Pharmacology

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]

FROM JAMA ONCOLOGY

Cancer centers with a high use of neoadjuvant chemotherapy in patients with advanced-stage epithelial ovarian cancer show similar improvements in median overall survival and larger declines in short-term mortality than in centers with low use of this treatment. This is according to a study published in JAMA Oncology, suggesting that neoadjuvant chemotherapy may be a suitable first-line treatment approach for many patients with advanced-stage ovarian cancer.

“There is considerable variation in practice. Some centers administer neoadjuvant chemotherapy to 75% of patients with advanced ovarian cancers, others use the approach very infrequently,” said Alexander Melamed, MD, MPH, of Columbia University, New York.

“I hope that those clinicians who have been worried about the negative impacts of too frequent administration of neoadjuvant chemotherapy may be reassured by this study and may come to use this good treatment more often.”

Research has shown that, compared with primary cytoreductive surgery, the use of neoadjuvant chemotherapy has similar long-term survival and improved perioperative outcomes in patients with ovarian cancer. While the use of neoadjuvant chemotherapy has increased, many experts continue to recommend upfront surgery as the preferred treatment for these patients. 

“In part, these recommendations are based on flawed interpretations of real-world data. Specifically, many observational studies have concluded that upfront surgery results in better survival than neoadjuvant chemotherapy, based on study designs that ignored the fact that patients who receive neoadjuvant chemotherapy in the real word are sicker and have more extensive cancer than those who receive upfront surgery,” Dr. Melamed said.

In this difference-in-differences comparative effectiveness analysis, researchers asked if the difference in adoption of neoadjuvant chemotherapy by U.S. cancer centers for advanced-stage epithelial ovarian cancer was associated with differences in median overall survival and 1-year all-cause mortality.

“By assessing how this divergence in practice impacted patient outcomes we were able to infer how frequent use of neoadjuvant impacts survival in ovarian cancer patients. This study design allowed us to sidestep the problem of selection bias that has plagued many other observational studies in this space,” Dr. Melamed explained.

This observational study included 39,299 women with stage IIIC and IV epithelial ovarian cancer, diagnosed between 2004 and 2015 who were followed to the end of 2018, and treated at one of 664 cancer programs. Patients treated in programs that increased neoadjuvant chemotherapy administration had greater improvements in 1-year mortality (difference-in-differences, −2.1%; 95% confidence interval, −3.7 to −0.5) and equivalent gains in median overall survival  (difference-in-differences, 0.9 months; 95% CI, −1.9 to 3.7 months), compared with those treated in programs that used the treatment infrequently.

“For a long time, experts have suggested that the apparent discordance between randomized controlled trials and real-world studies that compare neoadjuvant chemotherapy to upfront surgery for ovarian cancer might mean that the randomized trials are not applicable to real-world practice. What is significant about our findings, is that, when more appropriate study methods are used to analyze the real-world data, the apparent contradiction between real-world and randomized studies is resolved.

“We found that, just as one would guess based on the findings of randomized trials, patients treated in the centers that increased the use of neoadjuvant chemotherapy did not have any decrement in long-term survival, but that short-term mortality did improve more in these centers than in centers that administered neoadjuvant chemotherapy rarely,” she said.

Dr. Melamed said that the findings should “spur a reappraisal” of what clinicians consider the default treatment for women with stage IIIC and IV ovarian cancer.

Taken together with randomized controlled trials, “the evidence may be at a point where it is now time to consider neoadjuvant chemotherapy as the default approach to patients with bulky carcinomatosis, and that primary surgery may be a reasonable alternative for a select group of healthy, young patients with low-volume metastasis.

“Other factors like the route of adjuvant chemotherapy may also need to be considered. However, I believe the belief that aggressive primary debulking is beneficial for most women with advanced ovarian cancer is outdated,” Dr. Melamed said.

No relevant conflicts of interest were reported for this research.

FROM JAMA ONCOLOGY

Cancer centers with a high use of neoadjuvant chemotherapy in patients with advanced-stage epithelial ovarian cancer show similar improvements in median overall survival and larger declines in short-term mortality than in centers with low use of this treatment. This is according to a study published in JAMA Oncology, suggesting that neoadjuvant chemotherapy may be a suitable first-line treatment approach for many patients with advanced-stage ovarian cancer.

“There is considerable variation in practice. Some centers administer neoadjuvant chemotherapy to 75% of patients with advanced ovarian cancers, others use the approach very infrequently,” said Alexander Melamed, MD, MPH, of Columbia University, New York.

“I hope that those clinicians who have been worried about the negative impacts of too frequent administration of neoadjuvant chemotherapy may be reassured by this study and may come to use this good treatment more often.”

Research has shown that, compared with primary cytoreductive surgery, the use of neoadjuvant chemotherapy has similar long-term survival and improved perioperative outcomes in patients with ovarian cancer. While the use of neoadjuvant chemotherapy has increased, many experts continue to recommend upfront surgery as the preferred treatment for these patients. 

“In part, these recommendations are based on flawed interpretations of real-world data. Specifically, many observational studies have concluded that upfront surgery results in better survival than neoadjuvant chemotherapy, based on study designs that ignored the fact that patients who receive neoadjuvant chemotherapy in the real word are sicker and have more extensive cancer than those who receive upfront surgery,” Dr. Melamed said.

In this difference-in-differences comparative effectiveness analysis, researchers asked if the difference in adoption of neoadjuvant chemotherapy by U.S. cancer centers for advanced-stage epithelial ovarian cancer was associated with differences in median overall survival and 1-year all-cause mortality.

“By assessing how this divergence in practice impacted patient outcomes we were able to infer how frequent use of neoadjuvant impacts survival in ovarian cancer patients. This study design allowed us to sidestep the problem of selection bias that has plagued many other observational studies in this space,” Dr. Melamed explained.

This observational study included 39,299 women with stage IIIC and IV epithelial ovarian cancer, diagnosed between 2004 and 2015 who were followed to the end of 2018, and treated at one of 664 cancer programs. Patients treated in programs that increased neoadjuvant chemotherapy administration had greater improvements in 1-year mortality (difference-in-differences, −2.1%; 95% confidence interval, −3.7 to −0.5) and equivalent gains in median overall survival  (difference-in-differences, 0.9 months; 95% CI, −1.9 to 3.7 months), compared with those treated in programs that used the treatment infrequently.

“For a long time, experts have suggested that the apparent discordance between randomized controlled trials and real-world studies that compare neoadjuvant chemotherapy to upfront surgery for ovarian cancer might mean that the randomized trials are not applicable to real-world practice. What is significant about our findings, is that, when more appropriate study methods are used to analyze the real-world data, the apparent contradiction between real-world and randomized studies is resolved.

“We found that, just as one would guess based on the findings of randomized trials, patients treated in the centers that increased the use of neoadjuvant chemotherapy did not have any decrement in long-term survival, but that short-term mortality did improve more in these centers than in centers that administered neoadjuvant chemotherapy rarely,” she said.

Dr. Melamed said that the findings should “spur a reappraisal” of what clinicians consider the default treatment for women with stage IIIC and IV ovarian cancer.

Taken together with randomized controlled trials, “the evidence may be at a point where it is now time to consider neoadjuvant chemotherapy as the default approach to patients with bulky carcinomatosis, and that primary surgery may be a reasonable alternative for a select group of healthy, young patients with low-volume metastasis.

“Other factors like the route of adjuvant chemotherapy may also need to be considered. However, I believe the belief that aggressive primary debulking is beneficial for most women with advanced ovarian cancer is outdated,” Dr. Melamed said.

No relevant conflicts of interest were reported for this research.

FROM JAMA ONCOLOGY

Cancer centers with a high use of neoadjuvant chemotherapy in patients with advanced-stage epithelial ovarian cancer show similar improvements in median overall survival and larger declines in short-term mortality than in centers with low use of this treatment. This is according to a study published in JAMA Oncology, suggesting that neoadjuvant chemotherapy may be a suitable first-line treatment approach for many patients with advanced-stage ovarian cancer.

“There is considerable variation in practice. Some centers administer neoadjuvant chemotherapy to 75% of patients with advanced ovarian cancers, others use the approach very infrequently,” said Alexander Melamed, MD, MPH, of Columbia University, New York.

“I hope that those clinicians who have been worried about the negative impacts of too frequent administration of neoadjuvant chemotherapy may be reassured by this study and may come to use this good treatment more often.”

Research has shown that, compared with primary cytoreductive surgery, the use of neoadjuvant chemotherapy has similar long-term survival and improved perioperative outcomes in patients with ovarian cancer. While the use of neoadjuvant chemotherapy has increased, many experts continue to recommend upfront surgery as the preferred treatment for these patients. 

“In part, these recommendations are based on flawed interpretations of real-world data. Specifically, many observational studies have concluded that upfront surgery results in better survival than neoadjuvant chemotherapy, based on study designs that ignored the fact that patients who receive neoadjuvant chemotherapy in the real word are sicker and have more extensive cancer than those who receive upfront surgery,” Dr. Melamed said.

In this difference-in-differences comparative effectiveness analysis, researchers asked if the difference in adoption of neoadjuvant chemotherapy by U.S. cancer centers for advanced-stage epithelial ovarian cancer was associated with differences in median overall survival and 1-year all-cause mortality.

“By assessing how this divergence in practice impacted patient outcomes we were able to infer how frequent use of neoadjuvant impacts survival in ovarian cancer patients. This study design allowed us to sidestep the problem of selection bias that has plagued many other observational studies in this space,” Dr. Melamed explained.

This observational study included 39,299 women with stage IIIC and IV epithelial ovarian cancer, diagnosed between 2004 and 2015 who were followed to the end of 2018, and treated at one of 664 cancer programs. Patients treated in programs that increased neoadjuvant chemotherapy administration had greater improvements in 1-year mortality (difference-in-differences, −2.1%; 95% confidence interval, −3.7 to −0.5) and equivalent gains in median overall survival  (difference-in-differences, 0.9 months; 95% CI, −1.9 to 3.7 months), compared with those treated in programs that used the treatment infrequently.

“For a long time, experts have suggested that the apparent discordance between randomized controlled trials and real-world studies that compare neoadjuvant chemotherapy to upfront surgery for ovarian cancer might mean that the randomized trials are not applicable to real-world practice. What is significant about our findings, is that, when more appropriate study methods are used to analyze the real-world data, the apparent contradiction between real-world and randomized studies is resolved.

“We found that, just as one would guess based on the findings of randomized trials, patients treated in the centers that increased the use of neoadjuvant chemotherapy did not have any decrement in long-term survival, but that short-term mortality did improve more in these centers than in centers that administered neoadjuvant chemotherapy rarely,” she said.

Dr. Melamed said that the findings should “spur a reappraisal” of what clinicians consider the default treatment for women with stage IIIC and IV ovarian cancer.

Taken together with randomized controlled trials, “the evidence may be at a point where it is now time to consider neoadjuvant chemotherapy as the default approach to patients with bulky carcinomatosis, and that primary surgery may be a reasonable alternative for a select group of healthy, young patients with low-volume metastasis.

“Other factors like the route of adjuvant chemotherapy may also need to be considered. However, I believe the belief that aggressive primary debulking is beneficial for most women with advanced ovarian cancer is outdated,” Dr. Melamed said.

No relevant conflicts of interest were reported for this research.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved a combination pill containing celecoxib and tramadol (Seglentis) for the treatment of adults with acute pain severe enough to require an opioid analgesic and for which alternative treatments fail to provide adequate pain relief.

Celecoxib is a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug and tramadol is an opioid agonist. Seglentis contains 56 mg of celecoxib and 44 mg of tramadol.

“The unique co-crystal formulation of Seglentis provides effective pain relief via a multimodal approach,” Craig A. Sponseller, MD, chief medical officer of Kowa Pharmaceuticals America, said in a news release.

Esteve Pharmaceuticals has entered into an agreement with Kowa Pharmaceuticals America to commercialize the pain medicine in the United States, with a launch planned for early 2022.

“Seglentis uses four different and complementary mechanisms of analgesia and offers healthcare providers an important option to treat acute pain in adults that is severe enough to require opioid treatment and for which alternative treatments are inadequate,” Dr. Sponseller said.

Because of the risks of addiction, abuse, and misuse with opioids, even at recommended doses, the FDA will require a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS) for Seglentis.

The label states that the drug should be initiated as two tablets every 12 hours as needed and should be prescribed for the shortest duration consistent with individual patient treatment goals.

Patients should be monitored for respiratory depression, especially within the first 24 to 72 hours of initiating therapy with Seglentis.

Prescribers should discuss naloxone (Narcan) with patients and consider prescribing the opioid antagonist naloxone based on the patient’s risk factors for overdose.

Full prescribing information is available online.

A version of this article was first published on Medscape.com.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved a combination pill containing celecoxib and tramadol (Seglentis) for the treatment of adults with acute pain severe enough to require an opioid analgesic and for which alternative treatments fail to provide adequate pain relief.

Celecoxib is a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug and tramadol is an opioid agonist. Seglentis contains 56 mg of celecoxib and 44 mg of tramadol.

“The unique co-crystal formulation of Seglentis provides effective pain relief via a multimodal approach,” Craig A. Sponseller, MD, chief medical officer of Kowa Pharmaceuticals America, said in a news release.

Esteve Pharmaceuticals has entered into an agreement with Kowa Pharmaceuticals America to commercialize the pain medicine in the United States, with a launch planned for early 2022.

“Seglentis uses four different and complementary mechanisms of analgesia and offers healthcare providers an important option to treat acute pain in adults that is severe enough to require opioid treatment and for which alternative treatments are inadequate,” Dr. Sponseller said.

Because of the risks of addiction, abuse, and misuse with opioids, even at recommended doses, the FDA will require a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS) for Seglentis.

The label states that the drug should be initiated as two tablets every 12 hours as needed and should be prescribed for the shortest duration consistent with individual patient treatment goals.

Patients should be monitored for respiratory depression, especially within the first 24 to 72 hours of initiating therapy with Seglentis.

Prescribers should discuss naloxone (Narcan) with patients and consider prescribing the opioid antagonist naloxone based on the patient’s risk factors for overdose.

Full prescribing information is available online.

A version of this article was first published on Medscape.com.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved a combination pill containing celecoxib and tramadol (Seglentis) for the treatment of adults with acute pain severe enough to require an opioid analgesic and for which alternative treatments fail to provide adequate pain relief.

Celecoxib is a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug and tramadol is an opioid agonist. Seglentis contains 56 mg of celecoxib and 44 mg of tramadol.

“The unique co-crystal formulation of Seglentis provides effective pain relief via a multimodal approach,” Craig A. Sponseller, MD, chief medical officer of Kowa Pharmaceuticals America, said in a news release.

Esteve Pharmaceuticals has entered into an agreement with Kowa Pharmaceuticals America to commercialize the pain medicine in the United States, with a launch planned for early 2022.

“Seglentis uses four different and complementary mechanisms of analgesia and offers healthcare providers an important option to treat acute pain in adults that is severe enough to require opioid treatment and for which alternative treatments are inadequate,” Dr. Sponseller said.

Because of the risks of addiction, abuse, and misuse with opioids, even at recommended doses, the FDA will require a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS) for Seglentis.

The label states that the drug should be initiated as two tablets every 12 hours as needed and should be prescribed for the shortest duration consistent with individual patient treatment goals.

Patients should be monitored for respiratory depression, especially within the first 24 to 72 hours of initiating therapy with Seglentis.

Prescribers should discuss naloxone (Narcan) with patients and consider prescribing the opioid antagonist naloxone based on the patient’s risk factors for overdose.

Full prescribing information is available online.

A version of this article was first published on Medscape.com.

In patients with unresectable or metastatic hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), donafenib was superior to sorafenib in improving overall survival (OS), according to a head-to-head study published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology. This novel multikinase inhibitor and deuterated sorafenib derivative also showed improved safety and tolerability, rendering it a potential first-line monotherapy for patients with advanced HCC.

“An improvement in the pharmacotherapy of advanced HCC remains a clinical need,” wrote Feng Bi, MD, of Sichuan University, in Chengdu, China, and colleagues.

Liver cancer is one of the most common cancers worldwide, with HCC representing 90% of liver malignancies. HCC most commonly occurs in people with liver disease, particularly in those with chronic hepatitis B and C and although rare, HCC is the ninth leading cause of cancer deaths in the United States. Most patients are diagnosed at the advanced stage with a median survival of 6-8 months. Sorafenib, the standard first-line therapy for advanced HCC, has demonstrated the median OS of 10.7 to 14.7 months. No other monotherapy has shown a significant improvement in OS, compared with sorafenib. Donafenib has shown favorable efficacy and safety in phase 1 studies.

This phase 2-3 trial evaluated the efficacy and safety of first-line donafenib, compared with sorafenib, in 668 Chinese patients with advanced HCC. Patients were randomly assigned to receive twice-daily oral donafenib 0.2 g or sorafenib 0.4 g until intolerable toxicity or disease progression. The primary end point was OS, tested for noninferiority and superiority. 

Compared with sorafenib, donafenib significantly prolonged OS, 10.3 and 12.1 months, respectively, (hazard ratio, 95% confidence interval, 0.699-0.988; 0.83; P = .0245), and the superiority criteria for OS were met. Donafenib also presented improved safety and tolerability. Common drug-related adverse events, such as hand-foot skin reactions and diarrhea, and drug-related grade 3 or higher adverse events, occurred in fewer patients receiving donafenib than sorafenib, (38% vs. 50%; P = .0018). The authors noted that this lower frequency in adverse events with donafenib “contributed to improved patient adherence and decreased levels of drug interruption and discontinuation.”

Donafenib is a novel, oral, small-molecule, multikinase inhibitor that suppresses tumor cell proliferation and angiogenesis by inhibiting vascular endothelial growth factor receptors and platelet-derived growth factor receptors, and Raf kinases. It is a derivative of sorafenib and in June 2021, it was approved in China as a treatment for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma for patients who have not received systemic treatment. It is not yet available in the United States.

“This pivotal head-to-head comparison study is the first to demonstrate noninferiority and superiority of a monotherapy, donafenib, with statistically significant extension in OS over sorafenib for first-line treatment of advanced HCC,” the authors wrote. “Compared with international trials, patients in this study presented with more severe baseline disease states, further emphasizing the positive response observed with donafenib.”

Another study, published in the same issue of the Journal of Clinical Oncology, compared tremelimumab and durvalumab as monotherapies and in combination for patients with unresectable HCC, found that use a single priming dose of tremelimumab combined with durvalumab showed the best benefit-risk profile.

In patients with unresectable or metastatic hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), donafenib was superior to sorafenib in improving overall survival (OS), according to a head-to-head study published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology. This novel multikinase inhibitor and deuterated sorafenib derivative also showed improved safety and tolerability, rendering it a potential first-line monotherapy for patients with advanced HCC.

“An improvement in the pharmacotherapy of advanced HCC remains a clinical need,” wrote Feng Bi, MD, of Sichuan University, in Chengdu, China, and colleagues.

Liver cancer is one of the most common cancers worldwide, with HCC representing 90% of liver malignancies. HCC most commonly occurs in people with liver disease, particularly in those with chronic hepatitis B and C and although rare, HCC is the ninth leading cause of cancer deaths in the United States. Most patients are diagnosed at the advanced stage with a median survival of 6-8 months. Sorafenib, the standard first-line therapy for advanced HCC, has demonstrated the median OS of 10.7 to 14.7 months. No other monotherapy has shown a significant improvement in OS, compared with sorafenib. Donafenib has shown favorable efficacy and safety in phase 1 studies.

This phase 2-3 trial evaluated the efficacy and safety of first-line donafenib, compared with sorafenib, in 668 Chinese patients with advanced HCC. Patients were randomly assigned to receive twice-daily oral donafenib 0.2 g or sorafenib 0.4 g until intolerable toxicity or disease progression. The primary end point was OS, tested for noninferiority and superiority. 

Compared with sorafenib, donafenib significantly prolonged OS, 10.3 and 12.1 months, respectively, (hazard ratio, 95% confidence interval, 0.699-0.988; 0.83; P = .0245), and the superiority criteria for OS were met. Donafenib also presented improved safety and tolerability. Common drug-related adverse events, such as hand-foot skin reactions and diarrhea, and drug-related grade 3 or higher adverse events, occurred in fewer patients receiving donafenib than sorafenib, (38% vs. 50%; P = .0018). The authors noted that this lower frequency in adverse events with donafenib “contributed to improved patient adherence and decreased levels of drug interruption and discontinuation.”

Donafenib is a novel, oral, small-molecule, multikinase inhibitor that suppresses tumor cell proliferation and angiogenesis by inhibiting vascular endothelial growth factor receptors and platelet-derived growth factor receptors, and Raf kinases. It is a derivative of sorafenib and in June 2021, it was approved in China as a treatment for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma for patients who have not received systemic treatment. It is not yet available in the United States.

“This pivotal head-to-head comparison study is the first to demonstrate noninferiority and superiority of a monotherapy, donafenib, with statistically significant extension in OS over sorafenib for first-line treatment of advanced HCC,” the authors wrote. “Compared with international trials, patients in this study presented with more severe baseline disease states, further emphasizing the positive response observed with donafenib.”

Another study, published in the same issue of the Journal of Clinical Oncology, compared tremelimumab and durvalumab as monotherapies and in combination for patients with unresectable HCC, found that use a single priming dose of tremelimumab combined with durvalumab showed the best benefit-risk profile.

In patients with unresectable or metastatic hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), donafenib was superior to sorafenib in improving overall survival (OS), according to a head-to-head study published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology. This novel multikinase inhibitor and deuterated sorafenib derivative also showed improved safety and tolerability, rendering it a potential first-line monotherapy for patients with advanced HCC.

“An improvement in the pharmacotherapy of advanced HCC remains a clinical need,” wrote Feng Bi, MD, of Sichuan University, in Chengdu, China, and colleagues.

Liver cancer is one of the most common cancers worldwide, with HCC representing 90% of liver malignancies. HCC most commonly occurs in people with liver disease, particularly in those with chronic hepatitis B and C and although rare, HCC is the ninth leading cause of cancer deaths in the United States. Most patients are diagnosed at the advanced stage with a median survival of 6-8 months. Sorafenib, the standard first-line therapy for advanced HCC, has demonstrated the median OS of 10.7 to 14.7 months. No other monotherapy has shown a significant improvement in OS, compared with sorafenib. Donafenib has shown favorable efficacy and safety in phase 1 studies.

This phase 2-3 trial evaluated the efficacy and safety of first-line donafenib, compared with sorafenib, in 668 Chinese patients with advanced HCC. Patients were randomly assigned to receive twice-daily oral donafenib 0.2 g or sorafenib 0.4 g until intolerable toxicity or disease progression. The primary end point was OS, tested for noninferiority and superiority. 

Compared with sorafenib, donafenib significantly prolonged OS, 10.3 and 12.1 months, respectively, (hazard ratio, 95% confidence interval, 0.699-0.988; 0.83; P = .0245), and the superiority criteria for OS were met. Donafenib also presented improved safety and tolerability. Common drug-related adverse events, such as hand-foot skin reactions and diarrhea, and drug-related grade 3 or higher adverse events, occurred in fewer patients receiving donafenib than sorafenib, (38% vs. 50%; P = .0018). The authors noted that this lower frequency in adverse events with donafenib “contributed to improved patient adherence and decreased levels of drug interruption and discontinuation.”

Donafenib is a novel, oral, small-molecule, multikinase inhibitor that suppresses tumor cell proliferation and angiogenesis by inhibiting vascular endothelial growth factor receptors and platelet-derived growth factor receptors, and Raf kinases. It is a derivative of sorafenib and in June 2021, it was approved in China as a treatment for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma for patients who have not received systemic treatment. It is not yet available in the United States.

“This pivotal head-to-head comparison study is the first to demonstrate noninferiority and superiority of a monotherapy, donafenib, with statistically significant extension in OS over sorafenib for first-line treatment of advanced HCC,” the authors wrote. “Compared with international trials, patients in this study presented with more severe baseline disease states, further emphasizing the positive response observed with donafenib.”

Another study, published in the same issue of the Journal of Clinical Oncology, compared tremelimumab and durvalumab as monotherapies and in combination for patients with unresectable HCC, found that use a single priming dose of tremelimumab combined with durvalumab showed the best benefit-risk profile.

Tramadol is increasingly used to manage chronic noncancer pain, but as compared with opioids, it appears to be linked to a higher risk for adverse outcomes, according to new data.

Among a cohort of patients who received a prescription for either tramadol or codeine for orthopedic-related pain, tramadol was significantly associated with a higher risk of mortality, cardiovascular events, and fractures.

However, there was no significant difference in the risk of falls, delirium, constipation, opioid abuse/dependence, or sleep disorders between the two drugs.

“However, this is a retrospective cohort study, and despite it providing information that would otherwise be impossible to gather – such as from randomized controlled trials – clinicians should not solely base their decision on this study,” cautioned lead author Carlen Reyes, MD, PhD, of the Institut Universitari d’Investigació en Atenció Primària (IDIAP Jordi Gol), Barcelona.

Dr. Reyes noted that the intake of tramadol and codeine was analyzed using the number of “packages” that were dispensed, as an approximation of the real intake. “Logically we could think that the more packages dispensed of one drug, the more dose the patient is taking, but this is not always true given the availability of different doses commercialized of tramadol and different doses prescribed,” she said. “Given that we did not account for the real dose prescribed, we can only suspect an increased risk of these outcomes and reinforce the need for further prospective studies with more specific dose-response analysis comparing tramadol and codeine.”

The paper was published Oct. 19 in JAMA.

Tramadol has been considered to be a relatively safe opioid and was even strongly recommended by the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons for patients experiencing symptomatic knee osteoarthritis. The authors point out that studies looking at opioid use from 2019 to 2020 show that tramadol was the most prescribed opioid in England, the Netherlands, and Spain.

In the United States, the age-adjusted rate of drug overdose deaths from synthetic opioids rose from 1.0 per 100 000 in 2013 to 11.4 in 2019. Most of these deaths were attributable to fentanyl but some were also related to tramadol.

But despite its wide use in managing chronic noncancer pain, results of recent studies suggest adverse outcomes as compared with other agents. Last year, one study found that older patients who received tramadol had a significant increase in the risk of hip fracture vs. those using NSAIDs or codeine. Another study, also published in 2020, showed that patients with osteoarthritis who were treated with tramadol had a 20%-50% higher risk of dying during the first year of treatment than did patients who were treated with NSAIDs.

In the current paper, Dr. Reyes and colleagues evaluated the association of tramadol with mortality and other adverse clinical outcomes in outpatient settings, compared with codeine.

They conducted a retrospective, population-based, propensity score–matched cohort study using a primary care database that routinely collects medical records and pharmacy dispensations for more than 80% of the population of Catalonia, Spain. The cohort included people 18 years or older who had been prescribed tramadol or codeine from 2007 to 2017 and were followed up to Dec. 31, 2017.

After propensity score matching, the final analysis included 368,960 participants: 184,480 in the tramadol arm and 184,480 in the codeine arm.

The mean age of patients was 52.7 years in the tramadol arm and 53.5 years in the codeine arm, and the prevalence of cancer was 3.2% and 3.3%, respectively. The most common diagnoses in this cohort were back pain (47.5% vs. 48.5%), neck/shoulder pain (28.6% vs. 29.5%), and osteoarthritis (15.3% vs. 15.5%). The most commonly used drugs were ibuprofen (34.4% vs. 34.3%) and paracetamol/acetaminophen (37.1% vs. 36.8%)

Higher risk of adverse outcomes

As compared with codeine, tramadol use was significantly associated with a higher risk of mortality (13.00 vs. 5.61 per 1,000 person-years; hazard ratio, 2.31; 95% confidence interval, 2.08-2.56); absolute rate differences (7.37 per 1,000 person-years; 95% CI, 6.09-8.78), cardiovascular events (10.03 vs. 8.67 per 1,000 person-years; HR, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.05-1.27; ARD, 1.36 per 1,000 person-years; 95% CI, 0.45-2.36), and fractures (12.26 vs. 8.13 per 1,000 person-years; HR, 1.50; 95% CI, 1.37-1.65; ARD, 4.10 per 1,000 person-years; 95% CI, 3.02-5.29).

A subgroup and sensitivity analysis showed that the increased mortality risk associated with tramadol was significantly higher in younger persons vs. older ones (HR, 3.14; 95% CI, 1.82-5.41 vs. 2.39; 95% CI, 2.20-2.60]; P < .001 for interaction). In addition, women had a significantly greater risk of cardiovascular events versus men (HR, 1.32; 95% CI, 1.19-1.46] vs. 1.03; 95% CI, 0.9-1.13]; P < .001 for interaction).
 

Potential for confounding

Weighing in on the data, Daniel Solomon, MD, MPH, chief of clinical sciences, division of rheumatology, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, and professor of medicine, Harvard Medical School, Boston, noted that because it is extremely unlikely that anyone will ever conduct a large, head-to-head safety trial comparing different opioids, the results of this paper are important to consider.

“However, as the authors appropriately caution, this type of analysis is limited by the strong potential for residual confounding,” he said. “In other words, even though the authors used state-of-the-art methods to limit imbalances between the patients initiating tramadol versus codeine, there is strong reason to believe that imbalances that may account for the differences in adverse events exist.”

For example, he noted that if one looks at the distribution of comorbid conditions in the before-matching group, tramadol initiators demonstrate a higher frequency of chronic kidney disease, diabetes, and overall chronic comorbid diseases. “This suggests to me that prescribers apply selection criteria when choosing who to prescribe which opioid,” Dr. Solomon explained.

“While the authors’ use of propensity score matching limits confounding, it only can improve balance for measured confounders,” he said. “Other factors not measured in this type of data set – blood pressure, pain, physical activity, tobacco use, body mass index – may still demonstrate imbalances even after matching.”

But after these limitations are taken into consideration, the results remain concerning, Dr. Solomon emphasized, particularly the all-cause mortality excess of tramadol versus codeine users. “This study did not include cause of death, which would help the reader understand why users of tramadol were dying more frequently,” he added. “It also might help in understanding whether this is a true biologic effect or residual confounding.”

Perceived safety

In an accompanying editorial, Howard S. Kim, MD, MS, and colleagues from Northwestern University, Chicago, write that the greatest risk of tramadol may involve the perception that it is “inherently safer than other opioids.”

“In actuality, the mechanisms of action and variable metabolism of tramadol in a given population create considerable therapeutic uncertainty and introduce additional risk exposure,” they say, as demonstrated in the current study.

Therefore, when clinicians determine that an opioid is needed for pain relief, it may be a better option to select a pure opioid agonist that has a more predictable therapeutic effect and known adverse effect profile, such as morphine or hydrocodone. “This would allow clinicians and patients to more properly weigh the risks and benefits of initiating opioid therapy through shared decision-making and prompt the level of counseling on safe use, storage, and disposal practices that all opioids deserve,” write the editorialists.

The study was funded by the Fundació Institut Universitari per a la recerca a l’Atenció Primària de Salut Jordi Gol i Gurina. The research was supported by the National Institute for Health Research Oxford Biomedical Research Centre. Dr. Reyes has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Solomon disclosed salary support from research contracts to his hospital from Amgen, AbbVie, Moderna, the Rheumatology Research Foundation, and National Institutes of Health; and royalties from UpToDate. Dr. Kim reported unrelated grant support from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.
 

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

Tramadol is increasingly used to manage chronic noncancer pain, but as compared with opioids, it appears to be linked to a higher risk for adverse outcomes, according to new data.

Among a cohort of patients who received a prescription for either tramadol or codeine for orthopedic-related pain, tramadol was significantly associated with a higher risk of mortality, cardiovascular events, and fractures.

However, there was no significant difference in the risk of falls, delirium, constipation, opioid abuse/dependence, or sleep disorders between the two drugs.

“However, this is a retrospective cohort study, and despite it providing information that would otherwise be impossible to gather – such as from randomized controlled trials – clinicians should not solely base their decision on this study,” cautioned lead author Carlen Reyes, MD, PhD, of the Institut Universitari d’Investigació en Atenció Primària (IDIAP Jordi Gol), Barcelona.

Dr. Reyes noted that the intake of tramadol and codeine was analyzed using the number of “packages” that were dispensed, as an approximation of the real intake. “Logically we could think that the more packages dispensed of one drug, the more dose the patient is taking, but this is not always true given the availability of different doses commercialized of tramadol and different doses prescribed,” she said. “Given that we did not account for the real dose prescribed, we can only suspect an increased risk of these outcomes and reinforce the need for further prospective studies with more specific dose-response analysis comparing tramadol and codeine.”

The paper was published Oct. 19 in JAMA.

Tramadol has been considered to be a relatively safe opioid and was even strongly recommended by the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons for patients experiencing symptomatic knee osteoarthritis. The authors point out that studies looking at opioid use from 2019 to 2020 show that tramadol was the most prescribed opioid in England, the Netherlands, and Spain.

In the United States, the age-adjusted rate of drug overdose deaths from synthetic opioids rose from 1.0 per 100 000 in 2013 to 11.4 in 2019. Most of these deaths were attributable to fentanyl but some were also related to tramadol.

But despite its wide use in managing chronic noncancer pain, results of recent studies suggest adverse outcomes as compared with other agents. Last year, one study found that older patients who received tramadol had a significant increase in the risk of hip fracture vs. those using NSAIDs or codeine. Another study, also published in 2020, showed that patients with osteoarthritis who were treated with tramadol had a 20%-50% higher risk of dying during the first year of treatment than did patients who were treated with NSAIDs.

In the current paper, Dr. Reyes and colleagues evaluated the association of tramadol with mortality and other adverse clinical outcomes in outpatient settings, compared with codeine.

They conducted a retrospective, population-based, propensity score–matched cohort study using a primary care database that routinely collects medical records and pharmacy dispensations for more than 80% of the population of Catalonia, Spain. The cohort included people 18 years or older who had been prescribed tramadol or codeine from 2007 to 2017 and were followed up to Dec. 31, 2017.

After propensity score matching, the final analysis included 368,960 participants: 184,480 in the tramadol arm and 184,480 in the codeine arm.

The mean age of patients was 52.7 years in the tramadol arm and 53.5 years in the codeine arm, and the prevalence of cancer was 3.2% and 3.3%, respectively. The most common diagnoses in this cohort were back pain (47.5% vs. 48.5%), neck/shoulder pain (28.6% vs. 29.5%), and osteoarthritis (15.3% vs. 15.5%). The most commonly used drugs were ibuprofen (34.4% vs. 34.3%) and paracetamol/acetaminophen (37.1% vs. 36.8%)

Higher risk of adverse outcomes

As compared with codeine, tramadol use was significantly associated with a higher risk of mortality (13.00 vs. 5.61 per 1,000 person-years; hazard ratio, 2.31; 95% confidence interval, 2.08-2.56); absolute rate differences (7.37 per 1,000 person-years; 95% CI, 6.09-8.78), cardiovascular events (10.03 vs. 8.67 per 1,000 person-years; HR, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.05-1.27; ARD, 1.36 per 1,000 person-years; 95% CI, 0.45-2.36), and fractures (12.26 vs. 8.13 per 1,000 person-years; HR, 1.50; 95% CI, 1.37-1.65; ARD, 4.10 per 1,000 person-years; 95% CI, 3.02-5.29).

A subgroup and sensitivity analysis showed that the increased mortality risk associated with tramadol was significantly higher in younger persons vs. older ones (HR, 3.14; 95% CI, 1.82-5.41 vs. 2.39; 95% CI, 2.20-2.60]; P < .001 for interaction). In addition, women had a significantly greater risk of cardiovascular events versus men (HR, 1.32; 95% CI, 1.19-1.46] vs. 1.03; 95% CI, 0.9-1.13]; P < .001 for interaction).
 

Potential for confounding

Weighing in on the data, Daniel Solomon, MD, MPH, chief of clinical sciences, division of rheumatology, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, and professor of medicine, Harvard Medical School, Boston, noted that because it is extremely unlikely that anyone will ever conduct a large, head-to-head safety trial comparing different opioids, the results of this paper are important to consider.

“However, as the authors appropriately caution, this type of analysis is limited by the strong potential for residual confounding,” he said. “In other words, even though the authors used state-of-the-art methods to limit imbalances between the patients initiating tramadol versus codeine, there is strong reason to believe that imbalances that may account for the differences in adverse events exist.”

For example, he noted that if one looks at the distribution of comorbid conditions in the before-matching group, tramadol initiators demonstrate a higher frequency of chronic kidney disease, diabetes, and overall chronic comorbid diseases. “This suggests to me that prescribers apply selection criteria when choosing who to prescribe which opioid,” Dr. Solomon explained.

“While the authors’ use of propensity score matching limits confounding, it only can improve balance for measured confounders,” he said. “Other factors not measured in this type of data set – blood pressure, pain, physical activity, tobacco use, body mass index – may still demonstrate imbalances even after matching.”

But after these limitations are taken into consideration, the results remain concerning, Dr. Solomon emphasized, particularly the all-cause mortality excess of tramadol versus codeine users. “This study did not include cause of death, which would help the reader understand why users of tramadol were dying more frequently,” he added. “It also might help in understanding whether this is a true biologic effect or residual confounding.”

Perceived safety

In an accompanying editorial, Howard S. Kim, MD, MS, and colleagues from Northwestern University, Chicago, write that the greatest risk of tramadol may involve the perception that it is “inherently safer than other opioids.”

“In actuality, the mechanisms of action and variable metabolism of tramadol in a given population create considerable therapeutic uncertainty and introduce additional risk exposure,” they say, as demonstrated in the current study.

Therefore, when clinicians determine that an opioid is needed for pain relief, it may be a better option to select a pure opioid agonist that has a more predictable therapeutic effect and known adverse effect profile, such as morphine or hydrocodone. “This would allow clinicians and patients to more properly weigh the risks and benefits of initiating opioid therapy through shared decision-making and prompt the level of counseling on safe use, storage, and disposal practices that all opioids deserve,” write the editorialists.

The study was funded by the Fundació Institut Universitari per a la recerca a l’Atenció Primària de Salut Jordi Gol i Gurina. The research was supported by the National Institute for Health Research Oxford Biomedical Research Centre. Dr. Reyes has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Solomon disclosed salary support from research contracts to his hospital from Amgen, AbbVie, Moderna, the Rheumatology Research Foundation, and National Institutes of Health; and royalties from UpToDate. Dr. Kim reported unrelated grant support from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.
 

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

Tramadol is increasingly used to manage chronic noncancer pain, but as compared with opioids, it appears to be linked to a higher risk for adverse outcomes, according to new data.

Among a cohort of patients who received a prescription for either tramadol or codeine for orthopedic-related pain, tramadol was significantly associated with a higher risk of mortality, cardiovascular events, and fractures.

However, there was no significant difference in the risk of falls, delirium, constipation, opioid abuse/dependence, or sleep disorders between the two drugs.

“However, this is a retrospective cohort study, and despite it providing information that would otherwise be impossible to gather – such as from randomized controlled trials – clinicians should not solely base their decision on this study,” cautioned lead author Carlen Reyes, MD, PhD, of the Institut Universitari d’Investigació en Atenció Primària (IDIAP Jordi Gol), Barcelona.

Dr. Reyes noted that the intake of tramadol and codeine was analyzed using the number of “packages” that were dispensed, as an approximation of the real intake. “Logically we could think that the more packages dispensed of one drug, the more dose the patient is taking, but this is not always true given the availability of different doses commercialized of tramadol and different doses prescribed,” she said. “Given that we did not account for the real dose prescribed, we can only suspect an increased risk of these outcomes and reinforce the need for further prospective studies with more specific dose-response analysis comparing tramadol and codeine.”

The paper was published Oct. 19 in JAMA.

Tramadol has been considered to be a relatively safe opioid and was even strongly recommended by the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons for patients experiencing symptomatic knee osteoarthritis. The authors point out that studies looking at opioid use from 2019 to 2020 show that tramadol was the most prescribed opioid in England, the Netherlands, and Spain.

In the United States, the age-adjusted rate of drug overdose deaths from synthetic opioids rose from 1.0 per 100 000 in 2013 to 11.4 in 2019. Most of these deaths were attributable to fentanyl but some were also related to tramadol.

But despite its wide use in managing chronic noncancer pain, results of recent studies suggest adverse outcomes as compared with other agents. Last year, one study found that older patients who received tramadol had a significant increase in the risk of hip fracture vs. those using NSAIDs or codeine. Another study, also published in 2020, showed that patients with osteoarthritis who were treated with tramadol had a 20%-50% higher risk of dying during the first year of treatment than did patients who were treated with NSAIDs.

In the current paper, Dr. Reyes and colleagues evaluated the association of tramadol with mortality and other adverse clinical outcomes in outpatient settings, compared with codeine.

They conducted a retrospective, population-based, propensity score–matched cohort study using a primary care database that routinely collects medical records and pharmacy dispensations for more than 80% of the population of Catalonia, Spain. The cohort included people 18 years or older who had been prescribed tramadol or codeine from 2007 to 2017 and were followed up to Dec. 31, 2017.

After propensity score matching, the final analysis included 368,960 participants: 184,480 in the tramadol arm and 184,480 in the codeine arm.

The mean age of patients was 52.7 years in the tramadol arm and 53.5 years in the codeine arm, and the prevalence of cancer was 3.2% and 3.3%, respectively. The most common diagnoses in this cohort were back pain (47.5% vs. 48.5%), neck/shoulder pain (28.6% vs. 29.5%), and osteoarthritis (15.3% vs. 15.5%). The most commonly used drugs were ibuprofen (34.4% vs. 34.3%) and paracetamol/acetaminophen (37.1% vs. 36.8%)

Higher risk of adverse outcomes

As compared with codeine, tramadol use was significantly associated with a higher risk of mortality (13.00 vs. 5.61 per 1,000 person-years; hazard ratio, 2.31; 95% confidence interval, 2.08-2.56); absolute rate differences (7.37 per 1,000 person-years; 95% CI, 6.09-8.78), cardiovascular events (10.03 vs. 8.67 per 1,000 person-years; HR, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.05-1.27; ARD, 1.36 per 1,000 person-years; 95% CI, 0.45-2.36), and fractures (12.26 vs. 8.13 per 1,000 person-years; HR, 1.50; 95% CI, 1.37-1.65; ARD, 4.10 per 1,000 person-years; 95% CI, 3.02-5.29).

A subgroup and sensitivity analysis showed that the increased mortality risk associated with tramadol was significantly higher in younger persons vs. older ones (HR, 3.14; 95% CI, 1.82-5.41 vs. 2.39; 95% CI, 2.20-2.60]; P < .001 for interaction). In addition, women had a significantly greater risk of cardiovascular events versus men (HR, 1.32; 95% CI, 1.19-1.46] vs. 1.03; 95% CI, 0.9-1.13]; P < .001 for interaction).
 

Potential for confounding

Weighing in on the data, Daniel Solomon, MD, MPH, chief of clinical sciences, division of rheumatology, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, and professor of medicine, Harvard Medical School, Boston, noted that because it is extremely unlikely that anyone will ever conduct a large, head-to-head safety trial comparing different opioids, the results of this paper are important to consider.

“However, as the authors appropriately caution, this type of analysis is limited by the strong potential for residual confounding,” he said. “In other words, even though the authors used state-of-the-art methods to limit imbalances between the patients initiating tramadol versus codeine, there is strong reason to believe that imbalances that may account for the differences in adverse events exist.”

For example, he noted that if one looks at the distribution of comorbid conditions in the before-matching group, tramadol initiators demonstrate a higher frequency of chronic kidney disease, diabetes, and overall chronic comorbid diseases. “This suggests to me that prescribers apply selection criteria when choosing who to prescribe which opioid,” Dr. Solomon explained.

“While the authors’ use of propensity score matching limits confounding, it only can improve balance for measured confounders,” he said. “Other factors not measured in this type of data set – blood pressure, pain, physical activity, tobacco use, body mass index – may still demonstrate imbalances even after matching.”

But after these limitations are taken into consideration, the results remain concerning, Dr. Solomon emphasized, particularly the all-cause mortality excess of tramadol versus codeine users. “This study did not include cause of death, which would help the reader understand why users of tramadol were dying more frequently,” he added. “It also might help in understanding whether this is a true biologic effect or residual confounding.”

Perceived safety

In an accompanying editorial, Howard S. Kim, MD, MS, and colleagues from Northwestern University, Chicago, write that the greatest risk of tramadol may involve the perception that it is “inherently safer than other opioids.”

“In actuality, the mechanisms of action and variable metabolism of tramadol in a given population create considerable therapeutic uncertainty and introduce additional risk exposure,” they say, as demonstrated in the current study.

Therefore, when clinicians determine that an opioid is needed for pain relief, it may be a better option to select a pure opioid agonist that has a more predictable therapeutic effect and known adverse effect profile, such as morphine or hydrocodone. “This would allow clinicians and patients to more properly weigh the risks and benefits of initiating opioid therapy through shared decision-making and prompt the level of counseling on safe use, storage, and disposal practices that all opioids deserve,” write the editorialists.

The study was funded by the Fundació Institut Universitari per a la recerca a l’Atenció Primària de Salut Jordi Gol i Gurina. The research was supported by the National Institute for Health Research Oxford Biomedical Research Centre. Dr. Reyes has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Solomon disclosed salary support from research contracts to his hospital from Amgen, AbbVie, Moderna, the Rheumatology Research Foundation, and National Institutes of Health; and royalties from UpToDate. Dr. Kim reported unrelated grant support from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.
 

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved a high-dose naloxone injection product for the emergency treatment of opioid overdose.

ZIMHI from Adamis Pharmaceuticals is administered using a single-dose, prefilled syringe that delivers 5 mg of naloxone hydrochloride solution through intramuscular or subcutaneous injection.

Naloxone is an opioid antagonist that works by blocking or reversing the effects of the opioid, including extreme drowsiness, slowed breathing, or loss of consciousness.

Opioid-related overdose deaths — driven partly by prescription drug overdoses — remain a leading cause of death in the United States.

ZIMHI “provides an additional option in the treatment of opioid overdoses,” the FDA said in a statement announcing approval.

In a statement from Adamis Pharmaceuticals, Jeffrey Galinkin, MD, an anesthesiologist and former member of the FDA advisory committee for analgesics and addiction products, said he is “pleased to see this much-needed, high-dose naloxone product will become part of the treatment tool kit as a countermeasure to the continued surge in fentanyl related deaths.”

“The higher intramuscular doses of naloxone in ZIMHI should result in more rapid and higher levels of naloxone in the systemic circulation, which in turn, should result in more successful resuscitations,” Dr. Galinkin said.

Last spring the FDA approved a higher-dose naloxone hydrochloride nasal spray (Kloxxado) for the emergency treatment of opioid overdose.

Kloxxado delivers 8 mg of naloxone into the nasal cavity, which is twice as much as the 4 mg of naloxone contained in Narcan nasal spray.

The FDA approved ZIMHI (and Kloxxado) through the 505(b)(2) regulatory pathway, which allows the agency to refer to previous findings of safety and efficacy for an already-approved product, as well as to review findings from further studies of the product.

The company plans to launch ZIMHI in the first quarter of 2022.

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved a high-dose naloxone injection product for the emergency treatment of opioid overdose.

ZIMHI from Adamis Pharmaceuticals is administered using a single-dose, prefilled syringe that delivers 5 mg of naloxone hydrochloride solution through intramuscular or subcutaneous injection.

Naloxone is an opioid antagonist that works by blocking or reversing the effects of the opioid, including extreme drowsiness, slowed breathing, or loss of consciousness.

Opioid-related overdose deaths — driven partly by prescription drug overdoses — remain a leading cause of death in the United States.

ZIMHI “provides an additional option in the treatment of opioid overdoses,” the FDA said in a statement announcing approval.

In a statement from Adamis Pharmaceuticals, Jeffrey Galinkin, MD, an anesthesiologist and former member of the FDA advisory committee for analgesics and addiction products, said he is “pleased to see this much-needed, high-dose naloxone product will become part of the treatment tool kit as a countermeasure to the continued surge in fentanyl related deaths.”

“The higher intramuscular doses of naloxone in ZIMHI should result in more rapid and higher levels of naloxone in the systemic circulation, which in turn, should result in more successful resuscitations,” Dr. Galinkin said.

Last spring the FDA approved a higher-dose naloxone hydrochloride nasal spray (Kloxxado) for the emergency treatment of opioid overdose.

Kloxxado delivers 8 mg of naloxone into the nasal cavity, which is twice as much as the 4 mg of naloxone contained in Narcan nasal spray.

The FDA approved ZIMHI (and Kloxxado) through the 505(b)(2) regulatory pathway, which allows the agency to refer to previous findings of safety and efficacy for an already-approved product, as well as to review findings from further studies of the product.

The company plans to launch ZIMHI in the first quarter of 2022.

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved a high-dose naloxone injection product for the emergency treatment of opioid overdose.

ZIMHI from Adamis Pharmaceuticals is administered using a single-dose, prefilled syringe that delivers 5 mg of naloxone hydrochloride solution through intramuscular or subcutaneous injection.

Naloxone is an opioid antagonist that works by blocking or reversing the effects of the opioid, including extreme drowsiness, slowed breathing, or loss of consciousness.

Opioid-related overdose deaths — driven partly by prescription drug overdoses — remain a leading cause of death in the United States.

ZIMHI “provides an additional option in the treatment of opioid overdoses,” the FDA said in a statement announcing approval.

In a statement from Adamis Pharmaceuticals, Jeffrey Galinkin, MD, an anesthesiologist and former member of the FDA advisory committee for analgesics and addiction products, said he is “pleased to see this much-needed, high-dose naloxone product will become part of the treatment tool kit as a countermeasure to the continued surge in fentanyl related deaths.”

“The higher intramuscular doses of naloxone in ZIMHI should result in more rapid and higher levels of naloxone in the systemic circulation, which in turn, should result in more successful resuscitations,” Dr. Galinkin said.

Last spring the FDA approved a higher-dose naloxone hydrochloride nasal spray (Kloxxado) for the emergency treatment of opioid overdose.

Kloxxado delivers 8 mg of naloxone into the nasal cavity, which is twice as much as the 4 mg of naloxone contained in Narcan nasal spray.

The FDA approved ZIMHI (and Kloxxado) through the 505(b)(2) regulatory pathway, which allows the agency to refer to previous findings of safety and efficacy for an already-approved product, as well as to review findings from further studies of the product.

The company plans to launch ZIMHI in the first quarter of 2022.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved the Flucelvax quadrivalent vaccine for use in children aged 6 months and older, according to a statement from manufacturer Seqirus.

“This approval officially allows all eligible Americans to receive a cell-based influenza vaccine, increasing the potential for greater vaccine effectiveness,” according to the company.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention currently recommends annual influenza vaccination for all individuals aged 6 months and older without contraindications.

Flucelvax is manufactured using a cell-based process that yields a more precise match to the WHO-selected influenza strains for a given year. This process avoids the variation associated with traditional egg-based vaccines, and offers the potential for greater vaccine effectiveness, according to the company.

The approval was based in part on data from a phase 3 randomized, controlled noninferiority study of children aged 6-47 months. The data are the first for a cell-based flu vaccine in this age group, and were presented at the Pediatric Academic Societies meeting in 2021.

In the immunogenicity study of children aged 6 months through 3 years, described in the package insert, 1,597 children received Flucelvax quadrivalent and 805 received a control quadrivalent vaccine. After 28 days, Flucelvax showed noninferiority to the control quadrivalent against four influenza strains.

The most common side effects with Flucelvax quadrivalent vaccine overall are pain, redness, swelling, or a hardened area at the injection site, headache, low energy, muscle aches, and malaise. Additional side effects reported in children include tenderness or bruising at the injection site, sleepiness, diarrhea, changes in eating habits, and irritability. The vaccine is contraindicated for individuals with allergies to any of its ingredients.

Additional efficacy data on Flucelvax for children and adolescents aged 2-18 years were recently published in The New England Journal of Medicine.

Full prescribing information for Flucelvax is available here.

The FDA approval letter is available here.[email protected]

The Food and Drug Administration has approved the Flucelvax quadrivalent vaccine for use in children aged 6 months and older, according to a statement from manufacturer Seqirus.

“This approval officially allows all eligible Americans to receive a cell-based influenza vaccine, increasing the potential for greater vaccine effectiveness,” according to the company.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention currently recommends annual influenza vaccination for all individuals aged 6 months and older without contraindications.

Flucelvax is manufactured using a cell-based process that yields a more precise match to the WHO-selected influenza strains for a given year. This process avoids the variation associated with traditional egg-based vaccines, and offers the potential for greater vaccine effectiveness, according to the company.

The approval was based in part on data from a phase 3 randomized, controlled noninferiority study of children aged 6-47 months. The data are the first for a cell-based flu vaccine in this age group, and were presented at the Pediatric Academic Societies meeting in 2021.

In the immunogenicity study of children aged 6 months through 3 years, described in the package insert, 1,597 children received Flucelvax quadrivalent and 805 received a control quadrivalent vaccine. After 28 days, Flucelvax showed noninferiority to the control quadrivalent against four influenza strains.

The most common side effects with Flucelvax quadrivalent vaccine overall are pain, redness, swelling, or a hardened area at the injection site, headache, low energy, muscle aches, and malaise. Additional side effects reported in children include tenderness or bruising at the injection site, sleepiness, diarrhea, changes in eating habits, and irritability. The vaccine is contraindicated for individuals with allergies to any of its ingredients.

Additional efficacy data on Flucelvax for children and adolescents aged 2-18 years were recently published in The New England Journal of Medicine.

Full prescribing information for Flucelvax is available here.

The FDA approval letter is available here.[email protected]

The Food and Drug Administration has approved the Flucelvax quadrivalent vaccine for use in children aged 6 months and older, according to a statement from manufacturer Seqirus.

“This approval officially allows all eligible Americans to receive a cell-based influenza vaccine, increasing the potential for greater vaccine effectiveness,” according to the company.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention currently recommends annual influenza vaccination for all individuals aged 6 months and older without contraindications.

Flucelvax is manufactured using a cell-based process that yields a more precise match to the WHO-selected influenza strains for a given year. This process avoids the variation associated with traditional egg-based vaccines, and offers the potential for greater vaccine effectiveness, according to the company.

The approval was based in part on data from a phase 3 randomized, controlled noninferiority study of children aged 6-47 months. The data are the first for a cell-based flu vaccine in this age group, and were presented at the Pediatric Academic Societies meeting in 2021.

In the immunogenicity study of children aged 6 months through 3 years, described in the package insert, 1,597 children received Flucelvax quadrivalent and 805 received a control quadrivalent vaccine. After 28 days, Flucelvax showed noninferiority to the control quadrivalent against four influenza strains.

The most common side effects with Flucelvax quadrivalent vaccine overall are pain, redness, swelling, or a hardened area at the injection site, headache, low energy, muscle aches, and malaise. Additional side effects reported in children include tenderness or bruising at the injection site, sleepiness, diarrhea, changes in eating habits, and irritability. The vaccine is contraindicated for individuals with allergies to any of its ingredients.

Additional efficacy data on Flucelvax for children and adolescents aged 2-18 years were recently published in The New England Journal of Medicine.

Full prescribing information for Flucelvax is available here.

The FDA approval letter is available here.[email protected]

Patients who are being treated with Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors overall show a high immune response rate to COVID-19 vaccination, one that matches the rates seen in patients on other immunosuppressants, a new study has found.

The patients taking a JAK inhibitor who are most at risk of a diminished response may be those on upadacitinib (Rinvoq) and anyone 65 years or older, wrote Raphaèle Seror, MD, PhD, of Paris-Saclay (France) University and coauthors. The study was published in The Lancet Rheumatology.

To gauge the effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines in this subset of immunosuppressed patients, the researchers analyzed 113 participants in the MAJIK-SFR Registry, a multicenter study of French patients with rheumatoid or psoriatic arthritis. The participants were treated at 13 centers throughout France; their mean age was 61.8 years (standard deviation, 12.5), and 72% were female. A total of 56 were taking baricitinib (Olumiant), 30 were taking tofacitinib (Xeljanz), and 27 were taking upadacitinib.

Serologic assessment was performed an average of 8.7 weeks (SD, 5.2) after the last dose of vaccine. The overall response rate – defined as the proportion of patients with detectable anti-spike antibodies per manufacturer’s cutoff values – was 88% (100 of 113). The nonresponse rate was higher with upadacitinib (7 of 27 patients, 26%) than with baricitinib (5 of 56, 9%) or tofacitinib (1 of 30, 3%). The only nonresponders who were not age 65 or older were four of the seven who received upadacitinib. The interval between the last vaccine dose and serologic assessment was somewhat longer in nonresponders (11.3 weeks) than in responders (8.3 weeks).

Earlier this year, the American College of Rheumatology recommended withholding JAK inhibitors for 1 week after each vaccine dose because of “concern related to the effects of this medication class on interferon signaling that may result in a diminished vaccine response Only two patients in the study had treatment with JAK inhibitors stopped before or after vaccination.

Questions about antibody levels remain difficult to answer

“This study does further confirm a big point,” said Alfred Kim, MD, PhD, of Washington University, St. Louis, in an interview. “Most people on any sort of immunosuppression, with rare exceptions, can mount responses to COVID-19 vaccination.”

“What level of response is going to be sufficient, of course, is not clear,” he added. “Even though most people generate responses, at the population level those responses seem lower than those in nonimmunosuppressed people. Particularly for those on upadacitinib, which is lower than patients on the other JAK inhibitors. Is that problematic? We don’t know yet.”

Dr. Kim, who was part of a separate, earlier study that assessed vaccine response in patients with chronic inflammatory disease who were being treated with immunosuppressive medications, noted that many of the questions patients are asking about their antibody levels cannot yet be answered.

“It’s kind of the Wild West of serologic testing out there right now,” he said. “Even though we’re recommending that people still don’t check their antibody levels because their results are largely inactionable, everyone is still getting them anyway. But each of these tests are slightly different, and the results and the interpretation are further clouded because of those slight performance differences between each platform.”

Dr. Kim highlighted the number of different tests as one of this study’s notable limitations: 11 different assays were used to determine patients’ immune responses. “The authors made the argument that these tests are FDA approved, and that’s true, but that doesn’t necessarily mean much. Approval does translate to technical reliability but not to comparisons between the tests.”

As for next steps, both the authors and Dr. Kim recognized the need for a prospective trial. “To do a vaccine effectiveness–type study and show clinical protection against either infection or hospitalization – those are going to take a while, simply because of the nature of how many people you need for each of these studies,” he said. “Time will tell whether or not the data that are being presented here will translate literally into protective outcomes downstream.”

The MAJIK Registry is supported by the French Rheumatology Society. The authors acknowledged numerous potential conflicts of interest, including receiving consulting fees, research support, and honoraria from various pharmaceutical companies.

Patients who are being treated with Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors overall show a high immune response rate to COVID-19 vaccination, one that matches the rates seen in patients on other immunosuppressants, a new study has found.

The patients taking a JAK inhibitor who are most at risk of a diminished response may be those on upadacitinib (Rinvoq) and anyone 65 years or older, wrote Raphaèle Seror, MD, PhD, of Paris-Saclay (France) University and coauthors. The study was published in The Lancet Rheumatology.

To gauge the effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines in this subset of immunosuppressed patients, the researchers analyzed 113 participants in the MAJIK-SFR Registry, a multicenter study of French patients with rheumatoid or psoriatic arthritis. The participants were treated at 13 centers throughout France; their mean age was 61.8 years (standard deviation, 12.5), and 72% were female. A total of 56 were taking baricitinib (Olumiant), 30 were taking tofacitinib (Xeljanz), and 27 were taking upadacitinib.

Serologic assessment was performed an average of 8.7 weeks (SD, 5.2) after the last dose of vaccine. The overall response rate – defined as the proportion of patients with detectable anti-spike antibodies per manufacturer’s cutoff values – was 88% (100 of 113). The nonresponse rate was higher with upadacitinib (7 of 27 patients, 26%) than with baricitinib (5 of 56, 9%) or tofacitinib (1 of 30, 3%). The only nonresponders who were not age 65 or older were four of the seven who received upadacitinib. The interval between the last vaccine dose and serologic assessment was somewhat longer in nonresponders (11.3 weeks) than in responders (8.3 weeks).

Earlier this year, the American College of Rheumatology recommended withholding JAK inhibitors for 1 week after each vaccine dose because of “concern related to the effects of this medication class on interferon signaling that may result in a diminished vaccine response Only two patients in the study had treatment with JAK inhibitors stopped before or after vaccination.

Questions about antibody levels remain difficult to answer

“This study does further confirm a big point,” said Alfred Kim, MD, PhD, of Washington University, St. Louis, in an interview. “Most people on any sort of immunosuppression, with rare exceptions, can mount responses to COVID-19 vaccination.”

“What level of response is going to be sufficient, of course, is not clear,” he added. “Even though most people generate responses, at the population level those responses seem lower than those in nonimmunosuppressed people. Particularly for those on upadacitinib, which is lower than patients on the other JAK inhibitors. Is that problematic? We don’t know yet.”

Dr. Kim, who was part of a separate, earlier study that assessed vaccine response in patients with chronic inflammatory disease who were being treated with immunosuppressive medications, noted that many of the questions patients are asking about their antibody levels cannot yet be answered.

“It’s kind of the Wild West of serologic testing out there right now,” he said. “Even though we’re recommending that people still don’t check their antibody levels because their results are largely inactionable, everyone is still getting them anyway. But each of these tests are slightly different, and the results and the interpretation are further clouded because of those slight performance differences between each platform.”

Dr. Kim highlighted the number of different tests as one of this study’s notable limitations: 11 different assays were used to determine patients’ immune responses. “The authors made the argument that these tests are FDA approved, and that’s true, but that doesn’t necessarily mean much. Approval does translate to technical reliability but not to comparisons between the tests.”

As for next steps, both the authors and Dr. Kim recognized the need for a prospective trial. “To do a vaccine effectiveness–type study and show clinical protection against either infection or hospitalization – those are going to take a while, simply because of the nature of how many people you need for each of these studies,” he said. “Time will tell whether or not the data that are being presented here will translate literally into protective outcomes downstream.”

The MAJIK Registry is supported by the French Rheumatology Society. The authors acknowledged numerous potential conflicts of interest, including receiving consulting fees, research support, and honoraria from various pharmaceutical companies.

Patients who are being treated with Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors overall show a high immune response rate to COVID-19 vaccination, one that matches the rates seen in patients on other immunosuppressants, a new study has found.

The patients taking a JAK inhibitor who are most at risk of a diminished response may be those on upadacitinib (Rinvoq) and anyone 65 years or older, wrote Raphaèle Seror, MD, PhD, of Paris-Saclay (France) University and coauthors. The study was published in The Lancet Rheumatology.

To gauge the effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines in this subset of immunosuppressed patients, the researchers analyzed 113 participants in the MAJIK-SFR Registry, a multicenter study of French patients with rheumatoid or psoriatic arthritis. The participants were treated at 13 centers throughout France; their mean age was 61.8 years (standard deviation, 12.5), and 72% were female. A total of 56 were taking baricitinib (Olumiant), 30 were taking tofacitinib (Xeljanz), and 27 were taking upadacitinib.

Serologic assessment was performed an average of 8.7 weeks (SD, 5.2) after the last dose of vaccine. The overall response rate – defined as the proportion of patients with detectable anti-spike antibodies per manufacturer’s cutoff values – was 88% (100 of 113). The nonresponse rate was higher with upadacitinib (7 of 27 patients, 26%) than with baricitinib (5 of 56, 9%) or tofacitinib (1 of 30, 3%). The only nonresponders who were not age 65 or older were four of the seven who received upadacitinib. The interval between the last vaccine dose and serologic assessment was somewhat longer in nonresponders (11.3 weeks) than in responders (8.3 weeks).

Earlier this year, the American College of Rheumatology recommended withholding JAK inhibitors for 1 week after each vaccine dose because of “concern related to the effects of this medication class on interferon signaling that may result in a diminished vaccine response Only two patients in the study had treatment with JAK inhibitors stopped before or after vaccination.

Questions about antibody levels remain difficult to answer

“This study does further confirm a big point,” said Alfred Kim, MD, PhD, of Washington University, St. Louis, in an interview. “Most people on any sort of immunosuppression, with rare exceptions, can mount responses to COVID-19 vaccination.”

“What level of response is going to be sufficient, of course, is not clear,” he added. “Even though most people generate responses, at the population level those responses seem lower than those in nonimmunosuppressed people. Particularly for those on upadacitinib, which is lower than patients on the other JAK inhibitors. Is that problematic? We don’t know yet.”

Dr. Kim, who was part of a separate, earlier study that assessed vaccine response in patients with chronic inflammatory disease who were being treated with immunosuppressive medications, noted that many of the questions patients are asking about their antibody levels cannot yet be answered.

“It’s kind of the Wild West of serologic testing out there right now,” he said. “Even though we’re recommending that people still don’t check their antibody levels because their results are largely inactionable, everyone is still getting them anyway. But each of these tests are slightly different, and the results and the interpretation are further clouded because of those slight performance differences between each platform.”

Dr. Kim highlighted the number of different tests as one of this study’s notable limitations: 11 different assays were used to determine patients’ immune responses. “The authors made the argument that these tests are FDA approved, and that’s true, but that doesn’t necessarily mean much. Approval does translate to technical reliability but not to comparisons between the tests.”

As for next steps, both the authors and Dr. Kim recognized the need for a prospective trial. “To do a vaccine effectiveness–type study and show clinical protection against either infection or hospitalization – those are going to take a while, simply because of the nature of how many people you need for each of these studies,” he said. “Time will tell whether or not the data that are being presented here will translate literally into protective outcomes downstream.”

The MAJIK Registry is supported by the French Rheumatology Society. The authors acknowledged numerous potential conflicts of interest, including receiving consulting fees, research support, and honoraria from various pharmaceutical companies.