addictions within the lymphoma cells, and a thorough molecular analysis should be conducted prior to using specific agents, a review of the relevant literature suggests.

“In addition ... single-agent regimens are most likely not efficient enough to substantially improve the outcome of patients with DLBCL,” Wendan Xu and colleagues at University Hospital Munster, Germany, concluded, based on their review.

Indeed, novel combinations that include B-cell receptor (BCR) signaling and phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase (PI3K) inhibitors are needed for DLBCL treatment, and treatment should also include conventional chemoimmunotherapeutic regimens as well as other targeted agents and novel immunologic approaches, they wrote. Such novel combinations could overcome mechanisms of resistance and increase cure rates in individuals with DLBCL, they contended.

The authors’ observations are based on a search of the available data, from which they summarized the “current understanding of BCR signaling with a special focus on the PI3K pathway and its role in the pathogenesis of DLBCL.”

The addition of the anti-CD20 antibody rituximab to the CHOP regimen (cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone) significantly improved outcomes for patients with DLBCL, but about a third of patients are not cured by the rituximab-CHOP (R-CHOP) regimen and subsequent therapies, they said, explaining their rationale for the review.

“A better understanding of the molecular pathogenesis is warranted to use novel targeted agents in an optimal manner,” they said.

The authors also addressed clinical implications of the findings, and mechanisms of resistance to PI3k inhibitors. For example, they noted that:

–Bruton’s tyrosine kinase (BTK) inhibitors may be beneficial when added to R-CHOP.

In the randomized phase 3 PHOENIX trial, ibrutinib plus R-CHOP versus R-CHOP alone in patients with non–germinal center B-cell (non-GCB) DLBCL showed a survival benefit in patients over 60 years of age, which suggests a possible role for “an intensified R-CHOP regimen that includes a BTK inhibitor” in these patients, they said. They added that confirmatory trials are under way, including the ESCALADE trial looking at the second-generation BTK inhibitor acalabrutinib combined with R-CHOP versus R-CHOP alone in patients with untreated DLBCL.

–Results have been mixed with PI3K inhibitors.

Various PI3K inhibitors have been evaluated for the treatment of patients with DLBCL.

Idelalisib, a first-in-class PI3K-specific inhibitor approved for treatment of relapsed/refractory (r/r) follicular lymphoma, small lymphocytic lymphoma, and chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), showed only modest activity in preclinical DLBCL models, and no responses were detectable in a small trial of patients with r/r DLBCL, the authors said. “Severe toxic side effects and treatment-related deaths occurred in several clinical trials that tested idelalisib in combination with antibodies alone or with antibodies and chemotherapy, leading to the premature discontinuation of some of these studies,” they noted.

Other studies investigating idelalisib plus lenalidomide and rituximab or the spleen tyrosine kinase (SYK) inhibitor entospletinib in patients with r/r CLL or lymphoma were also halted because of “overwhelming, immune-mediated pulmonary and/or hepatic toxicities.”

Copanlisib, an intravenous pan-class I PI3K inhibitor with preferential inhibition of PI3Ka and PI3Kd, showed some promise as monotherapy in a phase 2 trial of patients with r/r DLBCL. The overall response rate was about 20%, and response was “numerically higher” in activated B-cell like (ABC) DLBCL, compared with GCB DLBCL (32% vs. 13%), confirming preclinical data that showed PI3Ka/d inhibition effectiveness mainly in ABC DLBCL.

“Compared with idelalisib, copanlisib appears to have a more favorable toxicity profile, with a lower incidence of severe complications,” they said, adding that a phase 2 trial of copanlisib plus R-CHOP as first-line therapy for patients with DLBCL is under way.

Further, monotherapy with buparlisib, a pan-class I PI3K inhibitor, was associated with a low response rate of 11.5% in a DLBCL subcohort in a phase 2 study, whereas parsaclisib, a next-generation inhibitor with specificity to the PI3Kd isoform, showed efficacy as a monotherapy in patients with r/r DLBCL in a phase 2 study (overall response rate, 25.5%), they said, adding that other PI3K inhibitors with additional inhibitory effects are under clinical development.

–Various molecular mechanisms of resistance to PI3K inhibitors have been described preclinically and clinically.

In an unbiased exploratory analysis of samples from patients treated with copanlisib, a 16-gene mutation signature that separated responders from nonresponders was identified, the authors said.

The finding suggests that genetic aberrations dictate response to PI3K inhibitors, they noted.

“This 16-gene signature included TNFAIP3, CREBBP, and PRDM1, which are known to be important in the molecular pathogenesis of DLBCL,” they wrote. A composite score was developed to reflect the numerical presence or absence of mutations in the gene set, they explained, adding that patients with a high composite score had a significantly higher overall response rate and longer progression-free survival than did patients with a lower score.

In addition, idelalisib treatment resulted in a feedback activation of PI3Ka in ABC DLBCL cells.

“This rebound of PI3K activity was overcome by subsequent PI3Ka inhibition in preclinical DLBCL models, further underscoring the necessity of inhibiting both PI3Ka and PI3Kd to achieve responses in ABC DLBCL,” they wrote, adding that “[i]n ABC DLBCL models treated with the PI3Ka/PI3Kd inhibitor AZD8835, activated CARD11 mutations were identified as a mechanism of resistance.”

Investigations looking at various treatment combinations to overcome resistance to PI3K inhibition and improve the efficacy of targeted approaches are under way, they said.

For example, copanlisib plus the BCL-2 inhibitor venetoclax showed “synergistic activity in BCR-dependent DLBCLs, with genetic bases for BCL-2 dysregulation in vitro and in vivo,” and combination treatment with umbralisib and the proteasome inhibitor carfilzomib showed synergistic cytotoxicity in B-cell lymphoma, they said, noting that the latter combination is currently being evaluated in patients with DLBCL.

This work was supported by a research grant from the Deutsche Krebshilfe. Dr. Xu reported having no financial disclosures.

[email protected]

Targeted agents for the treatment of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) should be used in the context of oncogenic addictions within the lymphoma cells, and a thorough molecular analysis should be conducted prior to using specific agents, a review of the relevant literature suggests.

“In addition ... single-agent regimens are most likely not efficient enough to substantially improve the outcome of patients with DLBCL,” Wendan Xu and colleagues at University Hospital Munster, Germany, concluded, based on their review.

Indeed, novel combinations that include B-cell receptor (BCR) signaling and phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase (PI3K) inhibitors are needed for DLBCL treatment, and treatment should also include conventional chemoimmunotherapeutic regimens as well as other targeted agents and novel immunologic approaches, they wrote. Such novel combinations could overcome mechanisms of resistance and increase cure rates in individuals with DLBCL, they contended.

The authors’ observations are based on a search of the available data, from which they summarized the “current understanding of BCR signaling with a special focus on the PI3K pathway and its role in the pathogenesis of DLBCL.”

The addition of the anti-CD20 antibody rituximab to the CHOP regimen (cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone) significantly improved outcomes for patients with DLBCL, but about a third of patients are not cured by the rituximab-CHOP (R-CHOP) regimen and subsequent therapies, they said, explaining their rationale for the review.

“A better understanding of the molecular pathogenesis is warranted to use novel targeted agents in an optimal manner,” they said.

The authors also addressed clinical implications of the findings, and mechanisms of resistance to PI3k inhibitors. For example, they noted that:

–Bruton’s tyrosine kinase (BTK) inhibitors may be beneficial when added to R-CHOP.

In the randomized phase 3 PHOENIX trial, ibrutinib plus R-CHOP versus R-CHOP alone in patients with non–germinal center B-cell (non-GCB) DLBCL showed a survival benefit in patients over 60 years of age, which suggests a possible role for “an intensified R-CHOP regimen that includes a BTK inhibitor” in these patients, they said. They added that confirmatory trials are under way, including the ESCALADE trial looking at the second-generation BTK inhibitor acalabrutinib combined with R-CHOP versus R-CHOP alone in patients with untreated DLBCL.

–Results have been mixed with PI3K inhibitors.

Various PI3K inhibitors have been evaluated for the treatment of patients with DLBCL.

Idelalisib, a first-in-class PI3K-specific inhibitor approved for treatment of relapsed/refractory (r/r) follicular lymphoma, small lymphocytic lymphoma, and chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), showed only modest activity in preclinical DLBCL models, and no responses were detectable in a small trial of patients with r/r DLBCL, the authors said. “Severe toxic side effects and treatment-related deaths occurred in several clinical trials that tested idelalisib in combination with antibodies alone or with antibodies and chemotherapy, leading to the premature discontinuation of some of these studies,” they noted.

Other studies investigating idelalisib plus lenalidomide and rituximab or the spleen tyrosine kinase (SYK) inhibitor entospletinib in patients with r/r CLL or lymphoma were also halted because of “overwhelming, immune-mediated pulmonary and/or hepatic toxicities.”

Copanlisib, an intravenous pan-class I PI3K inhibitor with preferential inhibition of PI3Ka and PI3Kd, showed some promise as monotherapy in a phase 2 trial of patients with r/r DLBCL. The overall response rate was about 20%, and response was “numerically higher” in activated B-cell like (ABC) DLBCL, compared with GCB DLBCL (32% vs. 13%), confirming preclinical data that showed PI3Ka/d inhibition effectiveness mainly in ABC DLBCL.

“Compared with idelalisib, copanlisib appears to have a more favorable toxicity profile, with a lower incidence of severe complications,” they said, adding that a phase 2 trial of copanlisib plus R-CHOP as first-line therapy for patients with DLBCL is under way.

Further, monotherapy with buparlisib, a pan-class I PI3K inhibitor, was associated with a low response rate of 11.5% in a DLBCL subcohort in a phase 2 study, whereas parsaclisib, a next-generation inhibitor with specificity to the PI3Kd isoform, showed efficacy as a monotherapy in patients with r/r DLBCL in a phase 2 study (overall response rate, 25.5%), they said, adding that other PI3K inhibitors with additional inhibitory effects are under clinical development.

–Various molecular mechanisms of resistance to PI3K inhibitors have been described preclinically and clinically.

In an unbiased exploratory analysis of samples from patients treated with copanlisib, a 16-gene mutation signature that separated responders from nonresponders was identified, the authors said.

The finding suggests that genetic aberrations dictate response to PI3K inhibitors, they noted.

“This 16-gene signature included TNFAIP3, CREBBP, and PRDM1, which are known to be important in the molecular pathogenesis of DLBCL,” they wrote. A composite score was developed to reflect the numerical presence or absence of mutations in the gene set, they explained, adding that patients with a high composite score had a significantly higher overall response rate and longer progression-free survival than did patients with a lower score.

In addition, idelalisib treatment resulted in a feedback activation of PI3Ka in ABC DLBCL cells.

“This rebound of PI3K activity was overcome by subsequent PI3Ka inhibition in preclinical DLBCL models, further underscoring the necessity of inhibiting both PI3Ka and PI3Kd to achieve responses in ABC DLBCL,” they wrote, adding that “[i]n ABC DLBCL models treated with the PI3Ka/PI3Kd inhibitor AZD8835, activated CARD11 mutations were identified as a mechanism of resistance.”

Investigations looking at various treatment combinations to overcome resistance to PI3K inhibition and improve the efficacy of targeted approaches are under way, they said.

For example, copanlisib plus the BCL-2 inhibitor venetoclax showed “synergistic activity in BCR-dependent DLBCLs, with genetic bases for BCL-2 dysregulation in vitro and in vivo,” and combination treatment with umbralisib and the proteasome inhibitor carfilzomib showed synergistic cytotoxicity in B-cell lymphoma, they said, noting that the latter combination is currently being evaluated in patients with DLBCL.

This work was supported by a research grant from the Deutsche Krebshilfe. Dr. Xu reported having no financial disclosures.

[email protected]