Pharmacology

A study that compared three types of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) found that rivaroxaban was associated with a much higher risk of overall and major gastrointestinal bleeding than apixaban or dabigatran.

The results, which were published in the Annals of Internal Medicine, could help guide DOAC selection for high-risk groups with a prior history of peptic ulcer disease or major GI bleeding, said lead study authors Arnar Bragi Ingason, MD and Einar S. Björnsson, MD, PhD, in an email.

DOACs treat conditions such as atrial fibrillation, venous thromboembolism, and ischemic stroke and are known to cause GI bleeding. Previous studies have suggested that rivaroxaban poses a higher GI-bleeding risk than other DOACs.

These studies, which used large administrative databases, “had an inherent risk of selection bias due to insurance status, age, and comorbidities due to their origin from insurance/administrative databases. In addition, they lacked phenotypic details on GI bleeding events,” said Dr. Björnsson and Dr. Ingason, who are both of Landspitali University Hospital, Reykjavik, Iceland,

Daily dosage may exacerbate risk

Rivaroxaban is administered as a single daily dose, compared with apixaban’s and dabigatran’s twice-daily regimens. “We hypothesized that this may lead to a greater variance in drug plasma concentration, making these patients more susceptible to GI bleeding,” the lead authors said.

Using data from the Icelandic Medicine Registry, a national database of outpatient prescription information, they compared rates of GI bleeding among new users of apixaban, dabigatran, and rivaroxaban from 2014 to 2019. Overall, 5,868 patients receiving one of the DOACs took part in the study. Among these participants, 3,217 received rivaroxaban, 2,157 received apixaban, and 494 received dabigatran. The researchers used inverse probability weighting, Kaplan–Meier survival estimates, and Cox regression to compare GI bleeding.

Compared with dabigatran, rivaroxaban was associated with a 63%-104% higher overall risk for GI bleeding and 39%-95% higher risk for major GI bleeding. Rivaroxaban also had a 40%-42% higher overall risk for GI bleeding and 49%-50% higher risk for major GI bleeding, compared with apixaban.

The investigators were surprised by the low rate of upper GI bleeding for dabigatran, compared with the other two drugs. “However, these results must be interpreted in the context that the dabigatran group was relatively small,” said Dr. Björnsson and Dr. Ingason via email.

Overall, the study cohort was small, compared with previous registry studies.

Investigators also did not account for account for socioeconomic status or lifestyle factors, such as alcohol consumption or smoking. “However, because the cost of all DOACs is similar in Iceland, selection bias due to socioeconomic status is unlikely,” the investigators reported in their paper. “We are currently working on comparing the rates of thromboembolisms and overall major bleeding events between the drugs,” the lead authors said.
 

Clinicians should consider location of bleeding

Though retrospective, the study by Ingason et. al. “is likely as close as is feasible to a randomized trial as is possible,” said Don C. Rockey, MD, a professor of medicine at the Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, in an interview.

“From the clinician’s perspective, it is important to take away that there may be differences among the DOACs in terms of where in the GI tract the bleeding occurs,” said Dr. Rockey. In the study, the greatest differences appeared to be in the upper GI tract, with rivaroxaban outpacing apixaban and dabigatran. In patients who are at risk for upper GI bleeding, it may be reasonable to consider use of dabigatran or apixaban, he suggested.

“A limitation of the study is that it is likely underpowered overall,” said Dr. Rockey. It also wasn’t clear how many deaths occurred either directly from GI bleeding or as a complication of GI bleeding, he said.The study also didn’t differentiate major bleeding among DOACs specifically in the upper or lower GI tract, Dr. Rockey added.
 

Other studies yield similar results

Dr. Ingason and Dr. Björnsson said their work complements previous studies, and Neena S. Abraham, MD, MSc , who has conducted a similar investigation to the new study, agreed with that statement.

Data from the last 4 years overwhelmingly show that rivaroxaban is most likely to cause GI bleeding, said Dr. Abraham, professor of medicine and a consultant with Mayo Clinic’s division of gastroenterology and hepatology, in an interview.

A comparative safety study Dr. Abraham coauthored in 2017 of rivaroxaban, apixaban, and dabigatran in a much larger U.S. cohort of 372,380 patients revealed that rivaroxaban had the worst GI bleeding profile. Apixaban was 66% safer than rivaroxaban and 64% safer than dabigatran to prevent gastrointestinal bleeding.

“I believe our group was the first to conduct this study and show clinically significant differences in GI safety of the available direct oral anticoagulants,” she said. Other investigators have since published similar results, and the topic of the new study needs no further investigation, according to Dr. Abraham.

“It is time for physicians to choose a better choice when prescribing a direct oral anticoagulant to their atrial fibrillation patients, and that choice is not rivaroxaban,” she said.

The Icelandic Centre for Research and the Landspítali University Hospital Research Fund provided funds for this study. Dr. Ingason, Dr. Björnsson, Dr. Rockey, and Dr. Abraham reported no disclosures.

A study that compared three types of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) found that rivaroxaban was associated with a much higher risk of overall and major gastrointestinal bleeding than apixaban or dabigatran.

The results, which were published in the Annals of Internal Medicine, could help guide DOAC selection for high-risk groups with a prior history of peptic ulcer disease or major GI bleeding, said lead study authors Arnar Bragi Ingason, MD and Einar S. Björnsson, MD, PhD, in an email.

DOACs treat conditions such as atrial fibrillation, venous thromboembolism, and ischemic stroke and are known to cause GI bleeding. Previous studies have suggested that rivaroxaban poses a higher GI-bleeding risk than other DOACs.

These studies, which used large administrative databases, “had an inherent risk of selection bias due to insurance status, age, and comorbidities due to their origin from insurance/administrative databases. In addition, they lacked phenotypic details on GI bleeding events,” said Dr. Björnsson and Dr. Ingason, who are both of Landspitali University Hospital, Reykjavik, Iceland,

Daily dosage may exacerbate risk

Rivaroxaban is administered as a single daily dose, compared with apixaban’s and dabigatran’s twice-daily regimens. “We hypothesized that this may lead to a greater variance in drug plasma concentration, making these patients more susceptible to GI bleeding,” the lead authors said.

Using data from the Icelandic Medicine Registry, a national database of outpatient prescription information, they compared rates of GI bleeding among new users of apixaban, dabigatran, and rivaroxaban from 2014 to 2019. Overall, 5,868 patients receiving one of the DOACs took part in the study. Among these participants, 3,217 received rivaroxaban, 2,157 received apixaban, and 494 received dabigatran. The researchers used inverse probability weighting, Kaplan–Meier survival estimates, and Cox regression to compare GI bleeding.

Compared with dabigatran, rivaroxaban was associated with a 63%-104% higher overall risk for GI bleeding and 39%-95% higher risk for major GI bleeding. Rivaroxaban also had a 40%-42% higher overall risk for GI bleeding and 49%-50% higher risk for major GI bleeding, compared with apixaban.

The investigators were surprised by the low rate of upper GI bleeding for dabigatran, compared with the other two drugs. “However, these results must be interpreted in the context that the dabigatran group was relatively small,” said Dr. Björnsson and Dr. Ingason via email.

Overall, the study cohort was small, compared with previous registry studies.

Investigators also did not account for account for socioeconomic status or lifestyle factors, such as alcohol consumption or smoking. “However, because the cost of all DOACs is similar in Iceland, selection bias due to socioeconomic status is unlikely,” the investigators reported in their paper. “We are currently working on comparing the rates of thromboembolisms and overall major bleeding events between the drugs,” the lead authors said.
 

Clinicians should consider location of bleeding

Though retrospective, the study by Ingason et. al. “is likely as close as is feasible to a randomized trial as is possible,” said Don C. Rockey, MD, a professor of medicine at the Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, in an interview.

“From the clinician’s perspective, it is important to take away that there may be differences among the DOACs in terms of where in the GI tract the bleeding occurs,” said Dr. Rockey. In the study, the greatest differences appeared to be in the upper GI tract, with rivaroxaban outpacing apixaban and dabigatran. In patients who are at risk for upper GI bleeding, it may be reasonable to consider use of dabigatran or apixaban, he suggested.

“A limitation of the study is that it is likely underpowered overall,” said Dr. Rockey. It also wasn’t clear how many deaths occurred either directly from GI bleeding or as a complication of GI bleeding, he said.The study also didn’t differentiate major bleeding among DOACs specifically in the upper or lower GI tract, Dr. Rockey added.
 

Other studies yield similar results

Dr. Ingason and Dr. Björnsson said their work complements previous studies, and Neena S. Abraham, MD, MSc , who has conducted a similar investigation to the new study, agreed with that statement.

Data from the last 4 years overwhelmingly show that rivaroxaban is most likely to cause GI bleeding, said Dr. Abraham, professor of medicine and a consultant with Mayo Clinic’s division of gastroenterology and hepatology, in an interview.

A comparative safety study Dr. Abraham coauthored in 2017 of rivaroxaban, apixaban, and dabigatran in a much larger U.S. cohort of 372,380 patients revealed that rivaroxaban had the worst GI bleeding profile. Apixaban was 66% safer than rivaroxaban and 64% safer than dabigatran to prevent gastrointestinal bleeding.

“I believe our group was the first to conduct this study and show clinically significant differences in GI safety of the available direct oral anticoagulants,” she said. Other investigators have since published similar results, and the topic of the new study needs no further investigation, according to Dr. Abraham.

“It is time for physicians to choose a better choice when prescribing a direct oral anticoagulant to their atrial fibrillation patients, and that choice is not rivaroxaban,” she said.

The Icelandic Centre for Research and the Landspítali University Hospital Research Fund provided funds for this study. Dr. Ingason, Dr. Björnsson, Dr. Rockey, and Dr. Abraham reported no disclosures.

A study that compared three types of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) found that rivaroxaban was associated with a much higher risk of overall and major gastrointestinal bleeding than apixaban or dabigatran.

The results, which were published in the Annals of Internal Medicine, could help guide DOAC selection for high-risk groups with a prior history of peptic ulcer disease or major GI bleeding, said lead study authors Arnar Bragi Ingason, MD and Einar S. Björnsson, MD, PhD, in an email.

DOACs treat conditions such as atrial fibrillation, venous thromboembolism, and ischemic stroke and are known to cause GI bleeding. Previous studies have suggested that rivaroxaban poses a higher GI-bleeding risk than other DOACs.

These studies, which used large administrative databases, “had an inherent risk of selection bias due to insurance status, age, and comorbidities due to their origin from insurance/administrative databases. In addition, they lacked phenotypic details on GI bleeding events,” said Dr. Björnsson and Dr. Ingason, who are both of Landspitali University Hospital, Reykjavik, Iceland,

Daily dosage may exacerbate risk

Rivaroxaban is administered as a single daily dose, compared with apixaban’s and dabigatran’s twice-daily regimens. “We hypothesized that this may lead to a greater variance in drug plasma concentration, making these patients more susceptible to GI bleeding,” the lead authors said.

Using data from the Icelandic Medicine Registry, a national database of outpatient prescription information, they compared rates of GI bleeding among new users of apixaban, dabigatran, and rivaroxaban from 2014 to 2019. Overall, 5,868 patients receiving one of the DOACs took part in the study. Among these participants, 3,217 received rivaroxaban, 2,157 received apixaban, and 494 received dabigatran. The researchers used inverse probability weighting, Kaplan–Meier survival estimates, and Cox regression to compare GI bleeding.

Compared with dabigatran, rivaroxaban was associated with a 63%-104% higher overall risk for GI bleeding and 39%-95% higher risk for major GI bleeding. Rivaroxaban also had a 40%-42% higher overall risk for GI bleeding and 49%-50% higher risk for major GI bleeding, compared with apixaban.

The investigators were surprised by the low rate of upper GI bleeding for dabigatran, compared with the other two drugs. “However, these results must be interpreted in the context that the dabigatran group was relatively small,” said Dr. Björnsson and Dr. Ingason via email.

Overall, the study cohort was small, compared with previous registry studies.

Investigators also did not account for account for socioeconomic status or lifestyle factors, such as alcohol consumption or smoking. “However, because the cost of all DOACs is similar in Iceland, selection bias due to socioeconomic status is unlikely,” the investigators reported in their paper. “We are currently working on comparing the rates of thromboembolisms and overall major bleeding events between the drugs,” the lead authors said.
 

Clinicians should consider location of bleeding

Though retrospective, the study by Ingason et. al. “is likely as close as is feasible to a randomized trial as is possible,” said Don C. Rockey, MD, a professor of medicine at the Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, in an interview.

“From the clinician’s perspective, it is important to take away that there may be differences among the DOACs in terms of where in the GI tract the bleeding occurs,” said Dr. Rockey. In the study, the greatest differences appeared to be in the upper GI tract, with rivaroxaban outpacing apixaban and dabigatran. In patients who are at risk for upper GI bleeding, it may be reasonable to consider use of dabigatran or apixaban, he suggested.

“A limitation of the study is that it is likely underpowered overall,” said Dr. Rockey. It also wasn’t clear how many deaths occurred either directly from GI bleeding or as a complication of GI bleeding, he said.The study also didn’t differentiate major bleeding among DOACs specifically in the upper or lower GI tract, Dr. Rockey added.
 

Other studies yield similar results

Dr. Ingason and Dr. Björnsson said their work complements previous studies, and Neena S. Abraham, MD, MSc , who has conducted a similar investigation to the new study, agreed with that statement.

Data from the last 4 years overwhelmingly show that rivaroxaban is most likely to cause GI bleeding, said Dr. Abraham, professor of medicine and a consultant with Mayo Clinic’s division of gastroenterology and hepatology, in an interview.

A comparative safety study Dr. Abraham coauthored in 2017 of rivaroxaban, apixaban, and dabigatran in a much larger U.S. cohort of 372,380 patients revealed that rivaroxaban had the worst GI bleeding profile. Apixaban was 66% safer than rivaroxaban and 64% safer than dabigatran to prevent gastrointestinal bleeding.

“I believe our group was the first to conduct this study and show clinically significant differences in GI safety of the available direct oral anticoagulants,” she said. Other investigators have since published similar results, and the topic of the new study needs no further investigation, according to Dr. Abraham.

“It is time for physicians to choose a better choice when prescribing a direct oral anticoagulant to their atrial fibrillation patients, and that choice is not rivaroxaban,” she said.

The Icelandic Centre for Research and the Landspítali University Hospital Research Fund provided funds for this study. Dr. Ingason, Dr. Björnsson, Dr. Rockey, and Dr. Abraham reported no disclosures.

Recent literature features new descriptions of myocarditis linked to the two available mRNA vaccines against SARS-CoV-2. They tell a story largely consistent with experience to date, and support what might be its most useful public health message: The associated myocarditis is usually mild and self-limiting, and is far less likely to occur than myocarditis or death in unvaccinated people with COVID-19.

In line with previous research, the new analyses suggest the myocarditis – with onset usually a few days to a week after injection – has an overall incidence that ranges from less than 1 to perhaps 3 per 100,000 people who received at least one of the full mRNA-vaccine regimen’s two injections. Also, as in earlier studies, the incidence climbed higher – sometimes sharply – in certain groups by age and sex, particularly in young men and older male teens.

The new studies “are confirmatory, in terms of the risk being low,” but underscore that clinicians still must be wary of myocarditis as a potential complication of the mRNA vaccines, Biykem Bozkurt, MD, PhD, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, told this news organization.

Dr. Bozkurt, a leading heart failure specialist and researcher, did not contribute to any of the new reports but does study the myocarditis of COVID-19 and was lead author on a recent review of the potential vaccine complication’s features and possible mechanisms.

In the new myocarditis reports, she observed, more than 90% of the cases were mild and “resolved on their own without a major adverse outcome.” Dr. Bozkurt emphasized the need for perspective regarding the risk. For example, the myocarditis associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection is not only more likely than the vaccine-related myocarditis, but it’s also usually far more severe.

Dr. Bozkurt pointed to a recent study in which the mRNA vaccines, compared with no vaccination, appeared to escalate the myocarditis risk by a factor of 3, whereas the risk for myocarditis in SARS-CoV-2 infection was increased 18 times.

In contrast, she observed, the new myocarditis cases reported this week feature a few that are novel or are at least very rare, including the case of a patient who developed cardiogenic shock and another with fulminant myocarditis who died.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in May publicly described the apparent link between myocarditis and the two available mRNA vaccines against SARS-CoV-2: BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech) and mRNA-1273 (Moderna). The next month, the Food and Drug Administration added a warning about the risk to the labeling.
 

Less than 1 case per 100,000

Fifteen confirmed cases of myocarditis were identified among about 2.4 million members of Kaiser Permanente Southern California aged 18 or older who received at least one injection of the Pfizer or Moderna mRNA vaccines between December 2020 and July 2021, in a report published in JAMA Internal Medicine. The study counted cases up to 10 days after the first or second injection, of which there were 2 and 13, respectively.

All eight patients who received the Pfizer BNT162b2 vaccine and the eight given the Moderna mRNA-1273 vaccine were male with a median age of 25 years (interquartile range, 20-32 years).

“The main takeaway messages from our study are that the incidence of myocarditis after COVID-19 mRNA vaccinations is very low, that this condition is primarily observed in young men within a few days after the second dose, and that most patients recover quickly,” senior author Mingsum Lee, MD, PhD, Kaiser Permanente Los Angeles Medical Center, told this news organization.

“The incidence of vaccine-related myocarditis was significantly lower than rates of COVID-19 hospitalization during the same period and population area,” she added.

The group saw a per-million incidence of 0.8 and 5.8 myocarditis cases in the 10 days after first and second injections, respectively. That made for an incidence of 0.58 per 100,000, or 1 case per 172,414 fully vaccinated adults.

The group also considered a cohort of 1,577,741 unvaccinated people with a median age of 39 years (interquartile range, 28-53 years) during the same period. Of the 75 cases of myocarditis, 52% were in men, they reported.

Comparing the vaccinated and unvaccinated cohorts, they saw a 10-day vaccine-associated myocarditis incidence rate ratio of 0.38 (95% confidence interval, 0.05-1.40; P = .15) after the first dose, and 2.7 (95% CI, 1.4-4.8; P = .004) after the second dose.

In a comparison of the vaccinated group with itself using data from a 10-day period in the previous year, the corresponding myocarditis IRRs were 1.0 (P > .99) and 3.3 (P = .03), respectively.

Dr. Lee said none of the 15 patients required admission to an intensive care unit. “All patients with myocarditis responded well to treatment and felt better quickly,” she noted.

Myocarditis after an mRNA vaccine injection is rare and, Dr. Lee said emphatically, and “the benefits of the COVID-19 vaccine greatly outweigh the risks.”
 

Sex- and age-stratified rates

In a separate analysis of 5,442,696 people given a first dose of the Pfizer BNT162b2 vaccine and 5,125,635 given a second dose, there were 142 cases of myocarditis with onset 21 days after dose 1 and 30 days after dose 2. Of those cases, 136 were documented as “definite or probable” in an Israeli Ministry of Health database that covered up to the end of May 2021.

There were also 40 cases among vaccinated people seen after the 30-day window, which were considered not related to the vaccination, and 101 cases among unvaccinated people; of the latter, 29 had confirmed diagnoses of COVID-19.

Of the 136 people with definite or probable cases, the myocarditis was “generally mild” in 129 and usually resolved on its own, notes the report on the study, published in the New England Journal of Medicine, with lead author Dror Mevorach, MD, Hadassah-Hebrew University Medical Center, Jerusalem.

The estimated myocarditis incidence after a second such vaccine dose across the entire Israeli population, based on the current study, was about one per 26,000 males and one per 218,000 females, the group writes. Those figures compare with one case per 10,857 among “the general unvaccinated population.”

Again, the risk was concentrated among younger men and male adolescents. In an analysis limited to vaccinated people aged 16-19 years, myocarditis in the 21 days after a second mRNA injection was seen in about one of 6,637 males and one of 99,853 females, the group reported.

The standardized incidence ratio of 5.34 (95% CI, 4.48-6.40) after a second injection, across all groups, “was driven mostly by the diagnosis of myocarditis in younger male recipients.” Among that male subgroup, the ratios by age group were 13.60 (95% CI, 9.30-19.20) for 16-19 years, 8.53 (95% CI, 5.57-12.50) for 20-24 years, and 6.96 (95% CI, 4.25-10.75) for 25-29 years.

Among people who received a second injection, compared with unvaccinated people, the 30-day rate ratio was 2.35 (95% CI, 1.10-5.02). Again, the effect was concentrated in males aged 16-19 years. Among them, the myocarditis rate ratios in the 30 days after a second mRNA vaccine injection were 8.96 (95% CI, 4.50-17.83) for the 16-19 years group, 6.13 (95% CI, 3.16-11.88) for the 20-24 group, and 3.58 (95% CI, 1.82-7.01) for 25-29 years.

Most of the patients with myocarditis showed “significant clinical improvement,” with a mean hospitalization time of only 3-4 days, the report notes. Treatment consisted of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs “with or without colchicine for presumed pericardial inflammation.”

However, seven patients (4.9%) developed important complications, including left-ventricular dysfunction, ventricular arrhythmias, and heart failure. Among them was a 22-year-old patient who died of fulminant myocarditis within 24 hours of diagnosis, the group wrote.
 

From an Israeli health care organization

Published by the same journal as the study by Dr. Menvorach and associates, an analysis of a separate database showed largely consistent findings among patients in the largest of Israel’s four health care organizations charged by the government to administer health services.

The report, with authors led by Guy Witberg, MD, Rabin Medical Center, Petah Tikva, Israel, focused on members of the health care organization aged 16 years or older who had received at least one Pfizer mRNA vaccine dose by the end of May 2021.

The cohorts from the two separate reports surely overlap substantially, as the Ministry of Health analysis from Dr. Mevorach and colleagues derived from a nationwide database, and – as Dr. Witberg and associates wrote – the health care organization providing their data covers 52% of the Israeli population.

Of 2,558,421 vaccinated people in the analysis, of whom 94% received two doses, 54 developed confirmed myocarditis in the 42 days after the first dose. Their median age was 27 years (interquartile range, 21-35 years) and all but three (94%) were male. Of those 54 cases, 41 were considered mild and 12 intermediate in severity, and one was fulminant with the patient in cardiogenic shock, the group writes. In addition, nonsustained ventricular tachycardia and atrial fibrillation developed in 5% and 3% of cases, respectively.

The estimated myocarditis incidence in the 42 days after administration of at least one mRNA vaccine dose was 2.13 per 100,000 vaccinated people. In that group, Dr. Witberg and colleagues note, the corresponding incidences per 100,000 were 4.12 and 0.23 for males and females, respectively.

Also in the current report, incidences per 100,000 vaccinated people aged 16-29 years, by sex, included 5.49 (95% CI, 3.59-7.39) overall, and 10.69 (95% CI, 6.93-14.46) for males (the highest rate in the report).

There was only one case in a female aged 16-29 years, and two cases in females 30 years or older.

Of note, some authors of the current study are also authors on the high-profile report from Noam Barda, MD, and colleagues published in the New England Journal of Medicine, that used the same database to arrive at an mRNA-vaccine-related incidence of myocarditis of 2.7 per 100,000. Eligibility criteria and follow-up time were different in that report, as were case ascertainment criteria.

The myocarditis risk associated with the two mRNA vaccines is small compared with “the morbidity and mortality of COVID-19 infection, in which up to 28% of hospitalized patients showed signs of myocardial injury,” wrote Vinay Guduguntla, MD, University of California, San Francisco, and Mitchell H. Katz, MD, NYC Health + Hospitals, New York, in an editorial accompanying the report from Dr. Lee and associates.

“Randomized clinical trials show that COVID-19 mRNA vaccines represent a safe and effective method of preventing infection,” they stated. “The identification of rare myocarditis does not change clinical decision-making.”

Dr. Bozkurt, who is immediate past president of the Heart Failure Society of America, has disclosed consulting for Bayer and scPharmaceuticals and serving on a clinical events committee for a trial supported by Abbott Pharmaceuticals and on a data and safety monitoring board for a trial supported by Liva Nova Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Lee and the report’s other authors had no disclosures. Dr. Mevorach discloses consulting for Enlivex Therapeutics; disclosures for the other authors are available at NEJM.org. Dr. Witberg said he has no interests to disclose; disclosures for the other authors are available at NEJM.org. Dr. Guduguntla is an editorial fellow and Dr. Katz a deputy editor at JAMA Internal Medicine; neither had disclosures.

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

Recent literature features new descriptions of myocarditis linked to the two available mRNA vaccines against SARS-CoV-2. They tell a story largely consistent with experience to date, and support what might be its most useful public health message: The associated myocarditis is usually mild and self-limiting, and is far less likely to occur than myocarditis or death in unvaccinated people with COVID-19.

In line with previous research, the new analyses suggest the myocarditis – with onset usually a few days to a week after injection – has an overall incidence that ranges from less than 1 to perhaps 3 per 100,000 people who received at least one of the full mRNA-vaccine regimen’s two injections. Also, as in earlier studies, the incidence climbed higher – sometimes sharply – in certain groups by age and sex, particularly in young men and older male teens.

The new studies “are confirmatory, in terms of the risk being low,” but underscore that clinicians still must be wary of myocarditis as a potential complication of the mRNA vaccines, Biykem Bozkurt, MD, PhD, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, told this news organization.

Dr. Bozkurt, a leading heart failure specialist and researcher, did not contribute to any of the new reports but does study the myocarditis of COVID-19 and was lead author on a recent review of the potential vaccine complication’s features and possible mechanisms.

In the new myocarditis reports, she observed, more than 90% of the cases were mild and “resolved on their own without a major adverse outcome.” Dr. Bozkurt emphasized the need for perspective regarding the risk. For example, the myocarditis associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection is not only more likely than the vaccine-related myocarditis, but it’s also usually far more severe.

Dr. Bozkurt pointed to a recent study in which the mRNA vaccines, compared with no vaccination, appeared to escalate the myocarditis risk by a factor of 3, whereas the risk for myocarditis in SARS-CoV-2 infection was increased 18 times.

In contrast, she observed, the new myocarditis cases reported this week feature a few that are novel or are at least very rare, including the case of a patient who developed cardiogenic shock and another with fulminant myocarditis who died.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in May publicly described the apparent link between myocarditis and the two available mRNA vaccines against SARS-CoV-2: BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech) and mRNA-1273 (Moderna). The next month, the Food and Drug Administration added a warning about the risk to the labeling.
 

Less than 1 case per 100,000

Fifteen confirmed cases of myocarditis were identified among about 2.4 million members of Kaiser Permanente Southern California aged 18 or older who received at least one injection of the Pfizer or Moderna mRNA vaccines between December 2020 and July 2021, in a report published in JAMA Internal Medicine. The study counted cases up to 10 days after the first or second injection, of which there were 2 and 13, respectively.

All eight patients who received the Pfizer BNT162b2 vaccine and the eight given the Moderna mRNA-1273 vaccine were male with a median age of 25 years (interquartile range, 20-32 years).

“The main takeaway messages from our study are that the incidence of myocarditis after COVID-19 mRNA vaccinations is very low, that this condition is primarily observed in young men within a few days after the second dose, and that most patients recover quickly,” senior author Mingsum Lee, MD, PhD, Kaiser Permanente Los Angeles Medical Center, told this news organization.

“The incidence of vaccine-related myocarditis was significantly lower than rates of COVID-19 hospitalization during the same period and population area,” she added.

The group saw a per-million incidence of 0.8 and 5.8 myocarditis cases in the 10 days after first and second injections, respectively. That made for an incidence of 0.58 per 100,000, or 1 case per 172,414 fully vaccinated adults.

The group also considered a cohort of 1,577,741 unvaccinated people with a median age of 39 years (interquartile range, 28-53 years) during the same period. Of the 75 cases of myocarditis, 52% were in men, they reported.

Comparing the vaccinated and unvaccinated cohorts, they saw a 10-day vaccine-associated myocarditis incidence rate ratio of 0.38 (95% confidence interval, 0.05-1.40; P = .15) after the first dose, and 2.7 (95% CI, 1.4-4.8; P = .004) after the second dose.

In a comparison of the vaccinated group with itself using data from a 10-day period in the previous year, the corresponding myocarditis IRRs were 1.0 (P > .99) and 3.3 (P = .03), respectively.

Dr. Lee said none of the 15 patients required admission to an intensive care unit. “All patients with myocarditis responded well to treatment and felt better quickly,” she noted.

Myocarditis after an mRNA vaccine injection is rare and, Dr. Lee said emphatically, and “the benefits of the COVID-19 vaccine greatly outweigh the risks.”
 

Sex- and age-stratified rates

In a separate analysis of 5,442,696 people given a first dose of the Pfizer BNT162b2 vaccine and 5,125,635 given a second dose, there were 142 cases of myocarditis with onset 21 days after dose 1 and 30 days after dose 2. Of those cases, 136 were documented as “definite or probable” in an Israeli Ministry of Health database that covered up to the end of May 2021.

There were also 40 cases among vaccinated people seen after the 30-day window, which were considered not related to the vaccination, and 101 cases among unvaccinated people; of the latter, 29 had confirmed diagnoses of COVID-19.

Of the 136 people with definite or probable cases, the myocarditis was “generally mild” in 129 and usually resolved on its own, notes the report on the study, published in the New England Journal of Medicine, with lead author Dror Mevorach, MD, Hadassah-Hebrew University Medical Center, Jerusalem.

The estimated myocarditis incidence after a second such vaccine dose across the entire Israeli population, based on the current study, was about one per 26,000 males and one per 218,000 females, the group writes. Those figures compare with one case per 10,857 among “the general unvaccinated population.”

Again, the risk was concentrated among younger men and male adolescents. In an analysis limited to vaccinated people aged 16-19 years, myocarditis in the 21 days after a second mRNA injection was seen in about one of 6,637 males and one of 99,853 females, the group reported.

The standardized incidence ratio of 5.34 (95% CI, 4.48-6.40) after a second injection, across all groups, “was driven mostly by the diagnosis of myocarditis in younger male recipients.” Among that male subgroup, the ratios by age group were 13.60 (95% CI, 9.30-19.20) for 16-19 years, 8.53 (95% CI, 5.57-12.50) for 20-24 years, and 6.96 (95% CI, 4.25-10.75) for 25-29 years.

Among people who received a second injection, compared with unvaccinated people, the 30-day rate ratio was 2.35 (95% CI, 1.10-5.02). Again, the effect was concentrated in males aged 16-19 years. Among them, the myocarditis rate ratios in the 30 days after a second mRNA vaccine injection were 8.96 (95% CI, 4.50-17.83) for the 16-19 years group, 6.13 (95% CI, 3.16-11.88) for the 20-24 group, and 3.58 (95% CI, 1.82-7.01) for 25-29 years.

Most of the patients with myocarditis showed “significant clinical improvement,” with a mean hospitalization time of only 3-4 days, the report notes. Treatment consisted of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs “with or without colchicine for presumed pericardial inflammation.”

However, seven patients (4.9%) developed important complications, including left-ventricular dysfunction, ventricular arrhythmias, and heart failure. Among them was a 22-year-old patient who died of fulminant myocarditis within 24 hours of diagnosis, the group wrote.
 

From an Israeli health care organization

Published by the same journal as the study by Dr. Menvorach and associates, an analysis of a separate database showed largely consistent findings among patients in the largest of Israel’s four health care organizations charged by the government to administer health services.

The report, with authors led by Guy Witberg, MD, Rabin Medical Center, Petah Tikva, Israel, focused on members of the health care organization aged 16 years or older who had received at least one Pfizer mRNA vaccine dose by the end of May 2021.

The cohorts from the two separate reports surely overlap substantially, as the Ministry of Health analysis from Dr. Mevorach and colleagues derived from a nationwide database, and – as Dr. Witberg and associates wrote – the health care organization providing their data covers 52% of the Israeli population.

Of 2,558,421 vaccinated people in the analysis, of whom 94% received two doses, 54 developed confirmed myocarditis in the 42 days after the first dose. Their median age was 27 years (interquartile range, 21-35 years) and all but three (94%) were male. Of those 54 cases, 41 were considered mild and 12 intermediate in severity, and one was fulminant with the patient in cardiogenic shock, the group writes. In addition, nonsustained ventricular tachycardia and atrial fibrillation developed in 5% and 3% of cases, respectively.

The estimated myocarditis incidence in the 42 days after administration of at least one mRNA vaccine dose was 2.13 per 100,000 vaccinated people. In that group, Dr. Witberg and colleagues note, the corresponding incidences per 100,000 were 4.12 and 0.23 for males and females, respectively.

Also in the current report, incidences per 100,000 vaccinated people aged 16-29 years, by sex, included 5.49 (95% CI, 3.59-7.39) overall, and 10.69 (95% CI, 6.93-14.46) for males (the highest rate in the report).

There was only one case in a female aged 16-29 years, and two cases in females 30 years or older.

Of note, some authors of the current study are also authors on the high-profile report from Noam Barda, MD, and colleagues published in the New England Journal of Medicine, that used the same database to arrive at an mRNA-vaccine-related incidence of myocarditis of 2.7 per 100,000. Eligibility criteria and follow-up time were different in that report, as were case ascertainment criteria.

The myocarditis risk associated with the two mRNA vaccines is small compared with “the morbidity and mortality of COVID-19 infection, in which up to 28% of hospitalized patients showed signs of myocardial injury,” wrote Vinay Guduguntla, MD, University of California, San Francisco, and Mitchell H. Katz, MD, NYC Health + Hospitals, New York, in an editorial accompanying the report from Dr. Lee and associates.

“Randomized clinical trials show that COVID-19 mRNA vaccines represent a safe and effective method of preventing infection,” they stated. “The identification of rare myocarditis does not change clinical decision-making.”

Dr. Bozkurt, who is immediate past president of the Heart Failure Society of America, has disclosed consulting for Bayer and scPharmaceuticals and serving on a clinical events committee for a trial supported by Abbott Pharmaceuticals and on a data and safety monitoring board for a trial supported by Liva Nova Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Lee and the report’s other authors had no disclosures. Dr. Mevorach discloses consulting for Enlivex Therapeutics; disclosures for the other authors are available at NEJM.org. Dr. Witberg said he has no interests to disclose; disclosures for the other authors are available at NEJM.org. Dr. Guduguntla is an editorial fellow and Dr. Katz a deputy editor at JAMA Internal Medicine; neither had disclosures.

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

Recent literature features new descriptions of myocarditis linked to the two available mRNA vaccines against SARS-CoV-2. They tell a story largely consistent with experience to date, and support what might be its most useful public health message: The associated myocarditis is usually mild and self-limiting, and is far less likely to occur than myocarditis or death in unvaccinated people with COVID-19.

In line with previous research, the new analyses suggest the myocarditis – with onset usually a few days to a week after injection – has an overall incidence that ranges from less than 1 to perhaps 3 per 100,000 people who received at least one of the full mRNA-vaccine regimen’s two injections. Also, as in earlier studies, the incidence climbed higher – sometimes sharply – in certain groups by age and sex, particularly in young men and older male teens.

The new studies “are confirmatory, in terms of the risk being low,” but underscore that clinicians still must be wary of myocarditis as a potential complication of the mRNA vaccines, Biykem Bozkurt, MD, PhD, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, told this news organization.

Dr. Bozkurt, a leading heart failure specialist and researcher, did not contribute to any of the new reports but does study the myocarditis of COVID-19 and was lead author on a recent review of the potential vaccine complication’s features and possible mechanisms.

In the new myocarditis reports, she observed, more than 90% of the cases were mild and “resolved on their own without a major adverse outcome.” Dr. Bozkurt emphasized the need for perspective regarding the risk. For example, the myocarditis associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection is not only more likely than the vaccine-related myocarditis, but it’s also usually far more severe.

Dr. Bozkurt pointed to a recent study in which the mRNA vaccines, compared with no vaccination, appeared to escalate the myocarditis risk by a factor of 3, whereas the risk for myocarditis in SARS-CoV-2 infection was increased 18 times.

In contrast, she observed, the new myocarditis cases reported this week feature a few that are novel or are at least very rare, including the case of a patient who developed cardiogenic shock and another with fulminant myocarditis who died.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in May publicly described the apparent link between myocarditis and the two available mRNA vaccines against SARS-CoV-2: BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech) and mRNA-1273 (Moderna). The next month, the Food and Drug Administration added a warning about the risk to the labeling.
 

Less than 1 case per 100,000

Fifteen confirmed cases of myocarditis were identified among about 2.4 million members of Kaiser Permanente Southern California aged 18 or older who received at least one injection of the Pfizer or Moderna mRNA vaccines between December 2020 and July 2021, in a report published in JAMA Internal Medicine. The study counted cases up to 10 days after the first or second injection, of which there were 2 and 13, respectively.

All eight patients who received the Pfizer BNT162b2 vaccine and the eight given the Moderna mRNA-1273 vaccine were male with a median age of 25 years (interquartile range, 20-32 years).

“The main takeaway messages from our study are that the incidence of myocarditis after COVID-19 mRNA vaccinations is very low, that this condition is primarily observed in young men within a few days after the second dose, and that most patients recover quickly,” senior author Mingsum Lee, MD, PhD, Kaiser Permanente Los Angeles Medical Center, told this news organization.

“The incidence of vaccine-related myocarditis was significantly lower than rates of COVID-19 hospitalization during the same period and population area,” she added.

The group saw a per-million incidence of 0.8 and 5.8 myocarditis cases in the 10 days after first and second injections, respectively. That made for an incidence of 0.58 per 100,000, or 1 case per 172,414 fully vaccinated adults.

The group also considered a cohort of 1,577,741 unvaccinated people with a median age of 39 years (interquartile range, 28-53 years) during the same period. Of the 75 cases of myocarditis, 52% were in men, they reported.

Comparing the vaccinated and unvaccinated cohorts, they saw a 10-day vaccine-associated myocarditis incidence rate ratio of 0.38 (95% confidence interval, 0.05-1.40; P = .15) after the first dose, and 2.7 (95% CI, 1.4-4.8; P = .004) after the second dose.

In a comparison of the vaccinated group with itself using data from a 10-day period in the previous year, the corresponding myocarditis IRRs were 1.0 (P > .99) and 3.3 (P = .03), respectively.

Dr. Lee said none of the 15 patients required admission to an intensive care unit. “All patients with myocarditis responded well to treatment and felt better quickly,” she noted.

Myocarditis after an mRNA vaccine injection is rare and, Dr. Lee said emphatically, and “the benefits of the COVID-19 vaccine greatly outweigh the risks.”
 

Sex- and age-stratified rates

In a separate analysis of 5,442,696 people given a first dose of the Pfizer BNT162b2 vaccine and 5,125,635 given a second dose, there were 142 cases of myocarditis with onset 21 days after dose 1 and 30 days after dose 2. Of those cases, 136 were documented as “definite or probable” in an Israeli Ministry of Health database that covered up to the end of May 2021.

There were also 40 cases among vaccinated people seen after the 30-day window, which were considered not related to the vaccination, and 101 cases among unvaccinated people; of the latter, 29 had confirmed diagnoses of COVID-19.

Of the 136 people with definite or probable cases, the myocarditis was “generally mild” in 129 and usually resolved on its own, notes the report on the study, published in the New England Journal of Medicine, with lead author Dror Mevorach, MD, Hadassah-Hebrew University Medical Center, Jerusalem.

The estimated myocarditis incidence after a second such vaccine dose across the entire Israeli population, based on the current study, was about one per 26,000 males and one per 218,000 females, the group writes. Those figures compare with one case per 10,857 among “the general unvaccinated population.”

Again, the risk was concentrated among younger men and male adolescents. In an analysis limited to vaccinated people aged 16-19 years, myocarditis in the 21 days after a second mRNA injection was seen in about one of 6,637 males and one of 99,853 females, the group reported.

The standardized incidence ratio of 5.34 (95% CI, 4.48-6.40) after a second injection, across all groups, “was driven mostly by the diagnosis of myocarditis in younger male recipients.” Among that male subgroup, the ratios by age group were 13.60 (95% CI, 9.30-19.20) for 16-19 years, 8.53 (95% CI, 5.57-12.50) for 20-24 years, and 6.96 (95% CI, 4.25-10.75) for 25-29 years.

Among people who received a second injection, compared with unvaccinated people, the 30-day rate ratio was 2.35 (95% CI, 1.10-5.02). Again, the effect was concentrated in males aged 16-19 years. Among them, the myocarditis rate ratios in the 30 days after a second mRNA vaccine injection were 8.96 (95% CI, 4.50-17.83) for the 16-19 years group, 6.13 (95% CI, 3.16-11.88) for the 20-24 group, and 3.58 (95% CI, 1.82-7.01) for 25-29 years.

Most of the patients with myocarditis showed “significant clinical improvement,” with a mean hospitalization time of only 3-4 days, the report notes. Treatment consisted of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs “with or without colchicine for presumed pericardial inflammation.”

However, seven patients (4.9%) developed important complications, including left-ventricular dysfunction, ventricular arrhythmias, and heart failure. Among them was a 22-year-old patient who died of fulminant myocarditis within 24 hours of diagnosis, the group wrote.
 

From an Israeli health care organization

Published by the same journal as the study by Dr. Menvorach and associates, an analysis of a separate database showed largely consistent findings among patients in the largest of Israel’s four health care organizations charged by the government to administer health services.

The report, with authors led by Guy Witberg, MD, Rabin Medical Center, Petah Tikva, Israel, focused on members of the health care organization aged 16 years or older who had received at least one Pfizer mRNA vaccine dose by the end of May 2021.

The cohorts from the two separate reports surely overlap substantially, as the Ministry of Health analysis from Dr. Mevorach and colleagues derived from a nationwide database, and – as Dr. Witberg and associates wrote – the health care organization providing their data covers 52% of the Israeli population.

Of 2,558,421 vaccinated people in the analysis, of whom 94% received two doses, 54 developed confirmed myocarditis in the 42 days after the first dose. Their median age was 27 years (interquartile range, 21-35 years) and all but three (94%) were male. Of those 54 cases, 41 were considered mild and 12 intermediate in severity, and one was fulminant with the patient in cardiogenic shock, the group writes. In addition, nonsustained ventricular tachycardia and atrial fibrillation developed in 5% and 3% of cases, respectively.

The estimated myocarditis incidence in the 42 days after administration of at least one mRNA vaccine dose was 2.13 per 100,000 vaccinated people. In that group, Dr. Witberg and colleagues note, the corresponding incidences per 100,000 were 4.12 and 0.23 for males and females, respectively.

Also in the current report, incidences per 100,000 vaccinated people aged 16-29 years, by sex, included 5.49 (95% CI, 3.59-7.39) overall, and 10.69 (95% CI, 6.93-14.46) for males (the highest rate in the report).

There was only one case in a female aged 16-29 years, and two cases in females 30 years or older.

Of note, some authors of the current study are also authors on the high-profile report from Noam Barda, MD, and colleagues published in the New England Journal of Medicine, that used the same database to arrive at an mRNA-vaccine-related incidence of myocarditis of 2.7 per 100,000. Eligibility criteria and follow-up time were different in that report, as were case ascertainment criteria.

The myocarditis risk associated with the two mRNA vaccines is small compared with “the morbidity and mortality of COVID-19 infection, in which up to 28% of hospitalized patients showed signs of myocardial injury,” wrote Vinay Guduguntla, MD, University of California, San Francisco, and Mitchell H. Katz, MD, NYC Health + Hospitals, New York, in an editorial accompanying the report from Dr. Lee and associates.

“Randomized clinical trials show that COVID-19 mRNA vaccines represent a safe and effective method of preventing infection,” they stated. “The identification of rare myocarditis does not change clinical decision-making.”

Dr. Bozkurt, who is immediate past president of the Heart Failure Society of America, has disclosed consulting for Bayer and scPharmaceuticals and serving on a clinical events committee for a trial supported by Abbott Pharmaceuticals and on a data and safety monitoring board for a trial supported by Liva Nova Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Lee and the report’s other authors had no disclosures. Dr. Mevorach discloses consulting for Enlivex Therapeutics; disclosures for the other authors are available at NEJM.org. Dr. Witberg said he has no interests to disclose; disclosures for the other authors are available at NEJM.org. Dr. Guduguntla is an editorial fellow and Dr. Katz a deputy editor at JAMA Internal Medicine; neither had disclosures.

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

Drugmaker Merck announced today that it submitted an application to the Food and Drug Administration for the emergency use authorization of molnupiravir, an experimental antiviral COVID-19 treatment.

If the FDA grants authorization, the drug would be the first oral antiviral treatment for COVID-19. The capsule, made by Merck and Ridgeback Biotherapeutics, is intended to treat mild to moderate COVID-19 in adults who are at risk of having severe COVID-19 or hospitalization.

“The extraordinary impact of this pandemic demands that we move with unprecedented urgency, and that is what our teams have done by submitting this application for molnupiravir to the FDA within 10 days of receiving the data,” Robert Davis, CEO and president of Merck, said in a statement. On Oct. 1, Merck and Ridgeback released interim data from its phase III clinical trial, which showed that molnupiravir reduced the risk of hospitalization or death by about 50%. About 7% of patients who received the drug were hospitalized within 30 days in the study, as compared with 14% of patients who took a placebo, the company said.

No deaths were reported in the group that received the drug, as compared with eight deaths in the group that received the placebo. None of the trial participants had been vaccinated.

“Medicines and vaccines are both essential to our collective efforts,” Mr. Davis said. “We look forward to working with the FDA on its review of our application, and to working with other regulatory agencies as we do everything we can to bring molnupiravir to patients around the world as quickly as possible.”

Merck has been producing molnupiravir in anticipation of the clinical trial results and FDA authorization. The company expects to produce 10 million courses of treatment by the end of the year, with more expected for 2022.

In June, Merck signed an agreement with the United States to supply 1.7 million courses of molnupiravir once the FDA authorizes the drug. The company has agreed to advance purchase agreements with other countries as well.

Earlier in the year, Merck also announced voluntary licensing agreements with several generics manufacturers in India to provide molnupiravir to more than 100 low- and middle-income countries after approval from local regulatory agencies.

Data from the company’s late-stage clinical trial has not yet been peer-reviewed or published.

Last week, Anthony Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, said the clinical trial results were “very encouraging” but noted that the FDA should closely scrutinize the drug, CNN reported.

“It is very important that this now must go through the usual process of careful examination of the data by the Food and Drug Administration, both for effectiveness but also for safety, because whenever you introduce a new compound, safety is very important,” Dr. Fauci said, adding that vaccines remain “our best tools against COVID-19.”


A version of this article firsts appeared on WebMD.com.

Drugmaker Merck announced today that it submitted an application to the Food and Drug Administration for the emergency use authorization of molnupiravir, an experimental antiviral COVID-19 treatment.

If the FDA grants authorization, the drug would be the first oral antiviral treatment for COVID-19. The capsule, made by Merck and Ridgeback Biotherapeutics, is intended to treat mild to moderate COVID-19 in adults who are at risk of having severe COVID-19 or hospitalization.

“The extraordinary impact of this pandemic demands that we move with unprecedented urgency, and that is what our teams have done by submitting this application for molnupiravir to the FDA within 10 days of receiving the data,” Robert Davis, CEO and president of Merck, said in a statement. On Oct. 1, Merck and Ridgeback released interim data from its phase III clinical trial, which showed that molnupiravir reduced the risk of hospitalization or death by about 50%. About 7% of patients who received the drug were hospitalized within 30 days in the study, as compared with 14% of patients who took a placebo, the company said.

No deaths were reported in the group that received the drug, as compared with eight deaths in the group that received the placebo. None of the trial participants had been vaccinated.

“Medicines and vaccines are both essential to our collective efforts,” Mr. Davis said. “We look forward to working with the FDA on its review of our application, and to working with other regulatory agencies as we do everything we can to bring molnupiravir to patients around the world as quickly as possible.”

Merck has been producing molnupiravir in anticipation of the clinical trial results and FDA authorization. The company expects to produce 10 million courses of treatment by the end of the year, with more expected for 2022.

In June, Merck signed an agreement with the United States to supply 1.7 million courses of molnupiravir once the FDA authorizes the drug. The company has agreed to advance purchase agreements with other countries as well.

Earlier in the year, Merck also announced voluntary licensing agreements with several generics manufacturers in India to provide molnupiravir to more than 100 low- and middle-income countries after approval from local regulatory agencies.

Data from the company’s late-stage clinical trial has not yet been peer-reviewed or published.

Last week, Anthony Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, said the clinical trial results were “very encouraging” but noted that the FDA should closely scrutinize the drug, CNN reported.

“It is very important that this now must go through the usual process of careful examination of the data by the Food and Drug Administration, both for effectiveness but also for safety, because whenever you introduce a new compound, safety is very important,” Dr. Fauci said, adding that vaccines remain “our best tools against COVID-19.”


A version of this article firsts appeared on WebMD.com.

Drugmaker Merck announced today that it submitted an application to the Food and Drug Administration for the emergency use authorization of molnupiravir, an experimental antiviral COVID-19 treatment.

If the FDA grants authorization, the drug would be the first oral antiviral treatment for COVID-19. The capsule, made by Merck and Ridgeback Biotherapeutics, is intended to treat mild to moderate COVID-19 in adults who are at risk of having severe COVID-19 or hospitalization.

“The extraordinary impact of this pandemic demands that we move with unprecedented urgency, and that is what our teams have done by submitting this application for molnupiravir to the FDA within 10 days of receiving the data,” Robert Davis, CEO and president of Merck, said in a statement. On Oct. 1, Merck and Ridgeback released interim data from its phase III clinical trial, which showed that molnupiravir reduced the risk of hospitalization or death by about 50%. About 7% of patients who received the drug were hospitalized within 30 days in the study, as compared with 14% of patients who took a placebo, the company said.

No deaths were reported in the group that received the drug, as compared with eight deaths in the group that received the placebo. None of the trial participants had been vaccinated.

“Medicines and vaccines are both essential to our collective efforts,” Mr. Davis said. “We look forward to working with the FDA on its review of our application, and to working with other regulatory agencies as we do everything we can to bring molnupiravir to patients around the world as quickly as possible.”

Merck has been producing molnupiravir in anticipation of the clinical trial results and FDA authorization. The company expects to produce 10 million courses of treatment by the end of the year, with more expected for 2022.

In June, Merck signed an agreement with the United States to supply 1.7 million courses of molnupiravir once the FDA authorizes the drug. The company has agreed to advance purchase agreements with other countries as well.

Earlier in the year, Merck also announced voluntary licensing agreements with several generics manufacturers in India to provide molnupiravir to more than 100 low- and middle-income countries after approval from local regulatory agencies.

Data from the company’s late-stage clinical trial has not yet been peer-reviewed or published.

Last week, Anthony Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, said the clinical trial results were “very encouraging” but noted that the FDA should closely scrutinize the drug, CNN reported.

“It is very important that this now must go through the usual process of careful examination of the data by the Food and Drug Administration, both for effectiveness but also for safety, because whenever you introduce a new compound, safety is very important,” Dr. Fauci said, adding that vaccines remain “our best tools against COVID-19.”


A version of this article firsts appeared on WebMD.com.

Taking high-doses of marine omega-3 fatty acids, more than 1 gram daily, may raise the risk for atrial fibrillation (AFib), according to a meta-analysis of relevant research. 

However, the risk of developing AFib appears to be “relatively small” for those taking 1 gram or less of fish oil per day, Christine M. Albert, MD, chair of the department of cardiology at the Smidt Heart Institute at Cedars-Sinai, Los Angeles, told this news organization.

The study was published online Oct. 6 in the journal Circulation.

It’s estimated that 7.8% of U.S. adults – almost 19 million in all – take fish oil supplements, often unbeknownst to their health care providers, the researchers noted. Yet, the literature on the effects of omega-3 fatty acid supplementation on cardiovascular outcomes are mixed.

“Some, but not all” large-scale randomized controlled trials investigating the effects of marine omega-3 fatty acid supplements on cardiovascular outcomes have reported increased risks for AFib. The potential reasons for differing findings may be dose related, the authors note in their paper.

The goal of this meta-analysis was to “bring clarity, answers, and actionable information” to doctors and patients, said Dr. Albert. The results suggest, however, that there may not be a “straightforward answer” to whether fish oil is good or bad for AFib. Instead, the answer may depend on the dose, she added.
 

Pooled data

After screening 4,049 articles and abstracts, the researchers included in their analysis seven large-scale randomized controlled trials reporting cardiovascular outcomes of marine omega-3 fatty acids.

The trials reported results for AFib, either as prespecified outcome, adverse event, or a reason for hospitalization. Each had a minimum of 500 patients and a median follow-up of at least 1 year. 

Trials examining the effects of omega-3 fatty acids on recurrent AFib in patients with established AFib or postoperative AFib were excluded.

The seven trials enrolled a total of 81,210 patients (mean age, 65 years; 39% women); 72.6% of participants were enrolled in clinical trials testing ≤1 gram of marine omega-3 fatty acids per day and 27.4% were enrolled in clinical trials testing >1 gram of the supplement per day. The weighted average follow-up was 4.9 years.

Overall, use of omega-3 fatty acids was associated with a 25% increased risk for AFib (hazard ratio, 1.25; 95% confidence interval, 1.07-1.46; P = .013).

In analyses stratified by dose, the risk for AFib was “significantly more pronounced” in trials testing high doses of marine omega-3 fatty acid supplements (>1 gram per day: HR, 1.49; 95% CI, 1.04-2.15; P = .042) compared with those testing lower doses (≤1 gram per day: HR, 1.12; 95% CI, 1.03-1.22; P = .024; P for interaction < .001).

In meta-regression, the HR for AFib increased per 1 gram increase in daily omega-3 fatty acid dose (HR. 1.11; 95% CI, 1.06-1.15; P = .001).
 

Risk-benefit balance

“This meta-analysis adds new evidence regarding the risk of AFib in patients taking marine omega-3 fatty acid supplements,” wrote Dr. Albert and colleagues.

“Since the benefit of omega-3 fatty acids also appears to be dose dependent, the associated risk of AFib should be balanced against the benefit on atherosclerotic cardiovascular outcomes,” they suggested.

They cautioned that the meta-analysis pooled aggregate-level trial data, not individual patient data. Therefore, subgroup analyses by age or other patient level characteristics were not possible.

The risk of developing AFib increases with advancing age and is more common in men than in women. Additional risk factors include elevated blood pressure, coronary artery disease, heart failure, heart valve defects, obesity, and diabetes.

The authors said the potential risk of developing AFib with high doses of omega-3 fatty acid supplements should be discussed with patients and they should know the signs and symptoms of the condition.

The study had no specific funding. Dr. Albert has received grants from St. Jude Medical, Abbott, and Roche Diagnostics.

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

Taking high-doses of marine omega-3 fatty acids, more than 1 gram daily, may raise the risk for atrial fibrillation (AFib), according to a meta-analysis of relevant research. 

However, the risk of developing AFib appears to be “relatively small” for those taking 1 gram or less of fish oil per day, Christine M. Albert, MD, chair of the department of cardiology at the Smidt Heart Institute at Cedars-Sinai, Los Angeles, told this news organization.

The study was published online Oct. 6 in the journal Circulation.

It’s estimated that 7.8% of U.S. adults – almost 19 million in all – take fish oil supplements, often unbeknownst to their health care providers, the researchers noted. Yet, the literature on the effects of omega-3 fatty acid supplementation on cardiovascular outcomes are mixed.

“Some, but not all” large-scale randomized controlled trials investigating the effects of marine omega-3 fatty acid supplements on cardiovascular outcomes have reported increased risks for AFib. The potential reasons for differing findings may be dose related, the authors note in their paper.

The goal of this meta-analysis was to “bring clarity, answers, and actionable information” to doctors and patients, said Dr. Albert. The results suggest, however, that there may not be a “straightforward answer” to whether fish oil is good or bad for AFib. Instead, the answer may depend on the dose, she added.
 

Pooled data

After screening 4,049 articles and abstracts, the researchers included in their analysis seven large-scale randomized controlled trials reporting cardiovascular outcomes of marine omega-3 fatty acids.

The trials reported results for AFib, either as prespecified outcome, adverse event, or a reason for hospitalization. Each had a minimum of 500 patients and a median follow-up of at least 1 year. 

Trials examining the effects of omega-3 fatty acids on recurrent AFib in patients with established AFib or postoperative AFib were excluded.

The seven trials enrolled a total of 81,210 patients (mean age, 65 years; 39% women); 72.6% of participants were enrolled in clinical trials testing ≤1 gram of marine omega-3 fatty acids per day and 27.4% were enrolled in clinical trials testing >1 gram of the supplement per day. The weighted average follow-up was 4.9 years.

Overall, use of omega-3 fatty acids was associated with a 25% increased risk for AFib (hazard ratio, 1.25; 95% confidence interval, 1.07-1.46; P = .013).

In analyses stratified by dose, the risk for AFib was “significantly more pronounced” in trials testing high doses of marine omega-3 fatty acid supplements (>1 gram per day: HR, 1.49; 95% CI, 1.04-2.15; P = .042) compared with those testing lower doses (≤1 gram per day: HR, 1.12; 95% CI, 1.03-1.22; P = .024; P for interaction < .001).

In meta-regression, the HR for AFib increased per 1 gram increase in daily omega-3 fatty acid dose (HR. 1.11; 95% CI, 1.06-1.15; P = .001).
 

Risk-benefit balance

“This meta-analysis adds new evidence regarding the risk of AFib in patients taking marine omega-3 fatty acid supplements,” wrote Dr. Albert and colleagues.

“Since the benefit of omega-3 fatty acids also appears to be dose dependent, the associated risk of AFib should be balanced against the benefit on atherosclerotic cardiovascular outcomes,” they suggested.

They cautioned that the meta-analysis pooled aggregate-level trial data, not individual patient data. Therefore, subgroup analyses by age or other patient level characteristics were not possible.

The risk of developing AFib increases with advancing age and is more common in men than in women. Additional risk factors include elevated blood pressure, coronary artery disease, heart failure, heart valve defects, obesity, and diabetes.

The authors said the potential risk of developing AFib with high doses of omega-3 fatty acid supplements should be discussed with patients and they should know the signs and symptoms of the condition.

The study had no specific funding. Dr. Albert has received grants from St. Jude Medical, Abbott, and Roche Diagnostics.

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

Taking high-doses of marine omega-3 fatty acids, more than 1 gram daily, may raise the risk for atrial fibrillation (AFib), according to a meta-analysis of relevant research. 

However, the risk of developing AFib appears to be “relatively small” for those taking 1 gram or less of fish oil per day, Christine M. Albert, MD, chair of the department of cardiology at the Smidt Heart Institute at Cedars-Sinai, Los Angeles, told this news organization.

The study was published online Oct. 6 in the journal Circulation.

It’s estimated that 7.8% of U.S. adults – almost 19 million in all – take fish oil supplements, often unbeknownst to their health care providers, the researchers noted. Yet, the literature on the effects of omega-3 fatty acid supplementation on cardiovascular outcomes are mixed.

“Some, but not all” large-scale randomized controlled trials investigating the effects of marine omega-3 fatty acid supplements on cardiovascular outcomes have reported increased risks for AFib. The potential reasons for differing findings may be dose related, the authors note in their paper.

The goal of this meta-analysis was to “bring clarity, answers, and actionable information” to doctors and patients, said Dr. Albert. The results suggest, however, that there may not be a “straightforward answer” to whether fish oil is good or bad for AFib. Instead, the answer may depend on the dose, she added.
 

Pooled data

After screening 4,049 articles and abstracts, the researchers included in their analysis seven large-scale randomized controlled trials reporting cardiovascular outcomes of marine omega-3 fatty acids.

The trials reported results for AFib, either as prespecified outcome, adverse event, or a reason for hospitalization. Each had a minimum of 500 patients and a median follow-up of at least 1 year. 

Trials examining the effects of omega-3 fatty acids on recurrent AFib in patients with established AFib or postoperative AFib were excluded.

The seven trials enrolled a total of 81,210 patients (mean age, 65 years; 39% women); 72.6% of participants were enrolled in clinical trials testing ≤1 gram of marine omega-3 fatty acids per day and 27.4% were enrolled in clinical trials testing >1 gram of the supplement per day. The weighted average follow-up was 4.9 years.

Overall, use of omega-3 fatty acids was associated with a 25% increased risk for AFib (hazard ratio, 1.25; 95% confidence interval, 1.07-1.46; P = .013).

In analyses stratified by dose, the risk for AFib was “significantly more pronounced” in trials testing high doses of marine omega-3 fatty acid supplements (>1 gram per day: HR, 1.49; 95% CI, 1.04-2.15; P = .042) compared with those testing lower doses (≤1 gram per day: HR, 1.12; 95% CI, 1.03-1.22; P = .024; P for interaction < .001).

In meta-regression, the HR for AFib increased per 1 gram increase in daily omega-3 fatty acid dose (HR. 1.11; 95% CI, 1.06-1.15; P = .001).
 

Risk-benefit balance

“This meta-analysis adds new evidence regarding the risk of AFib in patients taking marine omega-3 fatty acid supplements,” wrote Dr. Albert and colleagues.

“Since the benefit of omega-3 fatty acids also appears to be dose dependent, the associated risk of AFib should be balanced against the benefit on atherosclerotic cardiovascular outcomes,” they suggested.

They cautioned that the meta-analysis pooled aggregate-level trial data, not individual patient data. Therefore, subgroup analyses by age or other patient level characteristics were not possible.

The risk of developing AFib increases with advancing age and is more common in men than in women. Additional risk factors include elevated blood pressure, coronary artery disease, heart failure, heart valve defects, obesity, and diabetes.

The authors said the potential risk of developing AFib with high doses of omega-3 fatty acid supplements should be discussed with patients and they should know the signs and symptoms of the condition.

The study had no specific funding. Dr. Albert has received grants from St. Jude Medical, Abbott, and Roche Diagnostics.

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

Statin use is associated with increased likelihood of diabetes progression, according to a new matched cohort analysis of data from the Department of Veteran Affairs.

Patients with diabetes who were on statins were more likely to begin taking insulin, become hyperglycemic, and to develop acute glycemic complications, and they were also more likely to be prescribed medications from more glucose-lowering drug classes.

Although previous observational and randomized, controlled trials suggested a link between statin use and diabetes progression, they typically relied on measures like insulin resistance, hemoglobin A1c, or fasting blood glucose levels. The new work, however, outlines changes in glycemic control.

The differences between fasting glucose levels and A1c levels were generally smaller than the differences in insulin sensitivity. But A1c and fasting glucose may underestimate a potential effect of statins, since physicians may escalate antidiabetes therapy in response to changes.

Insulin sensitivity is also rarely measured in real-world settings. “This study translated findings reported on academic studies of increased insulin resistance associated with statin use in research papers into everyday language of patient care. That is, patients on statins may need to escalate their antidiabetes therapy and there may have higher occurrences of uncontrolled diabetes events,” lead author Ishak Mansi, MD, said in an interview.

The study was published online in JAMA Internal Medicine.

Dr. Mansi, who is staff internist at the VA North Texas Health System and a professor of medicine and data and population science at the University of Texas, both in Dallas, cautioned about overinterpretation of the findings. “This is an observational study; therefore, it can establish association, but not causation.”
 

No reason to turn down statins

Dr. Mansi noted that it’s important to distinguish between those being prescribed statins as a primary preventive measurement against cardiovascular disease, and those starting statins with preexisting cardiovascular disease for secondary prevention. Statins are a key therapeutic class for secondary prevention. “Their benefits are tremendous, and we should emphasize that no patient should stop taking their statins based on our study – rather, they should talk to their doctors,” said Dr. Mansi.

The study is one of few to look at statin use and diabetes progression in patients who already have diabetes, and the first with a propensity-matched design, according to Om Ganda, MD, who was asked for comment. The results should not deter physicians from prescribing and patients from accepting statins. “Statins should not be withheld in people with high risk of cardiovascular disease, even for primary prevention, as the risk of progression of glucose levels is relatively much smaller and manageable, rather than risking cardiovascular events by stopping or not initiating when indicated by current guidelines,” said Dr. Ganda, who is the medical director of the Lipid Clinic at the Joslin Diabetes Center and an associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, both in Boston.

It’s possible that statins could increase risk of diabetes progression through promoting insulin resistance, and they may also reduce beta-cell function, which could in turn reduce insulin secretion, according to Dr. Ganda.

The study group included 83,022 pairs of statin users and matched controls, of whom 95% were men; 68.2% were White; 22% were Black; 2.1% were Native American, Pacific Islander, or Alaska Native; and 0.8% were Asian. The mean age was 60 years.

Some 56% of statin users experienced diabetes progression, compared with 48% of control patients (odds ratio, 1.37; P < .001). Progression was defined as intensification of diabetes therapy through new use of insulin or increase in the number of medication classes, new onset chronic hyperglycemia, or acute complications from hyperglycemia.

The association was seen in the component measures, including an increased number of glucose-lowering medication classes (OR, 1.41; P < .001), the frequency of new insulin use (OR, 1.16; P < .001), persistent glycemia (OR, 1.13; P < .001), and a new diagnosis of ketoacidosis or uncontrolled diabetes (OR, 1.24; P < .001).

There was also a dose-response relationship between the intensity of LDL cholesterol–lowering medication and diabetes progression.
 

More research needed

The findings don’t necessarily have a strong clinical impact, but the researchers hope it pushes toward greater personalization of statin treatment. The benefits of statins have been well studied, but their potential harms have not received the same attention. Dr. Mansi hopes to learn more about which populations stand to gain the most for primary cardiovascular disease prevention, such as older versus younger populations, healthier or sicker patients, and those with well-controlled versus uncontrolled diabetes. “Answering these questions [would] impact hundreds of millions of patients and cannot be postponed,” said Dr. Mansi. He also called for dedicated funding for research into the adverse events of frequently used medications.

Dr. Mansi and Dr. Ganda have no relevant financial disclosures.

Statin use is associated with increased likelihood of diabetes progression, according to a new matched cohort analysis of data from the Department of Veteran Affairs.

Patients with diabetes who were on statins were more likely to begin taking insulin, become hyperglycemic, and to develop acute glycemic complications, and they were also more likely to be prescribed medications from more glucose-lowering drug classes.

Although previous observational and randomized, controlled trials suggested a link between statin use and diabetes progression, they typically relied on measures like insulin resistance, hemoglobin A1c, or fasting blood glucose levels. The new work, however, outlines changes in glycemic control.

The differences between fasting glucose levels and A1c levels were generally smaller than the differences in insulin sensitivity. But A1c and fasting glucose may underestimate a potential effect of statins, since physicians may escalate antidiabetes therapy in response to changes.

Insulin sensitivity is also rarely measured in real-world settings. “This study translated findings reported on academic studies of increased insulin resistance associated with statin use in research papers into everyday language of patient care. That is, patients on statins may need to escalate their antidiabetes therapy and there may have higher occurrences of uncontrolled diabetes events,” lead author Ishak Mansi, MD, said in an interview.

The study was published online in JAMA Internal Medicine.

Dr. Mansi, who is staff internist at the VA North Texas Health System and a professor of medicine and data and population science at the University of Texas, both in Dallas, cautioned about overinterpretation of the findings. “This is an observational study; therefore, it can establish association, but not causation.”
 

No reason to turn down statins

Dr. Mansi noted that it’s important to distinguish between those being prescribed statins as a primary preventive measurement against cardiovascular disease, and those starting statins with preexisting cardiovascular disease for secondary prevention. Statins are a key therapeutic class for secondary prevention. “Their benefits are tremendous, and we should emphasize that no patient should stop taking their statins based on our study – rather, they should talk to their doctors,” said Dr. Mansi.

The study is one of few to look at statin use and diabetes progression in patients who already have diabetes, and the first with a propensity-matched design, according to Om Ganda, MD, who was asked for comment. The results should not deter physicians from prescribing and patients from accepting statins. “Statins should not be withheld in people with high risk of cardiovascular disease, even for primary prevention, as the risk of progression of glucose levels is relatively much smaller and manageable, rather than risking cardiovascular events by stopping or not initiating when indicated by current guidelines,” said Dr. Ganda, who is the medical director of the Lipid Clinic at the Joslin Diabetes Center and an associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, both in Boston.

It’s possible that statins could increase risk of diabetes progression through promoting insulin resistance, and they may also reduce beta-cell function, which could in turn reduce insulin secretion, according to Dr. Ganda.

The study group included 83,022 pairs of statin users and matched controls, of whom 95% were men; 68.2% were White; 22% were Black; 2.1% were Native American, Pacific Islander, or Alaska Native; and 0.8% were Asian. The mean age was 60 years.

Some 56% of statin users experienced diabetes progression, compared with 48% of control patients (odds ratio, 1.37; P < .001). Progression was defined as intensification of diabetes therapy through new use of insulin or increase in the number of medication classes, new onset chronic hyperglycemia, or acute complications from hyperglycemia.

The association was seen in the component measures, including an increased number of glucose-lowering medication classes (OR, 1.41; P < .001), the frequency of new insulin use (OR, 1.16; P < .001), persistent glycemia (OR, 1.13; P < .001), and a new diagnosis of ketoacidosis or uncontrolled diabetes (OR, 1.24; P < .001).

There was also a dose-response relationship between the intensity of LDL cholesterol–lowering medication and diabetes progression.
 

More research needed

The findings don’t necessarily have a strong clinical impact, but the researchers hope it pushes toward greater personalization of statin treatment. The benefits of statins have been well studied, but their potential harms have not received the same attention. Dr. Mansi hopes to learn more about which populations stand to gain the most for primary cardiovascular disease prevention, such as older versus younger populations, healthier or sicker patients, and those with well-controlled versus uncontrolled diabetes. “Answering these questions [would] impact hundreds of millions of patients and cannot be postponed,” said Dr. Mansi. He also called for dedicated funding for research into the adverse events of frequently used medications.

Dr. Mansi and Dr. Ganda have no relevant financial disclosures.

Statin use is associated with increased likelihood of diabetes progression, according to a new matched cohort analysis of data from the Department of Veteran Affairs.

Patients with diabetes who were on statins were more likely to begin taking insulin, become hyperglycemic, and to develop acute glycemic complications, and they were also more likely to be prescribed medications from more glucose-lowering drug classes.

Although previous observational and randomized, controlled trials suggested a link between statin use and diabetes progression, they typically relied on measures like insulin resistance, hemoglobin A1c, or fasting blood glucose levels. The new work, however, outlines changes in glycemic control.

The differences between fasting glucose levels and A1c levels were generally smaller than the differences in insulin sensitivity. But A1c and fasting glucose may underestimate a potential effect of statins, since physicians may escalate antidiabetes therapy in response to changes.

Insulin sensitivity is also rarely measured in real-world settings. “This study translated findings reported on academic studies of increased insulin resistance associated with statin use in research papers into everyday language of patient care. That is, patients on statins may need to escalate their antidiabetes therapy and there may have higher occurrences of uncontrolled diabetes events,” lead author Ishak Mansi, MD, said in an interview.

The study was published online in JAMA Internal Medicine.

Dr. Mansi, who is staff internist at the VA North Texas Health System and a professor of medicine and data and population science at the University of Texas, both in Dallas, cautioned about overinterpretation of the findings. “This is an observational study; therefore, it can establish association, but not causation.”
 

No reason to turn down statins

Dr. Mansi noted that it’s important to distinguish between those being prescribed statins as a primary preventive measurement against cardiovascular disease, and those starting statins with preexisting cardiovascular disease for secondary prevention. Statins are a key therapeutic class for secondary prevention. “Their benefits are tremendous, and we should emphasize that no patient should stop taking their statins based on our study – rather, they should talk to their doctors,” said Dr. Mansi.

The study is one of few to look at statin use and diabetes progression in patients who already have diabetes, and the first with a propensity-matched design, according to Om Ganda, MD, who was asked for comment. The results should not deter physicians from prescribing and patients from accepting statins. “Statins should not be withheld in people with high risk of cardiovascular disease, even for primary prevention, as the risk of progression of glucose levels is relatively much smaller and manageable, rather than risking cardiovascular events by stopping or not initiating when indicated by current guidelines,” said Dr. Ganda, who is the medical director of the Lipid Clinic at the Joslin Diabetes Center and an associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, both in Boston.

It’s possible that statins could increase risk of diabetes progression through promoting insulin resistance, and they may also reduce beta-cell function, which could in turn reduce insulin secretion, according to Dr. Ganda.

The study group included 83,022 pairs of statin users and matched controls, of whom 95% were men; 68.2% were White; 22% were Black; 2.1% were Native American, Pacific Islander, or Alaska Native; and 0.8% were Asian. The mean age was 60 years.

Some 56% of statin users experienced diabetes progression, compared with 48% of control patients (odds ratio, 1.37; P < .001). Progression was defined as intensification of diabetes therapy through new use of insulin or increase in the number of medication classes, new onset chronic hyperglycemia, or acute complications from hyperglycemia.

The association was seen in the component measures, including an increased number of glucose-lowering medication classes (OR, 1.41; P < .001), the frequency of new insulin use (OR, 1.16; P < .001), persistent glycemia (OR, 1.13; P < .001), and a new diagnosis of ketoacidosis or uncontrolled diabetes (OR, 1.24; P < .001).

There was also a dose-response relationship between the intensity of LDL cholesterol–lowering medication and diabetes progression.
 

More research needed

The findings don’t necessarily have a strong clinical impact, but the researchers hope it pushes toward greater personalization of statin treatment. The benefits of statins have been well studied, but their potential harms have not received the same attention. Dr. Mansi hopes to learn more about which populations stand to gain the most for primary cardiovascular disease prevention, such as older versus younger populations, healthier or sicker patients, and those with well-controlled versus uncontrolled diabetes. “Answering these questions [would] impact hundreds of millions of patients and cannot be postponed,” said Dr. Mansi. He also called for dedicated funding for research into the adverse events of frequently used medications.

Dr. Mansi and Dr. Ganda have no relevant financial disclosures.

Baricitinib, an oral inhibitor of Janus kinase (JAK) types 1 and 2, produced substantial rates of hair growth with acceptable tolerability for patients with alopecia areata, according to the results of two phase 3 trials presented at the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology (EADV) 2021 Annual Meeting.

In both trials, severe alopecia areata, defined as a SALT (Severity of Alopecia Tool) score of greater than or equal to 50, was an enrollment requirement. The primary endpoint was a SALT score of less than or equal to 20, signifying 80% scalp coverage.

“The mean SALT score at entry was 85,” reported Brett King, MD, PhD, associate professor of dermatology, Yale University, New Haven, Conn. He explained that the SALT scale extends from 0 (no hair loss) to 100 (complete hair loss). About 45% of patients in the phase 3 trials had alopecia universalis.

In both trials, called BRAVE-AA1 and BRAVE-AA2, a response was seen with baricitinib after about 4 weeks. Response increased steadily through the entire 36 weeks of treatment. At the end of 36 weeks, when response curves still had an upward trajectory, the proportion of those treated with the 4-mg dose of baricitinib who had achieved a SALT score of less than or equal to 20 had reached 35.2% in BRAVE-AA1 and 32.5% in BRAVE-AA2.

The nearly identical BRAVE-AA1 and BRAVE-AA2 trials enrolled 654 and 546 patients, respectively. The patients were randomly assigned in a 3:2:2 ratio to receive baricitinib 4 mg, baricitinib 2 mg, or placebo. All treatments were taken once daily. Regrowth of eyebrow and eyelash hair were secondary outcomes.

There was a clear dose effect; hair growth increased more quickly with the 4-mg dose of baricitinib than with the 2-mg dose. The difference between the active therapy and placebo was significant by 16 weeks with the 4-mg dose. By 24 weeks, the advantage of the 2-mg dose over placebo also reached significance. The response rate with the 4-mg dose was nearly twice as great.

At the end of the 36-week trials, the proportion of patients treated with baricitinib 2 mg who achieved the primary endpoint was 21.7% and 17.3% in the BRAVE-AA1 and BRAVE-AA2 trials, respectively. Among patients taking placebo, the primary endpoint was met by 5.3% and 2.6%, respectively, at the end of the two trials.

The differences in responses with the 4-mg and the 2-mg doses were significantly higher compared with placebo (P ≤ .001 for both doses vs. placebo).

Using a scoring system for eyebrow and eyelash hair loss, the proportion of patients who achieved a score of 0 (full coverage) or 1 (minimal gaps) was again superior in both trials for patients taking the higher dose of baricitinib. This level of response was reached by about 31% to 35% of those taking the 4-mg dose in BRAVE-AA1 and BRAVE-AA2 (P ≤ .001 vs. placebo). With the lower dose, the rates were 19.1% and 13.5%, respectively. This endpoint was reached in only about 3% of patients who took placebo.

Rates of adverse events were modestly higher in the two active treatment groups in comparison with the group taking placebo. The most commonly occurring adverse events with baricitinib included upper respiratory tract infections, nasopharyngitis, urinary tract infections, and headache, according to Dr. King.

“Most of the adverse events were mild to moderate,” he said. He also reported that none of these adverse events occurred in more than 10% of patients, and there were no cases of other opportunistic infections, thromboembolic events, or gastrointestinal perforations. The discontinuation rates because of adverse events with active therapy were less than 3% in both trials.

JAK inhibitors are currently employed in the treatment of a variety of inflammatory diseases. Baricitinib is currently approved for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. Because specificity differs markedly for their inhibition of JAK kinases (JAK1, JAK2, JAK3, and Tyk2), these drugs do not appear to be interchangeable with regard to clinical effect.

Several case reports of hair regrowth with baricitinib led to a phase 2 trial, which was recently published in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology. In this trial, the therapy also yielded substantial benefit for patients with alopecia areata. The benefit of baricitinib is attributed to inhibition of JAK1 and JAK2 signaling, which has been implicated in cytokine-mediated immune dysfunction leading to damage of hair follicles.

Alopecia areata is a common disorder that can have a large adverse impact on quality of life, Dr. King noted. There is no approved therapy for this condition, so there is a large unmet need. Although longer follow-up is needed to gauge sustained efficacy and safety, he considers these results promising for a therapy with clinically meaningful benefit.

This point was reiterated by Yolanda Gilaberte Calzada, MD, PhD, head of the Dermatology Service, University Hospital Miguel Servet, Zaragoza, Spain, who was moderator of the session in which Dr. King presented these data. She expressed excitement about the promise of baricitinib, particularly with regard to the substantial proportion of patients who achieved meaningful degrees of hair regrowth.

“All of us will be happy to have options for alopecia areata,” said Dr. Calzada, who predicted that the higher dose of baricitinib will be selected for clinical development, given its greater efficacy with little increase in safety concerns.

Eli Lilly provided funding for the BRAVE-AA1 and -AA2 trials. Dr. King has financial relationships with Arena, Aclaris, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Concert, Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi Genzyme, and Eli Lilly. Dr. Calzada has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Baricitinib, an oral inhibitor of Janus kinase (JAK) types 1 and 2, produced substantial rates of hair growth with acceptable tolerability for patients with alopecia areata, according to the results of two phase 3 trials presented at the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology (EADV) 2021 Annual Meeting.

In both trials, severe alopecia areata, defined as a SALT (Severity of Alopecia Tool) score of greater than or equal to 50, was an enrollment requirement. The primary endpoint was a SALT score of less than or equal to 20, signifying 80% scalp coverage.

“The mean SALT score at entry was 85,” reported Brett King, MD, PhD, associate professor of dermatology, Yale University, New Haven, Conn. He explained that the SALT scale extends from 0 (no hair loss) to 100 (complete hair loss). About 45% of patients in the phase 3 trials had alopecia universalis.

In both trials, called BRAVE-AA1 and BRAVE-AA2, a response was seen with baricitinib after about 4 weeks. Response increased steadily through the entire 36 weeks of treatment. At the end of 36 weeks, when response curves still had an upward trajectory, the proportion of those treated with the 4-mg dose of baricitinib who had achieved a SALT score of less than or equal to 20 had reached 35.2% in BRAVE-AA1 and 32.5% in BRAVE-AA2.

The nearly identical BRAVE-AA1 and BRAVE-AA2 trials enrolled 654 and 546 patients, respectively. The patients were randomly assigned in a 3:2:2 ratio to receive baricitinib 4 mg, baricitinib 2 mg, or placebo. All treatments were taken once daily. Regrowth of eyebrow and eyelash hair were secondary outcomes.

There was a clear dose effect; hair growth increased more quickly with the 4-mg dose of baricitinib than with the 2-mg dose. The difference between the active therapy and placebo was significant by 16 weeks with the 4-mg dose. By 24 weeks, the advantage of the 2-mg dose over placebo also reached significance. The response rate with the 4-mg dose was nearly twice as great.

At the end of the 36-week trials, the proportion of patients treated with baricitinib 2 mg who achieved the primary endpoint was 21.7% and 17.3% in the BRAVE-AA1 and BRAVE-AA2 trials, respectively. Among patients taking placebo, the primary endpoint was met by 5.3% and 2.6%, respectively, at the end of the two trials.

The differences in responses with the 4-mg and the 2-mg doses were significantly higher compared with placebo (P ≤ .001 for both doses vs. placebo).

Using a scoring system for eyebrow and eyelash hair loss, the proportion of patients who achieved a score of 0 (full coverage) or 1 (minimal gaps) was again superior in both trials for patients taking the higher dose of baricitinib. This level of response was reached by about 31% to 35% of those taking the 4-mg dose in BRAVE-AA1 and BRAVE-AA2 (P ≤ .001 vs. placebo). With the lower dose, the rates were 19.1% and 13.5%, respectively. This endpoint was reached in only about 3% of patients who took placebo.

Rates of adverse events were modestly higher in the two active treatment groups in comparison with the group taking placebo. The most commonly occurring adverse events with baricitinib included upper respiratory tract infections, nasopharyngitis, urinary tract infections, and headache, according to Dr. King.

“Most of the adverse events were mild to moderate,” he said. He also reported that none of these adverse events occurred in more than 10% of patients, and there were no cases of other opportunistic infections, thromboembolic events, or gastrointestinal perforations. The discontinuation rates because of adverse events with active therapy were less than 3% in both trials.

JAK inhibitors are currently employed in the treatment of a variety of inflammatory diseases. Baricitinib is currently approved for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. Because specificity differs markedly for their inhibition of JAK kinases (JAK1, JAK2, JAK3, and Tyk2), these drugs do not appear to be interchangeable with regard to clinical effect.

Several case reports of hair regrowth with baricitinib led to a phase 2 trial, which was recently published in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology. In this trial, the therapy also yielded substantial benefit for patients with alopecia areata. The benefit of baricitinib is attributed to inhibition of JAK1 and JAK2 signaling, which has been implicated in cytokine-mediated immune dysfunction leading to damage of hair follicles.

Alopecia areata is a common disorder that can have a large adverse impact on quality of life, Dr. King noted. There is no approved therapy for this condition, so there is a large unmet need. Although longer follow-up is needed to gauge sustained efficacy and safety, he considers these results promising for a therapy with clinically meaningful benefit.

This point was reiterated by Yolanda Gilaberte Calzada, MD, PhD, head of the Dermatology Service, University Hospital Miguel Servet, Zaragoza, Spain, who was moderator of the session in which Dr. King presented these data. She expressed excitement about the promise of baricitinib, particularly with regard to the substantial proportion of patients who achieved meaningful degrees of hair regrowth.

“All of us will be happy to have options for alopecia areata,” said Dr. Calzada, who predicted that the higher dose of baricitinib will be selected for clinical development, given its greater efficacy with little increase in safety concerns.

Eli Lilly provided funding for the BRAVE-AA1 and -AA2 trials. Dr. King has financial relationships with Arena, Aclaris, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Concert, Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi Genzyme, and Eli Lilly. Dr. Calzada has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Baricitinib, an oral inhibitor of Janus kinase (JAK) types 1 and 2, produced substantial rates of hair growth with acceptable tolerability for patients with alopecia areata, according to the results of two phase 3 trials presented at the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology (EADV) 2021 Annual Meeting.

In both trials, severe alopecia areata, defined as a SALT (Severity of Alopecia Tool) score of greater than or equal to 50, was an enrollment requirement. The primary endpoint was a SALT score of less than or equal to 20, signifying 80% scalp coverage.

“The mean SALT score at entry was 85,” reported Brett King, MD, PhD, associate professor of dermatology, Yale University, New Haven, Conn. He explained that the SALT scale extends from 0 (no hair loss) to 100 (complete hair loss). About 45% of patients in the phase 3 trials had alopecia universalis.

In both trials, called BRAVE-AA1 and BRAVE-AA2, a response was seen with baricitinib after about 4 weeks. Response increased steadily through the entire 36 weeks of treatment. At the end of 36 weeks, when response curves still had an upward trajectory, the proportion of those treated with the 4-mg dose of baricitinib who had achieved a SALT score of less than or equal to 20 had reached 35.2% in BRAVE-AA1 and 32.5% in BRAVE-AA2.

The nearly identical BRAVE-AA1 and BRAVE-AA2 trials enrolled 654 and 546 patients, respectively. The patients were randomly assigned in a 3:2:2 ratio to receive baricitinib 4 mg, baricitinib 2 mg, or placebo. All treatments were taken once daily. Regrowth of eyebrow and eyelash hair were secondary outcomes.

There was a clear dose effect; hair growth increased more quickly with the 4-mg dose of baricitinib than with the 2-mg dose. The difference between the active therapy and placebo was significant by 16 weeks with the 4-mg dose. By 24 weeks, the advantage of the 2-mg dose over placebo also reached significance. The response rate with the 4-mg dose was nearly twice as great.

At the end of the 36-week trials, the proportion of patients treated with baricitinib 2 mg who achieved the primary endpoint was 21.7% and 17.3% in the BRAVE-AA1 and BRAVE-AA2 trials, respectively. Among patients taking placebo, the primary endpoint was met by 5.3% and 2.6%, respectively, at the end of the two trials.

The differences in responses with the 4-mg and the 2-mg doses were significantly higher compared with placebo (P ≤ .001 for both doses vs. placebo).

Using a scoring system for eyebrow and eyelash hair loss, the proportion of patients who achieved a score of 0 (full coverage) or 1 (minimal gaps) was again superior in both trials for patients taking the higher dose of baricitinib. This level of response was reached by about 31% to 35% of those taking the 4-mg dose in BRAVE-AA1 and BRAVE-AA2 (P ≤ .001 vs. placebo). With the lower dose, the rates were 19.1% and 13.5%, respectively. This endpoint was reached in only about 3% of patients who took placebo.

Rates of adverse events were modestly higher in the two active treatment groups in comparison with the group taking placebo. The most commonly occurring adverse events with baricitinib included upper respiratory tract infections, nasopharyngitis, urinary tract infections, and headache, according to Dr. King.

“Most of the adverse events were mild to moderate,” he said. He also reported that none of these adverse events occurred in more than 10% of patients, and there were no cases of other opportunistic infections, thromboembolic events, or gastrointestinal perforations. The discontinuation rates because of adverse events with active therapy were less than 3% in both trials.

JAK inhibitors are currently employed in the treatment of a variety of inflammatory diseases. Baricitinib is currently approved for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. Because specificity differs markedly for their inhibition of JAK kinases (JAK1, JAK2, JAK3, and Tyk2), these drugs do not appear to be interchangeable with regard to clinical effect.

Several case reports of hair regrowth with baricitinib led to a phase 2 trial, which was recently published in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology. In this trial, the therapy also yielded substantial benefit for patients with alopecia areata. The benefit of baricitinib is attributed to inhibition of JAK1 and JAK2 signaling, which has been implicated in cytokine-mediated immune dysfunction leading to damage of hair follicles.

Alopecia areata is a common disorder that can have a large adverse impact on quality of life, Dr. King noted. There is no approved therapy for this condition, so there is a large unmet need. Although longer follow-up is needed to gauge sustained efficacy and safety, he considers these results promising for a therapy with clinically meaningful benefit.

This point was reiterated by Yolanda Gilaberte Calzada, MD, PhD, head of the Dermatology Service, University Hospital Miguel Servet, Zaragoza, Spain, who was moderator of the session in which Dr. King presented these data. She expressed excitement about the promise of baricitinib, particularly with regard to the substantial proportion of patients who achieved meaningful degrees of hair regrowth.

“All of us will be happy to have options for alopecia areata,” said Dr. Calzada, who predicted that the higher dose of baricitinib will be selected for clinical development, given its greater efficacy with little increase in safety concerns.

Eli Lilly provided funding for the BRAVE-AA1 and -AA2 trials. Dr. King has financial relationships with Arena, Aclaris, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Concert, Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi Genzyme, and Eli Lilly. Dr. Calzada has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A uniquely-designed three-drug study has demonstrated that individual clinical characteristics, including patient preference, can be used to guide medication choice in type 2 diabetes.

Results from the TriMaster trial using sitagliptin, pioglitazone, and canagliflozin as second- or third-line therapy in a total of 525 patients with type 2 diabetes were presented September 29 at the virtual European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD) 2021 Annual Meeting.

TriMaster is a phase 4, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, 12-month crossover trial examining the effects of all three drugs in subgroups of patients with type 2 diabetes who hadn’t achieved target glucose levels with metformin alone or combined with a sulfonylurea.   

While all three drugs lowered glucose similarly overall, pioglitazone did so more effectively among patients with a body mass index (BMI) above 30 kg/m², while sitagliptin worked better in those with a BMI less than 30 kg/m². However, pioglitazone resulted in more weight gain.

In a second comparison, canagliflozin (a sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 [SGLT2] inhibitor) was more effective than sitagliptin (a dipeptidyl peptidase-4 [DPP-4] inhibitor) in lowering glucose among patients with an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) above 90 mL/min/1.73m2, while sitagliptin actually lowered glucose better among individuals with an eGFR 60-90 mL/min/1.73m2 than canagliflozin.

And when participants were asked which drug they preferred, the results were split nearly evenly among the three, correlating with how well the drug worked and the side effect profile for each individual.  

“We proved a precision approach worked using predefined clinical criteria to define groups of patients where one drug is better than another. This is the first-ever proof of a precision medicine approach in type 2 diabetes,” chief investigator Andrew Hattersley, DM, professor of molecular medicine at the University of Exeter, U.K., told this news organization.

But, he stressed, “These results do not mean all patients with BMI above 30 should have pioglitazone or that all patients with an eGFR 60-90 should have a DPP-4 inhibitor.”

“Drug choice will need to consider other priorities than glycemia ... Patients with heart failure, cardiovascular disease, and chronic kidney disease should be prescribed SGLT2 inhibitors,” he noted. And “some patients will need to avoid specific drugs due to likely side effects.”
 

‘Modern era’ study used older drugs

Independent commentator Caroline M. Kistorp, MD, PhD, professor of endocrinology at University Hospital Copenhagen, congratulated the investigators for “moving precision medicine from the retrospective analysis of existing data into the modern era of evidence-based medicine with this randomized clinical trial in patients with type 2 diabetes ... Starting this trial back in 2015 was really ahead of their time.”

However, she questioned the use of a thiazolidinedione (TZD), pioglitazone, in the trial, as they are no longer used in many parts of the world in favor of more “modern” glucose-lowering drugs.

“I’m thinking of GLP-1 receptor agonists, especially if you want to treat type 2 diabetes patients who are obese with a BMI over 30 ... I acknowledge that there is a cost issue, but I still think we should try to give our patients the best treatments, so that’s why I’m not sure how much the [TZDs] will be used in the future, even with this trial,” she said.

Dr. Kistorp also noted the trial didn’t include cardiovascular disease outcomes, for which most SGLT2 inhibitors have shown benefit.

“We have to discuss and consider whether A1c is the most important parameter for these patients ... especially looking at their cardiovascular outcomes.” 

Mr. Hattersley responded that the study was designed in 2015, prior to the landmark EMPA-REG OUTCOME trial that began the shift toward use of SGLT2 inhibitors for cardiovascular and kidney disease reduction in addition to glycemic control in the clinical management of type 2 diabetes.

“We will report the cardiovascular profiles, but it wasn’t a specific thing because at that time the evidence didn’t exist, so it wasn’t in our protocol,” he explained.  

Regarding pioglitazone, he acknowledged that although it may be an alternative to insulin for some patients, “I think for most people you won’t be considering it in clinical practice,” but because it has a very different mechanism from the other two study drugs, “it did give the greater chance of differential effects ... Partly, what we’re really trying to do is test the question of whether precision medicine exists and can we do it.”
 

Unique study design had each patient act as their own control

Trial statistician Beverley Shields, PhD, of the University of Exeter, U.K., reported the results. The 525 participants with type 2 diabetes were aged 30-79 years and had A1c levels above 58 mmol/mol (7.5%) but not greater than 110 mmol/mol (12.2%) with metformin alone or combined with a sulfonylurea. Just over half (58%) had a BMI above 30 kg/m² and 52% had an eGFR greater than 90 mL/min/1.73m2.

Each participant received each of the three medications as second- or third-line oral therapy in random order – in one of six possible sequences – for 16 weeks each, with no washout period in between (to prevent dropouts due to hyperglycemia). Thus, each participant acted as their own control.

A total of 458 participants completed all three study periods.
 

The drugs work differently in different patient groups

Without stratification by patient type, there was no overall difference in A1c reduction between the three therapies, with all achieving about 59-60 mmol/mol (7.5-7.6%) from a baseline average of 69 mmol/mol (8.9%).

But when stratified by BMI, A1c was 1.48 mmol/mol higher with pioglitazone versus sitagliptin in the group with BMI less than 30 kg/m2 and 1.44 mmol/mol lower with pioglitazone versus sitagliptin in the group with BMI greater than 30 kg/m², giving a significant overall difference of 2.92 mmol/mol (P = .003).  

By eGFR stratification, A1c was 1.74 mmol/mol lower with sitagliptin than canagliflozin in the 60-90 mL/min/1.73m2 group and 1.08 mmol/mol higher in the greater than 90 mL/min/1.73m2 group, giving a significant difference of 2.83 mmol/mol (P = .002).

“So, if we were to treat the patients with the drug that is optimal for their strata ... this would lead to a benefit of about 3 mmol/mol compared to if those patients were treated with the other drug,” Dr. Shields said.

By BMI, there were no significant differences by drug or strata for tolerability, defined as staying on drug for at least 12 weeks (P = .2), nor in the percentage of patients reporting at least one hypoglycemic episode (P = .6).

However, pioglitazone was associated with higher weight gain in both BMI groups, resulting in a 0.93 kg difference overall (P < .001), although it was higher in the higher BMI group (1.9 vs. 0.97 kg).

Similarly, by eGFR there were no differences in tolerability or hypoglycemic episodes between sitagliptin and canagliflozin (P = .09 and P = .6, respectively). And here, there were no differences in weight (P = .6).
 

Patients compared their own experiences with each drug

Patients were asked about their drug preferences after being reminded about their own changes in A1c and weight with each one. The result was a split: 25.8% picked pioglitazone, 34.8% sitagliptin, and 38.7% canagliflozin.

Looking at study outcomes by therapy, pioglitazone had the lowest rate of nontolerability but the highest weight gain, sitagliptin had the highest nontolerability but the lowest number of side effects, while canagliflozin had the highest number of reported side effects but the lowest weight gain.  

Patients’ preferred drugs were associated with the lowest A1c and the fewest side effects for each group. Interestingly, pioglitazone was associated with the highest weight on therapy regardless of preference, so that even those who preferred pioglitazone had a higher weight than they did with the other two drugs.

In response to an audience question about durability of the results given the relatively short trial periods, Mr. Hattersley said: “We’re following up these patients who have chosen their drug, and on the whole, their primary care doctor agreed with them. So we’re following that up as a prospective cohort. We’re looking at tolerance and response and also to see if they’re still happy with that drug. That will be a future analysis.”

The TriMASTER data will be submitted for publication soon.

TriMASTER was funded by the UK Medical Research Council. Mr. Hattersley and Dr. Shields have reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Kistorp has reported receiving honoraria from and/or is on advisory boards for AstraZeneca, Novo Nordisk, Boehringer Ingelheim, MSD, Otsuka Pharma, and Chiesi.

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

A uniquely-designed three-drug study has demonstrated that individual clinical characteristics, including patient preference, can be used to guide medication choice in type 2 diabetes.

Results from the TriMaster trial using sitagliptin, pioglitazone, and canagliflozin as second- or third-line therapy in a total of 525 patients with type 2 diabetes were presented September 29 at the virtual European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD) 2021 Annual Meeting.

TriMaster is a phase 4, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, 12-month crossover trial examining the effects of all three drugs in subgroups of patients with type 2 diabetes who hadn’t achieved target glucose levels with metformin alone or combined with a sulfonylurea.   

While all three drugs lowered glucose similarly overall, pioglitazone did so more effectively among patients with a body mass index (BMI) above 30 kg/m², while sitagliptin worked better in those with a BMI less than 30 kg/m². However, pioglitazone resulted in more weight gain.

In a second comparison, canagliflozin (a sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 [SGLT2] inhibitor) was more effective than sitagliptin (a dipeptidyl peptidase-4 [DPP-4] inhibitor) in lowering glucose among patients with an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) above 90 mL/min/1.73m2, while sitagliptin actually lowered glucose better among individuals with an eGFR 60-90 mL/min/1.73m2 than canagliflozin.

And when participants were asked which drug they preferred, the results were split nearly evenly among the three, correlating with how well the drug worked and the side effect profile for each individual.  

“We proved a precision approach worked using predefined clinical criteria to define groups of patients where one drug is better than another. This is the first-ever proof of a precision medicine approach in type 2 diabetes,” chief investigator Andrew Hattersley, DM, professor of molecular medicine at the University of Exeter, U.K., told this news organization.

But, he stressed, “These results do not mean all patients with BMI above 30 should have pioglitazone or that all patients with an eGFR 60-90 should have a DPP-4 inhibitor.”

“Drug choice will need to consider other priorities than glycemia ... Patients with heart failure, cardiovascular disease, and chronic kidney disease should be prescribed SGLT2 inhibitors,” he noted. And “some patients will need to avoid specific drugs due to likely side effects.”
 

‘Modern era’ study used older drugs

Independent commentator Caroline M. Kistorp, MD, PhD, professor of endocrinology at University Hospital Copenhagen, congratulated the investigators for “moving precision medicine from the retrospective analysis of existing data into the modern era of evidence-based medicine with this randomized clinical trial in patients with type 2 diabetes ... Starting this trial back in 2015 was really ahead of their time.”

However, she questioned the use of a thiazolidinedione (TZD), pioglitazone, in the trial, as they are no longer used in many parts of the world in favor of more “modern” glucose-lowering drugs.

“I’m thinking of GLP-1 receptor agonists, especially if you want to treat type 2 diabetes patients who are obese with a BMI over 30 ... I acknowledge that there is a cost issue, but I still think we should try to give our patients the best treatments, so that’s why I’m not sure how much the [TZDs] will be used in the future, even with this trial,” she said.

Dr. Kistorp also noted the trial didn’t include cardiovascular disease outcomes, for which most SGLT2 inhibitors have shown benefit.

“We have to discuss and consider whether A1c is the most important parameter for these patients ... especially looking at their cardiovascular outcomes.” 

Mr. Hattersley responded that the study was designed in 2015, prior to the landmark EMPA-REG OUTCOME trial that began the shift toward use of SGLT2 inhibitors for cardiovascular and kidney disease reduction in addition to glycemic control in the clinical management of type 2 diabetes.

“We will report the cardiovascular profiles, but it wasn’t a specific thing because at that time the evidence didn’t exist, so it wasn’t in our protocol,” he explained.  

Regarding pioglitazone, he acknowledged that although it may be an alternative to insulin for some patients, “I think for most people you won’t be considering it in clinical practice,” but because it has a very different mechanism from the other two study drugs, “it did give the greater chance of differential effects ... Partly, what we’re really trying to do is test the question of whether precision medicine exists and can we do it.”
 

Unique study design had each patient act as their own control

Trial statistician Beverley Shields, PhD, of the University of Exeter, U.K., reported the results. The 525 participants with type 2 diabetes were aged 30-79 years and had A1c levels above 58 mmol/mol (7.5%) but not greater than 110 mmol/mol (12.2%) with metformin alone or combined with a sulfonylurea. Just over half (58%) had a BMI above 30 kg/m² and 52% had an eGFR greater than 90 mL/min/1.73m2.

Each participant received each of the three medications as second- or third-line oral therapy in random order – in one of six possible sequences – for 16 weeks each, with no washout period in between (to prevent dropouts due to hyperglycemia). Thus, each participant acted as their own control.

A total of 458 participants completed all three study periods.
 

The drugs work differently in different patient groups

Without stratification by patient type, there was no overall difference in A1c reduction between the three therapies, with all achieving about 59-60 mmol/mol (7.5-7.6%) from a baseline average of 69 mmol/mol (8.9%).

But when stratified by BMI, A1c was 1.48 mmol/mol higher with pioglitazone versus sitagliptin in the group with BMI less than 30 kg/m2 and 1.44 mmol/mol lower with pioglitazone versus sitagliptin in the group with BMI greater than 30 kg/m², giving a significant overall difference of 2.92 mmol/mol (P = .003).  

By eGFR stratification, A1c was 1.74 mmol/mol lower with sitagliptin than canagliflozin in the 60-90 mL/min/1.73m2 group and 1.08 mmol/mol higher in the greater than 90 mL/min/1.73m2 group, giving a significant difference of 2.83 mmol/mol (P = .002).

“So, if we were to treat the patients with the drug that is optimal for their strata ... this would lead to a benefit of about 3 mmol/mol compared to if those patients were treated with the other drug,” Dr. Shields said.

By BMI, there were no significant differences by drug or strata for tolerability, defined as staying on drug for at least 12 weeks (P = .2), nor in the percentage of patients reporting at least one hypoglycemic episode (P = .6).

However, pioglitazone was associated with higher weight gain in both BMI groups, resulting in a 0.93 kg difference overall (P < .001), although it was higher in the higher BMI group (1.9 vs. 0.97 kg).

Similarly, by eGFR there were no differences in tolerability or hypoglycemic episodes between sitagliptin and canagliflozin (P = .09 and P = .6, respectively). And here, there were no differences in weight (P = .6).
 

Patients compared their own experiences with each drug

Patients were asked about their drug preferences after being reminded about their own changes in A1c and weight with each one. The result was a split: 25.8% picked pioglitazone, 34.8% sitagliptin, and 38.7% canagliflozin.

Looking at study outcomes by therapy, pioglitazone had the lowest rate of nontolerability but the highest weight gain, sitagliptin had the highest nontolerability but the lowest number of side effects, while canagliflozin had the highest number of reported side effects but the lowest weight gain.  

Patients’ preferred drugs were associated with the lowest A1c and the fewest side effects for each group. Interestingly, pioglitazone was associated with the highest weight on therapy regardless of preference, so that even those who preferred pioglitazone had a higher weight than they did with the other two drugs.

In response to an audience question about durability of the results given the relatively short trial periods, Mr. Hattersley said: “We’re following up these patients who have chosen their drug, and on the whole, their primary care doctor agreed with them. So we’re following that up as a prospective cohort. We’re looking at tolerance and response and also to see if they’re still happy with that drug. That will be a future analysis.”

The TriMASTER data will be submitted for publication soon.

TriMASTER was funded by the UK Medical Research Council. Mr. Hattersley and Dr. Shields have reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Kistorp has reported receiving honoraria from and/or is on advisory boards for AstraZeneca, Novo Nordisk, Boehringer Ingelheim, MSD, Otsuka Pharma, and Chiesi.

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

A uniquely-designed three-drug study has demonstrated that individual clinical characteristics, including patient preference, can be used to guide medication choice in type 2 diabetes.

Results from the TriMaster trial using sitagliptin, pioglitazone, and canagliflozin as second- or third-line therapy in a total of 525 patients with type 2 diabetes were presented September 29 at the virtual European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD) 2021 Annual Meeting.

TriMaster is a phase 4, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, 12-month crossover trial examining the effects of all three drugs in subgroups of patients with type 2 diabetes who hadn’t achieved target glucose levels with metformin alone or combined with a sulfonylurea.   

While all three drugs lowered glucose similarly overall, pioglitazone did so more effectively among patients with a body mass index (BMI) above 30 kg/m², while sitagliptin worked better in those with a BMI less than 30 kg/m². However, pioglitazone resulted in more weight gain.

In a second comparison, canagliflozin (a sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 [SGLT2] inhibitor) was more effective than sitagliptin (a dipeptidyl peptidase-4 [DPP-4] inhibitor) in lowering glucose among patients with an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) above 90 mL/min/1.73m2, while sitagliptin actually lowered glucose better among individuals with an eGFR 60-90 mL/min/1.73m2 than canagliflozin.

And when participants were asked which drug they preferred, the results were split nearly evenly among the three, correlating with how well the drug worked and the side effect profile for each individual.  

“We proved a precision approach worked using predefined clinical criteria to define groups of patients where one drug is better than another. This is the first-ever proof of a precision medicine approach in type 2 diabetes,” chief investigator Andrew Hattersley, DM, professor of molecular medicine at the University of Exeter, U.K., told this news organization.

But, he stressed, “These results do not mean all patients with BMI above 30 should have pioglitazone or that all patients with an eGFR 60-90 should have a DPP-4 inhibitor.”

“Drug choice will need to consider other priorities than glycemia ... Patients with heart failure, cardiovascular disease, and chronic kidney disease should be prescribed SGLT2 inhibitors,” he noted. And “some patients will need to avoid specific drugs due to likely side effects.”
 

‘Modern era’ study used older drugs

Independent commentator Caroline M. Kistorp, MD, PhD, professor of endocrinology at University Hospital Copenhagen, congratulated the investigators for “moving precision medicine from the retrospective analysis of existing data into the modern era of evidence-based medicine with this randomized clinical trial in patients with type 2 diabetes ... Starting this trial back in 2015 was really ahead of their time.”

However, she questioned the use of a thiazolidinedione (TZD), pioglitazone, in the trial, as they are no longer used in many parts of the world in favor of more “modern” glucose-lowering drugs.

“I’m thinking of GLP-1 receptor agonists, especially if you want to treat type 2 diabetes patients who are obese with a BMI over 30 ... I acknowledge that there is a cost issue, but I still think we should try to give our patients the best treatments, so that’s why I’m not sure how much the [TZDs] will be used in the future, even with this trial,” she said.

Dr. Kistorp also noted the trial didn’t include cardiovascular disease outcomes, for which most SGLT2 inhibitors have shown benefit.

“We have to discuss and consider whether A1c is the most important parameter for these patients ... especially looking at their cardiovascular outcomes.” 

Mr. Hattersley responded that the study was designed in 2015, prior to the landmark EMPA-REG OUTCOME trial that began the shift toward use of SGLT2 inhibitors for cardiovascular and kidney disease reduction in addition to glycemic control in the clinical management of type 2 diabetes.

“We will report the cardiovascular profiles, but it wasn’t a specific thing because at that time the evidence didn’t exist, so it wasn’t in our protocol,” he explained.  

Regarding pioglitazone, he acknowledged that although it may be an alternative to insulin for some patients, “I think for most people you won’t be considering it in clinical practice,” but because it has a very different mechanism from the other two study drugs, “it did give the greater chance of differential effects ... Partly, what we’re really trying to do is test the question of whether precision medicine exists and can we do it.”
 

Unique study design had each patient act as their own control

Trial statistician Beverley Shields, PhD, of the University of Exeter, U.K., reported the results. The 525 participants with type 2 diabetes were aged 30-79 years and had A1c levels above 58 mmol/mol (7.5%) but not greater than 110 mmol/mol (12.2%) with metformin alone or combined with a sulfonylurea. Just over half (58%) had a BMI above 30 kg/m² and 52% had an eGFR greater than 90 mL/min/1.73m2.

Each participant received each of the three medications as second- or third-line oral therapy in random order – in one of six possible sequences – for 16 weeks each, with no washout period in between (to prevent dropouts due to hyperglycemia). Thus, each participant acted as their own control.

A total of 458 participants completed all three study periods.
 

The drugs work differently in different patient groups

Without stratification by patient type, there was no overall difference in A1c reduction between the three therapies, with all achieving about 59-60 mmol/mol (7.5-7.6%) from a baseline average of 69 mmol/mol (8.9%).

But when stratified by BMI, A1c was 1.48 mmol/mol higher with pioglitazone versus sitagliptin in the group with BMI less than 30 kg/m2 and 1.44 mmol/mol lower with pioglitazone versus sitagliptin in the group with BMI greater than 30 kg/m², giving a significant overall difference of 2.92 mmol/mol (P = .003).  

By eGFR stratification, A1c was 1.74 mmol/mol lower with sitagliptin than canagliflozin in the 60-90 mL/min/1.73m2 group and 1.08 mmol/mol higher in the greater than 90 mL/min/1.73m2 group, giving a significant difference of 2.83 mmol/mol (P = .002).

“So, if we were to treat the patients with the drug that is optimal for their strata ... this would lead to a benefit of about 3 mmol/mol compared to if those patients were treated with the other drug,” Dr. Shields said.

By BMI, there were no significant differences by drug or strata for tolerability, defined as staying on drug for at least 12 weeks (P = .2), nor in the percentage of patients reporting at least one hypoglycemic episode (P = .6).

However, pioglitazone was associated with higher weight gain in both BMI groups, resulting in a 0.93 kg difference overall (P < .001), although it was higher in the higher BMI group (1.9 vs. 0.97 kg).

Similarly, by eGFR there were no differences in tolerability or hypoglycemic episodes between sitagliptin and canagliflozin (P = .09 and P = .6, respectively). And here, there were no differences in weight (P = .6).
 

Patients compared their own experiences with each drug

Patients were asked about their drug preferences after being reminded about their own changes in A1c and weight with each one. The result was a split: 25.8% picked pioglitazone, 34.8% sitagliptin, and 38.7% canagliflozin.

Looking at study outcomes by therapy, pioglitazone had the lowest rate of nontolerability but the highest weight gain, sitagliptin had the highest nontolerability but the lowest number of side effects, while canagliflozin had the highest number of reported side effects but the lowest weight gain.  

Patients’ preferred drugs were associated with the lowest A1c and the fewest side effects for each group. Interestingly, pioglitazone was associated with the highest weight on therapy regardless of preference, so that even those who preferred pioglitazone had a higher weight than they did with the other two drugs.

In response to an audience question about durability of the results given the relatively short trial periods, Mr. Hattersley said: “We’re following up these patients who have chosen their drug, and on the whole, their primary care doctor agreed with them. So we’re following that up as a prospective cohort. We’re looking at tolerance and response and also to see if they’re still happy with that drug. That will be a future analysis.”

The TriMASTER data will be submitted for publication soon.

TriMASTER was funded by the UK Medical Research Council. Mr. Hattersley and Dr. Shields have reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Kistorp has reported receiving honoraria from and/or is on advisory boards for AstraZeneca, Novo Nordisk, Boehringer Ingelheim, MSD, Otsuka Pharma, and Chiesi.

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

Treatment with tapinarof 1%, a nonsteroidal topical cream in clinical development, was associated with durable control of plaque psoriasis in a 52-week phase 3 trial presented as a late-breaker at the virtual annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.

The drug has several unique features with meaningful clinical differences from other topical psoriasis therapies, according to Linda Stein Gold, MD, director of dermatology clinical research, Henry Ford Health System, Detroit.

“The currently available nonsteroidal topical therapies are typically associated with significant irritation. We did not see that with tapinarof,” said Dr. Stein Gold. This is one of several reasons she believes this drug will be a valuable addition if it receives regulatory approval.

Tapinarof is a small-molecule aryl hydrocarbon receptor (AhR) modulating agent. AhR is widely expressed in immune cells, including macrophages, mast cells, and antigen-presenting cells. It is believed that modulation of AhR signaling by tapinarof reverses immune dysregulation that is involved in the formation of psoriatic lesions.

The newly presented PSOARING 3 data with tapinarof 1% build on the data from the 12-week PSOARING 1 and PSOARING 2 trials, which were released in August 2020 but have yet to be published.

The primary endpoint in both of the 12-week trials, each of which enrolled about 500 patients with plaque psoriasis, was a Physician Global Assessment (PGA) score of 0 (clear) or 1 (almost clear). Relative to a placebo response rate of about 6% in both trials, the proportion of patients who achieved scores of 0/1 with tapinarof 1% was 35.4% and 40.2% in the PSOARING 1 and PSOARING 2 trials, respectively (P < .0001 vs. placebo in both studies).

For the key secondary endpoint of at least 75% improvement in the Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI 75), the relative advantage for tapinarof over placebo was similar. The results were highly statistically significant (P < .0001) in both of the 12-week trials.

More than 90% of the patients who participated in PSOARING 1 and PSOARING 2 and were eligible for the open-label PSOARING 3 extension trial, according to Dr. Stein Gold.

For the 79 patients with a score of 0 at the time of enrollment, tapinarof 1% was reapplied only if the PGA score reached at least 2 during the course of the study. For the 680 patients who entered with a PGA score of at least 1, once-daily applications of tapinarof 1% cream were maintained until a PGA score of 0 was achieved.

In the outcome analysis, response was defined as the proportion of patients with an initial PGA score of at least2 who achieved PGA 0. A remittive effect was defined as duration of a PGA score of 0 or 1 while off therapy after achieving a PGA score of 0. Durability of response was defined as the proportion of patients who achieved a PGA sore of 0 or 1 at least once during the study while on therapy. This last outcome provided a test of tachyphylaxis.

“Overall, 40.9% of patients achieved complete disease clearance at least once during the trial, and 58.2% who entered the study with a PGA score of 2 or higher achieved a PGA score of 0 or 1,” Dr. Stein Gold reported.

For the 79 patients who entered PSOARING 3 with a PGA score of 0 and were off treatment, the median duration of a remittive effect was 115 days. For the patients who entered the trial with a higher PGA score but who achieved a score of 0 during the study (312 patients), the mean remittive effect after discontinuing therapy was 130 days.

There was no evidence of tachyphylaxis. Rather, “there was no loss of effect despite intermittent therapy observed over the course of the trial,” Dr. Stein Gold reported.

The most common treatment-emergent adverse events in PSOARING 3, as in the previous PSOARING studies, were folliculitis, which was observed in 24.0% of patients; contact dermatitis, which occurred in 5.9% of patients; and headache, which was reported in 2%. Rates of study drug discontinuations for folliculitis and contact dermatitis were 1.2% and 1.4%, respectively. Headache did not lead to any study discontinuations.

Calling tapinarof a “first-in-class nonsteroidal,” Dr. Stein Gold suggested that this is likely to be a useful adjunctive therapy for psoriasis control. It avoids the adverse events associated with long-term topical steroid use, and its tolerability might be particularly attractive for use in sensitive areas.

“This is likely to be very useful in patients who are looking for a topical therapy for skin folds or the face, where there is a need for well-tolerated topical treatments,” Dr. Stein Gold said.

There are a lot of reasons to be positive about a new, well-tolerated topical agent for psoriasis, particularly as an alternative to topical steroids, agreed Adam Friedman, MD, director of translational research and professor and chair of the department of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington. He considers the data with tapinarof promising in general, but he also likes any new, effective topical psoriasis therapy.

“Patients and physicians are always hungry for new options, especially psoriasis patients, given many have ‘been there and done that’ with topical steroids,” Dr. Friedman said.

“Topical steroids are not irritating, but long-term use beyond recommended dosing can lead to skin thinning, lightening, tachyphylaxis, and, if really abused, HPA [hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal] axis suppression and adrenal insufficiency,” he observed.

A topical therapy with a durable effect is particularly intriguing.

“The other issue with topical steroids is that psoriatic plaques return rather easily after stopping. The data I have seen with tapinarof show more sustainability after cessation, owing to its mechanism of action,” Dr. Friedman said. Rather than its potential for application to sensitive areas, such as the face, the durability “to me is more interesting.”

He suspects that, owing to “the incurable steroid phobia that haunts many of our patients,” an effective nonsteroidal topical option is also likely to lead to better compliance with topical treatment over time.

“A well-tolerated nonsteroidal topical drug will probably find an important place in the future management of chronic inflammatory diseases,” Marius-Anton Ionescu, MD, PhD, a dermatologist at the Hôpital Saint Louis, Paris, said in an interview. He referred to the positive effects of treatment with tapinarof in clinical trials in adults with atopic dermatitis, in addition to psoriasis.

Tapinarof 1% is also being investigated in a phase 3 study involving patients with moderate to severe atopic dermatitis. In that study, patients are as young as age 2 years. The drug is under review at the Food and Drug Administration for the plaque psoriasis indication in adults.

Dr. Stein Gold has financial relationships with Arcutis, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Leo Pharma Ortho Dermatologic, UCB, and Dermavant Sciences, which is developing tapinarof and is provided funding for the PSOARING 3 trial. Dr. Friedman reported financial relationships with Amgen, Biogen, Encore, Galderma, GlaxoSmithKline, IntraDerm, Johnson & Johnson, Nerium, Novartis, Oculus, Onset, Pfizer, Sanova, and Valeant Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Ionescu has been a speaker or investigator (honoraria) for Celgene, Novartis, Lilly, and Uriage Cosmetics.

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

Treatment with tapinarof 1%, a nonsteroidal topical cream in clinical development, was associated with durable control of plaque psoriasis in a 52-week phase 3 trial presented as a late-breaker at the virtual annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.

The drug has several unique features with meaningful clinical differences from other topical psoriasis therapies, according to Linda Stein Gold, MD, director of dermatology clinical research, Henry Ford Health System, Detroit.

“The currently available nonsteroidal topical therapies are typically associated with significant irritation. We did not see that with tapinarof,” said Dr. Stein Gold. This is one of several reasons she believes this drug will be a valuable addition if it receives regulatory approval.

Tapinarof is a small-molecule aryl hydrocarbon receptor (AhR) modulating agent. AhR is widely expressed in immune cells, including macrophages, mast cells, and antigen-presenting cells. It is believed that modulation of AhR signaling by tapinarof reverses immune dysregulation that is involved in the formation of psoriatic lesions.

The newly presented PSOARING 3 data with tapinarof 1% build on the data from the 12-week PSOARING 1 and PSOARING 2 trials, which were released in August 2020 but have yet to be published.

The primary endpoint in both of the 12-week trials, each of which enrolled about 500 patients with plaque psoriasis, was a Physician Global Assessment (PGA) score of 0 (clear) or 1 (almost clear). Relative to a placebo response rate of about 6% in both trials, the proportion of patients who achieved scores of 0/1 with tapinarof 1% was 35.4% and 40.2% in the PSOARING 1 and PSOARING 2 trials, respectively (P < .0001 vs. placebo in both studies).

For the key secondary endpoint of at least 75% improvement in the Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI 75), the relative advantage for tapinarof over placebo was similar. The results were highly statistically significant (P < .0001) in both of the 12-week trials.

More than 90% of the patients who participated in PSOARING 1 and PSOARING 2 and were eligible for the open-label PSOARING 3 extension trial, according to Dr. Stein Gold.

For the 79 patients with a score of 0 at the time of enrollment, tapinarof 1% was reapplied only if the PGA score reached at least 2 during the course of the study. For the 680 patients who entered with a PGA score of at least 1, once-daily applications of tapinarof 1% cream were maintained until a PGA score of 0 was achieved.

In the outcome analysis, response was defined as the proportion of patients with an initial PGA score of at least2 who achieved PGA 0. A remittive effect was defined as duration of a PGA score of 0 or 1 while off therapy after achieving a PGA score of 0. Durability of response was defined as the proportion of patients who achieved a PGA sore of 0 or 1 at least once during the study while on therapy. This last outcome provided a test of tachyphylaxis.

“Overall, 40.9% of patients achieved complete disease clearance at least once during the trial, and 58.2% who entered the study with a PGA score of 2 or higher achieved a PGA score of 0 or 1,” Dr. Stein Gold reported.

For the 79 patients who entered PSOARING 3 with a PGA score of 0 and were off treatment, the median duration of a remittive effect was 115 days. For the patients who entered the trial with a higher PGA score but who achieved a score of 0 during the study (312 patients), the mean remittive effect after discontinuing therapy was 130 days.

There was no evidence of tachyphylaxis. Rather, “there was no loss of effect despite intermittent therapy observed over the course of the trial,” Dr. Stein Gold reported.

The most common treatment-emergent adverse events in PSOARING 3, as in the previous PSOARING studies, were folliculitis, which was observed in 24.0% of patients; contact dermatitis, which occurred in 5.9% of patients; and headache, which was reported in 2%. Rates of study drug discontinuations for folliculitis and contact dermatitis were 1.2% and 1.4%, respectively. Headache did not lead to any study discontinuations.

Calling tapinarof a “first-in-class nonsteroidal,” Dr. Stein Gold suggested that this is likely to be a useful adjunctive therapy for psoriasis control. It avoids the adverse events associated with long-term topical steroid use, and its tolerability might be particularly attractive for use in sensitive areas.

“This is likely to be very useful in patients who are looking for a topical therapy for skin folds or the face, where there is a need for well-tolerated topical treatments,” Dr. Stein Gold said.

There are a lot of reasons to be positive about a new, well-tolerated topical agent for psoriasis, particularly as an alternative to topical steroids, agreed Adam Friedman, MD, director of translational research and professor and chair of the department of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington. He considers the data with tapinarof promising in general, but he also likes any new, effective topical psoriasis therapy.

“Patients and physicians are always hungry for new options, especially psoriasis patients, given many have ‘been there and done that’ with topical steroids,” Dr. Friedman said.

“Topical steroids are not irritating, but long-term use beyond recommended dosing can lead to skin thinning, lightening, tachyphylaxis, and, if really abused, HPA [hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal] axis suppression and adrenal insufficiency,” he observed.

A topical therapy with a durable effect is particularly intriguing.

“The other issue with topical steroids is that psoriatic plaques return rather easily after stopping. The data I have seen with tapinarof show more sustainability after cessation, owing to its mechanism of action,” Dr. Friedman said. Rather than its potential for application to sensitive areas, such as the face, the durability “to me is more interesting.”

He suspects that, owing to “the incurable steroid phobia that haunts many of our patients,” an effective nonsteroidal topical option is also likely to lead to better compliance with topical treatment over time.

“A well-tolerated nonsteroidal topical drug will probably find an important place in the future management of chronic inflammatory diseases,” Marius-Anton Ionescu, MD, PhD, a dermatologist at the Hôpital Saint Louis, Paris, said in an interview. He referred to the positive effects of treatment with tapinarof in clinical trials in adults with atopic dermatitis, in addition to psoriasis.

Tapinarof 1% is also being investigated in a phase 3 study involving patients with moderate to severe atopic dermatitis. In that study, patients are as young as age 2 years. The drug is under review at the Food and Drug Administration for the plaque psoriasis indication in adults.

Dr. Stein Gold has financial relationships with Arcutis, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Leo Pharma Ortho Dermatologic, UCB, and Dermavant Sciences, which is developing tapinarof and is provided funding for the PSOARING 3 trial. Dr. Friedman reported financial relationships with Amgen, Biogen, Encore, Galderma, GlaxoSmithKline, IntraDerm, Johnson & Johnson, Nerium, Novartis, Oculus, Onset, Pfizer, Sanova, and Valeant Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Ionescu has been a speaker or investigator (honoraria) for Celgene, Novartis, Lilly, and Uriage Cosmetics.

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

Treatment with tapinarof 1%, a nonsteroidal topical cream in clinical development, was associated with durable control of plaque psoriasis in a 52-week phase 3 trial presented as a late-breaker at the virtual annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.

The drug has several unique features with meaningful clinical differences from other topical psoriasis therapies, according to Linda Stein Gold, MD, director of dermatology clinical research, Henry Ford Health System, Detroit.

“The currently available nonsteroidal topical therapies are typically associated with significant irritation. We did not see that with tapinarof,” said Dr. Stein Gold. This is one of several reasons she believes this drug will be a valuable addition if it receives regulatory approval.

Tapinarof is a small-molecule aryl hydrocarbon receptor (AhR) modulating agent. AhR is widely expressed in immune cells, including macrophages, mast cells, and antigen-presenting cells. It is believed that modulation of AhR signaling by tapinarof reverses immune dysregulation that is involved in the formation of psoriatic lesions.

The newly presented PSOARING 3 data with tapinarof 1% build on the data from the 12-week PSOARING 1 and PSOARING 2 trials, which were released in August 2020 but have yet to be published.

The primary endpoint in both of the 12-week trials, each of which enrolled about 500 patients with plaque psoriasis, was a Physician Global Assessment (PGA) score of 0 (clear) or 1 (almost clear). Relative to a placebo response rate of about 6% in both trials, the proportion of patients who achieved scores of 0/1 with tapinarof 1% was 35.4% and 40.2% in the PSOARING 1 and PSOARING 2 trials, respectively (P < .0001 vs. placebo in both studies).

For the key secondary endpoint of at least 75% improvement in the Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI 75), the relative advantage for tapinarof over placebo was similar. The results were highly statistically significant (P < .0001) in both of the 12-week trials.

More than 90% of the patients who participated in PSOARING 1 and PSOARING 2 and were eligible for the open-label PSOARING 3 extension trial, according to Dr. Stein Gold.

For the 79 patients with a score of 0 at the time of enrollment, tapinarof 1% was reapplied only if the PGA score reached at least 2 during the course of the study. For the 680 patients who entered with a PGA score of at least 1, once-daily applications of tapinarof 1% cream were maintained until a PGA score of 0 was achieved.

In the outcome analysis, response was defined as the proportion of patients with an initial PGA score of at least2 who achieved PGA 0. A remittive effect was defined as duration of a PGA score of 0 or 1 while off therapy after achieving a PGA score of 0. Durability of response was defined as the proportion of patients who achieved a PGA sore of 0 or 1 at least once during the study while on therapy. This last outcome provided a test of tachyphylaxis.

“Overall, 40.9% of patients achieved complete disease clearance at least once during the trial, and 58.2% who entered the study with a PGA score of 2 or higher achieved a PGA score of 0 or 1,” Dr. Stein Gold reported.

For the 79 patients who entered PSOARING 3 with a PGA score of 0 and were off treatment, the median duration of a remittive effect was 115 days. For the patients who entered the trial with a higher PGA score but who achieved a score of 0 during the study (312 patients), the mean remittive effect after discontinuing therapy was 130 days.

There was no evidence of tachyphylaxis. Rather, “there was no loss of effect despite intermittent therapy observed over the course of the trial,” Dr. Stein Gold reported.

The most common treatment-emergent adverse events in PSOARING 3, as in the previous PSOARING studies, were folliculitis, which was observed in 24.0% of patients; contact dermatitis, which occurred in 5.9% of patients; and headache, which was reported in 2%. Rates of study drug discontinuations for folliculitis and contact dermatitis were 1.2% and 1.4%, respectively. Headache did not lead to any study discontinuations.

Calling tapinarof a “first-in-class nonsteroidal,” Dr. Stein Gold suggested that this is likely to be a useful adjunctive therapy for psoriasis control. It avoids the adverse events associated with long-term topical steroid use, and its tolerability might be particularly attractive for use in sensitive areas.

“This is likely to be very useful in patients who are looking for a topical therapy for skin folds or the face, where there is a need for well-tolerated topical treatments,” Dr. Stein Gold said.

There are a lot of reasons to be positive about a new, well-tolerated topical agent for psoriasis, particularly as an alternative to topical steroids, agreed Adam Friedman, MD, director of translational research and professor and chair of the department of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington. He considers the data with tapinarof promising in general, but he also likes any new, effective topical psoriasis therapy.

“Patients and physicians are always hungry for new options, especially psoriasis patients, given many have ‘been there and done that’ with topical steroids,” Dr. Friedman said.

“Topical steroids are not irritating, but long-term use beyond recommended dosing can lead to skin thinning, lightening, tachyphylaxis, and, if really abused, HPA [hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal] axis suppression and adrenal insufficiency,” he observed.

A topical therapy with a durable effect is particularly intriguing.

“The other issue with topical steroids is that psoriatic plaques return rather easily after stopping. The data I have seen with tapinarof show more sustainability after cessation, owing to its mechanism of action,” Dr. Friedman said. Rather than its potential for application to sensitive areas, such as the face, the durability “to me is more interesting.”

He suspects that, owing to “the incurable steroid phobia that haunts many of our patients,” an effective nonsteroidal topical option is also likely to lead to better compliance with topical treatment over time.

“A well-tolerated nonsteroidal topical drug will probably find an important place in the future management of chronic inflammatory diseases,” Marius-Anton Ionescu, MD, PhD, a dermatologist at the Hôpital Saint Louis, Paris, said in an interview. He referred to the positive effects of treatment with tapinarof in clinical trials in adults with atopic dermatitis, in addition to psoriasis.

Tapinarof 1% is also being investigated in a phase 3 study involving patients with moderate to severe atopic dermatitis. In that study, patients are as young as age 2 years. The drug is under review at the Food and Drug Administration for the plaque psoriasis indication in adults.

Dr. Stein Gold has financial relationships with Arcutis, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Leo Pharma Ortho Dermatologic, UCB, and Dermavant Sciences, which is developing tapinarof and is provided funding for the PSOARING 3 trial. Dr. Friedman reported financial relationships with Amgen, Biogen, Encore, Galderma, GlaxoSmithKline, IntraDerm, Johnson & Johnson, Nerium, Novartis, Oculus, Onset, Pfizer, Sanova, and Valeant Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Ionescu has been a speaker or investigator (honoraria) for Celgene, Novartis, Lilly, and Uriage Cosmetics.

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

A one-time dose of two long-acting monoclonal antibodies reduced the risk of developing symptomatic COVID by 77% in comparison with placebo (P < .001) in a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial in adults, according to researchers who presented results at IDWeek 2021, an annual scientific meeting on infectious diseases.

The mix of tixagevimab and cilgavimab (AZD7442, Astra Zeneca) in a 300-mg dose is delivered in two intramuscular injections.

“This is the first long-acting combination of monoclonal antibodies that represents a potential new option to augment COVID-19 prevention,” said lead author Myron J. Levin, MD, a professor and pediatric infectious disease specialist at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, who presented the findings of the PROVENT trial.

Both antibodies were taken from B cells donated by patients who had been infected with SARS-CoV-2, and they work synergistically, Dr. Levin said.

“The combination of them is better than adding results of each individually,” he said. “In vitro experiments have already shown that variants of interest and concern, including the Delta variant, are successfully neutralized by this cocktail.”

The trial was conducted in 87 sites in the United States, the United Kingdom, Spain, France, and Belgium. Participants included 5,197 unvaccinated adults who had never been infected with SARS-CoV-2 and either were at higher risk for inadequate response to COVID-19 vaccines because they were immunocompromised or were at high risk for exposure.

“Efficacy was observed through at least 3 months,” Dr. Levin said. “Preliminary pharmacokinetic modeling predicts potential protection for up to 12 months.”

Raymund Razonable, MD, an infectious disease expert with the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., who was not involved with the trial, told this news organization he was particularly interested in this combination because the developers made use of novel technology that extends the half-life of the antibodies and because of the large number of participants in the study.

Modeling that shows protection could last up to a year is novel and important, he said.

“People won’t need frequent injections,” Dr. Razonable said. With postexposure prophylaxis monoclonal cocktails, people may be given a dose a month, he noted.

Dr. Razonable said, “This is something intended to prevent COVID in people who are unvaccinated. The downside to that is we want people to get vaccinated. The best strategy so far is really vaccination.”

He said AZD7442 could potentially help fill the void for patients who are not able to respond to the COVID vaccines, including some who are immunocompromised or are undergoing chemotherapy.

Dr. Razonable said that, although the 77% reduction for developing symptomatic COVID-19 (95% confidence interval vs. placebo, 46.0-90.0; P < .001) is impressive, it is a reduction in relative risk. Still unknown is how much an individual’s absolute risk is reduced.

He also said it would be helpful to know how many people in the study population were immunocompromised, “because I think that’s where this product will be useful for prevention.”

The primary study endpoints were the first case of SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR-positive symptomatic illness post dose and prior to day 183 (efficacy) as well as the safety of the product.

The cocktail appeared to be well tolerated. Adverse events occurred in 35% of participants administered AZD7442 and in 34% of the placebo group. Injection-site reactions occurred in 2.4% of the AZD7442 group and in 2.1% of the placebo group. There was one case of severe or critical COVID-19; two COVID-19–related deaths occurred in the placebo group.

AZD7442 is being developed with the help of funding from the U.S. government. Dr. Levin has received support from GlaxoSmithKline companies. Many of the coauthors are employed by AstraZeneca and hold stock in the company. Dr. Razonable has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A one-time dose of two long-acting monoclonal antibodies reduced the risk of developing symptomatic COVID by 77% in comparison with placebo (P < .001) in a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial in adults, according to researchers who presented results at IDWeek 2021, an annual scientific meeting on infectious diseases.

The mix of tixagevimab and cilgavimab (AZD7442, Astra Zeneca) in a 300-mg dose is delivered in two intramuscular injections.

“This is the first long-acting combination of monoclonal antibodies that represents a potential new option to augment COVID-19 prevention,” said lead author Myron J. Levin, MD, a professor and pediatric infectious disease specialist at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, who presented the findings of the PROVENT trial.

Both antibodies were taken from B cells donated by patients who had been infected with SARS-CoV-2, and they work synergistically, Dr. Levin said.

“The combination of them is better than adding results of each individually,” he said. “In vitro experiments have already shown that variants of interest and concern, including the Delta variant, are successfully neutralized by this cocktail.”

The trial was conducted in 87 sites in the United States, the United Kingdom, Spain, France, and Belgium. Participants included 5,197 unvaccinated adults who had never been infected with SARS-CoV-2 and either were at higher risk for inadequate response to COVID-19 vaccines because they were immunocompromised or were at high risk for exposure.

“Efficacy was observed through at least 3 months,” Dr. Levin said. “Preliminary pharmacokinetic modeling predicts potential protection for up to 12 months.”

Raymund Razonable, MD, an infectious disease expert with the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., who was not involved with the trial, told this news organization he was particularly interested in this combination because the developers made use of novel technology that extends the half-life of the antibodies and because of the large number of participants in the study.

Modeling that shows protection could last up to a year is novel and important, he said.

“People won’t need frequent injections,” Dr. Razonable said. With postexposure prophylaxis monoclonal cocktails, people may be given a dose a month, he noted.

Dr. Razonable said, “This is something intended to prevent COVID in people who are unvaccinated. The downside to that is we want people to get vaccinated. The best strategy so far is really vaccination.”

He said AZD7442 could potentially help fill the void for patients who are not able to respond to the COVID vaccines, including some who are immunocompromised or are undergoing chemotherapy.

Dr. Razonable said that, although the 77% reduction for developing symptomatic COVID-19 (95% confidence interval vs. placebo, 46.0-90.0; P < .001) is impressive, it is a reduction in relative risk. Still unknown is how much an individual’s absolute risk is reduced.

He also said it would be helpful to know how many people in the study population were immunocompromised, “because I think that’s where this product will be useful for prevention.”

The primary study endpoints were the first case of SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR-positive symptomatic illness post dose and prior to day 183 (efficacy) as well as the safety of the product.

The cocktail appeared to be well tolerated. Adverse events occurred in 35% of participants administered AZD7442 and in 34% of the placebo group. Injection-site reactions occurred in 2.4% of the AZD7442 group and in 2.1% of the placebo group. There was one case of severe or critical COVID-19; two COVID-19–related deaths occurred in the placebo group.

AZD7442 is being developed with the help of funding from the U.S. government. Dr. Levin has received support from GlaxoSmithKline companies. Many of the coauthors are employed by AstraZeneca and hold stock in the company. Dr. Razonable has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A one-time dose of two long-acting monoclonal antibodies reduced the risk of developing symptomatic COVID by 77% in comparison with placebo (P < .001) in a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial in adults, according to researchers who presented results at IDWeek 2021, an annual scientific meeting on infectious diseases.

The mix of tixagevimab and cilgavimab (AZD7442, Astra Zeneca) in a 300-mg dose is delivered in two intramuscular injections.

“This is the first long-acting combination of monoclonal antibodies that represents a potential new option to augment COVID-19 prevention,” said lead author Myron J. Levin, MD, a professor and pediatric infectious disease specialist at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, who presented the findings of the PROVENT trial.

Both antibodies were taken from B cells donated by patients who had been infected with SARS-CoV-2, and they work synergistically, Dr. Levin said.

“The combination of them is better than adding results of each individually,” he said. “In vitro experiments have already shown that variants of interest and concern, including the Delta variant, are successfully neutralized by this cocktail.”

The trial was conducted in 87 sites in the United States, the United Kingdom, Spain, France, and Belgium. Participants included 5,197 unvaccinated adults who had never been infected with SARS-CoV-2 and either were at higher risk for inadequate response to COVID-19 vaccines because they were immunocompromised or were at high risk for exposure.

“Efficacy was observed through at least 3 months,” Dr. Levin said. “Preliminary pharmacokinetic modeling predicts potential protection for up to 12 months.”

Raymund Razonable, MD, an infectious disease expert with the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., who was not involved with the trial, told this news organization he was particularly interested in this combination because the developers made use of novel technology that extends the half-life of the antibodies and because of the large number of participants in the study.

Modeling that shows protection could last up to a year is novel and important, he said.

“People won’t need frequent injections,” Dr. Razonable said. With postexposure prophylaxis monoclonal cocktails, people may be given a dose a month, he noted.

Dr. Razonable said, “This is something intended to prevent COVID in people who are unvaccinated. The downside to that is we want people to get vaccinated. The best strategy so far is really vaccination.”

He said AZD7442 could potentially help fill the void for patients who are not able to respond to the COVID vaccines, including some who are immunocompromised or are undergoing chemotherapy.

Dr. Razonable said that, although the 77% reduction for developing symptomatic COVID-19 (95% confidence interval vs. placebo, 46.0-90.0; P < .001) is impressive, it is a reduction in relative risk. Still unknown is how much an individual’s absolute risk is reduced.

He also said it would be helpful to know how many people in the study population were immunocompromised, “because I think that’s where this product will be useful for prevention.”

The primary study endpoints were the first case of SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR-positive symptomatic illness post dose and prior to day 183 (efficacy) as well as the safety of the product.

The cocktail appeared to be well tolerated. Adverse events occurred in 35% of participants administered AZD7442 and in 34% of the placebo group. Injection-site reactions occurred in 2.4% of the AZD7442 group and in 2.1% of the placebo group. There was one case of severe or critical COVID-19; two COVID-19–related deaths occurred in the placebo group.

AZD7442 is being developed with the help of funding from the U.S. government. Dr. Levin has received support from GlaxoSmithKline companies. Many of the coauthors are employed by AstraZeneca and hold stock in the company. Dr. Razonable has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A phase 3, randomized, double-blind, controlled trial has shown that oteseconazole (Mycovia Pharmaceuticals), an oral antifungal agent, is safe and effective in treating acute and recurrent yeast infections (vulvovaginal candidiasis [VVC]) and in preventing  recurrence of acute VVC episodes.

Findings of the ultraVIOLET trial, which compared oteseconazole with the standard fluconazole, were presented at IDWeek 2021, an annual scientific meeting on infectious diseases, by lead author Mark G. Martens, MD, a professor in the department of obstetrics and gynecology at Drexel University College of Medicine in Philadelphia.

About 75% of all women will have a yeast infection in their lifetime, Dr. Martens noted. About 138 million women worldwide have recurring episodes (at least three acute episodes in the last year) of the debilitating condition.

“Recurrent vulvovaginal candidiasis typically requires treatment of the acute episode followed by long-term suppressive therapy with either weekly or biweekly fluconazole,” Dr. Martens said. However, when therapy stops, more than 50% of patients with recurrent VVC experience an infection within the next 6 months, which takes a significant toll on daily life.

Additionally, fluconazole has been linked with safety issues concerning chronic dosing, he said, citing liver toxicity, drug-drug interactions and “increased risk of miscarriage and birth defects when used during pregnancy.”

Topical treatments have been associated with messy application and burning, he noted.

For this study, researchers enrolled 219 women with a history of recurrent VVC at 51 U.S. sites. Participants were randomized either to 600 mg oteseconazole on day 1, 450 mg oteseconazole on day 2 or placebo capsules; or three sequential 150 mg doses (every 72 hours) of fluconazole together with matching placebo capsules.

In the maintenance phase, 185 women with resolved acute VVC (clinical signs and symptoms were scored below 3) on day 14 received 150 mg oteseconazole or placebo weekly for 11 weeks.

Oteseconazole was superior to fluconazole/placebo in the proportion of subjects with at least one culture-verified acute VVC episode through week 50 in the intent-to-treat population (P < .001) which included subjects who failed to clear their infection in the induction phase.

The average percentage of participants with at least one culture-verified acute VVC episode through week 50 was lower in the oteseconazole group (5.1%), compared with the fluconazole/placebo group (42.2%).

Oteseconazole was noninferior to fluconazole in the proportion of subjects with resolved acute VVC infections at day 14 – 93.2% for the oteseconazole group vs. 95.8% for the fluconazole/placebo group.

The percentages of women who had at least one treatment-emergent adverse event (TEAE) were similar – 54% in the oteseconazole group and 64% in the fluconazole/placebo group.  Most TEAEs were mild or moderate and there were no drug-related SAEs or adverse effects on liver function.

“There was no difference in the two groups in he baseline characteristics of age, race, and history of diabetes,” he said.

Oluwatosin Goje, MD, an ob.gyn. with the Cleveland Clinic told this news organization that the drug may offer another option for women who don’t respond to azoles.

“The CDC guidelines say, and I agree, that most episodes of recurrent VVC that are caused by Candida albicans will respond to topical azoles, to oral azoles, to the known drugs that are available. You just may have to use them for a prolonged period of time,” Dr. Goje said. But some patients won’t respond to azoles, the currently available drugs, and topical treatments – so new options are welcome for them, she noted.

She pointed out that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in June approved ibrexafungerp (Brexafemme), the first oral nonazole treatment for vaginal yeast infections. It was the first approved medicine in a novel antifungal class in more than 2 decades.

Dr. Goje, who runs a large clinic with substantial numbers of women with recurrent yeast infections, said the psychosocial problems women with recurrent yeast infections face – and the time off work and money spent trying to get temporary relief from over-the-counter medications – is underestimated.

“Women have long suffered vaginitis. It can be a lot of social and economic burden. So anything in the toolbox to help women is welcome,” Dr. Goje said.

The study was sponsored by Mycovia Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Martens reports no relevant financial relationships. Several coauthors are either employees of Mycovia or receive support from the company. Dr. Goje has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A phase 3, randomized, double-blind, controlled trial has shown that oteseconazole (Mycovia Pharmaceuticals), an oral antifungal agent, is safe and effective in treating acute and recurrent yeast infections (vulvovaginal candidiasis [VVC]) and in preventing  recurrence of acute VVC episodes.

Findings of the ultraVIOLET trial, which compared oteseconazole with the standard fluconazole, were presented at IDWeek 2021, an annual scientific meeting on infectious diseases, by lead author Mark G. Martens, MD, a professor in the department of obstetrics and gynecology at Drexel University College of Medicine in Philadelphia.

About 75% of all women will have a yeast infection in their lifetime, Dr. Martens noted. About 138 million women worldwide have recurring episodes (at least three acute episodes in the last year) of the debilitating condition.

“Recurrent vulvovaginal candidiasis typically requires treatment of the acute episode followed by long-term suppressive therapy with either weekly or biweekly fluconazole,” Dr. Martens said. However, when therapy stops, more than 50% of patients with recurrent VVC experience an infection within the next 6 months, which takes a significant toll on daily life.

Additionally, fluconazole has been linked with safety issues concerning chronic dosing, he said, citing liver toxicity, drug-drug interactions and “increased risk of miscarriage and birth defects when used during pregnancy.”

Topical treatments have been associated with messy application and burning, he noted.

For this study, researchers enrolled 219 women with a history of recurrent VVC at 51 U.S. sites. Participants were randomized either to 600 mg oteseconazole on day 1, 450 mg oteseconazole on day 2 or placebo capsules; or three sequential 150 mg doses (every 72 hours) of fluconazole together with matching placebo capsules.

In the maintenance phase, 185 women with resolved acute VVC (clinical signs and symptoms were scored below 3) on day 14 received 150 mg oteseconazole or placebo weekly for 11 weeks.

Oteseconazole was superior to fluconazole/placebo in the proportion of subjects with at least one culture-verified acute VVC episode through week 50 in the intent-to-treat population (P < .001) which included subjects who failed to clear their infection in the induction phase.

The average percentage of participants with at least one culture-verified acute VVC episode through week 50 was lower in the oteseconazole group (5.1%), compared with the fluconazole/placebo group (42.2%).

Oteseconazole was noninferior to fluconazole in the proportion of subjects with resolved acute VVC infections at day 14 – 93.2% for the oteseconazole group vs. 95.8% for the fluconazole/placebo group.

The percentages of women who had at least one treatment-emergent adverse event (TEAE) were similar – 54% in the oteseconazole group and 64% in the fluconazole/placebo group.  Most TEAEs were mild or moderate and there were no drug-related SAEs or adverse effects on liver function.

“There was no difference in the two groups in he baseline characteristics of age, race, and history of diabetes,” he said.

Oluwatosin Goje, MD, an ob.gyn. with the Cleveland Clinic told this news organization that the drug may offer another option for women who don’t respond to azoles.

“The CDC guidelines say, and I agree, that most episodes of recurrent VVC that are caused by Candida albicans will respond to topical azoles, to oral azoles, to the known drugs that are available. You just may have to use them for a prolonged period of time,” Dr. Goje said. But some patients won’t respond to azoles, the currently available drugs, and topical treatments – so new options are welcome for them, she noted.

She pointed out that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in June approved ibrexafungerp (Brexafemme), the first oral nonazole treatment for vaginal yeast infections. It was the first approved medicine in a novel antifungal class in more than 2 decades.

Dr. Goje, who runs a large clinic with substantial numbers of women with recurrent yeast infections, said the psychosocial problems women with recurrent yeast infections face – and the time off work and money spent trying to get temporary relief from over-the-counter medications – is underestimated.

“Women have long suffered vaginitis. It can be a lot of social and economic burden. So anything in the toolbox to help women is welcome,” Dr. Goje said.

The study was sponsored by Mycovia Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Martens reports no relevant financial relationships. Several coauthors are either employees of Mycovia or receive support from the company. Dr. Goje has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A phase 3, randomized, double-blind, controlled trial has shown that oteseconazole (Mycovia Pharmaceuticals), an oral antifungal agent, is safe and effective in treating acute and recurrent yeast infections (vulvovaginal candidiasis [VVC]) and in preventing  recurrence of acute VVC episodes.

Findings of the ultraVIOLET trial, which compared oteseconazole with the standard fluconazole, were presented at IDWeek 2021, an annual scientific meeting on infectious diseases, by lead author Mark G. Martens, MD, a professor in the department of obstetrics and gynecology at Drexel University College of Medicine in Philadelphia.

About 75% of all women will have a yeast infection in their lifetime, Dr. Martens noted. About 138 million women worldwide have recurring episodes (at least three acute episodes in the last year) of the debilitating condition.

“Recurrent vulvovaginal candidiasis typically requires treatment of the acute episode followed by long-term suppressive therapy with either weekly or biweekly fluconazole,” Dr. Martens said. However, when therapy stops, more than 50% of patients with recurrent VVC experience an infection within the next 6 months, which takes a significant toll on daily life.

Additionally, fluconazole has been linked with safety issues concerning chronic dosing, he said, citing liver toxicity, drug-drug interactions and “increased risk of miscarriage and birth defects when used during pregnancy.”

Topical treatments have been associated with messy application and burning, he noted.

For this study, researchers enrolled 219 women with a history of recurrent VVC at 51 U.S. sites. Participants were randomized either to 600 mg oteseconazole on day 1, 450 mg oteseconazole on day 2 or placebo capsules; or three sequential 150 mg doses (every 72 hours) of fluconazole together with matching placebo capsules.

In the maintenance phase, 185 women with resolved acute VVC (clinical signs and symptoms were scored below 3) on day 14 received 150 mg oteseconazole or placebo weekly for 11 weeks.

Oteseconazole was superior to fluconazole/placebo in the proportion of subjects with at least one culture-verified acute VVC episode through week 50 in the intent-to-treat population (P < .001) which included subjects who failed to clear their infection in the induction phase.

The average percentage of participants with at least one culture-verified acute VVC episode through week 50 was lower in the oteseconazole group (5.1%), compared with the fluconazole/placebo group (42.2%).

Oteseconazole was noninferior to fluconazole in the proportion of subjects with resolved acute VVC infections at day 14 – 93.2% for the oteseconazole group vs. 95.8% for the fluconazole/placebo group.

The percentages of women who had at least one treatment-emergent adverse event (TEAE) were similar – 54% in the oteseconazole group and 64% in the fluconazole/placebo group.  Most TEAEs were mild or moderate and there were no drug-related SAEs or adverse effects on liver function.

“There was no difference in the two groups in he baseline characteristics of age, race, and history of diabetes,” he said.

Oluwatosin Goje, MD, an ob.gyn. with the Cleveland Clinic told this news organization that the drug may offer another option for women who don’t respond to azoles.

“The CDC guidelines say, and I agree, that most episodes of recurrent VVC that are caused by Candida albicans will respond to topical azoles, to oral azoles, to the known drugs that are available. You just may have to use them for a prolonged period of time,” Dr. Goje said. But some patients won’t respond to azoles, the currently available drugs, and topical treatments – so new options are welcome for them, she noted.

She pointed out that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in June approved ibrexafungerp (Brexafemme), the first oral nonazole treatment for vaginal yeast infections. It was the first approved medicine in a novel antifungal class in more than 2 decades.

Dr. Goje, who runs a large clinic with substantial numbers of women with recurrent yeast infections, said the psychosocial problems women with recurrent yeast infections face – and the time off work and money spent trying to get temporary relief from over-the-counter medications – is underestimated.

“Women have long suffered vaginitis. It can be a lot of social and economic burden. So anything in the toolbox to help women is welcome,” Dr. Goje said.

The study was sponsored by Mycovia Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Martens reports no relevant financial relationships. Several coauthors are either employees of Mycovia or receive support from the company. Dr. Goje has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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