User login
Moderna vaccine more effective than Pfizer and J&J
the Centers for Disease Control and Protection has said.
“Among U.S. adults without immunocompromising conditions, vaccine effectiveness against COVID-19 hospitalization during March 11–Aug. 15, 2021, was higher for the Moderna vaccine (93%) than the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine (88%) and the Janssen vaccine (71%),” the agency’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report said. Janssen refers to the Johnson & Johnson vaccine.
The CDC said the data could help people make informed decisions.
“Understanding differences in VE [vaccine effectiveness] by vaccine product can guide individual choices and policy recommendations regarding vaccine boosters. All Food and Drug Administration–approved or authorized COVID-19 vaccines provide substantial protection against COVID-19 hospitalization,” the report said.
The study also broke down effectiveness for longer periods. Moderna came out on top again.
After 120 days, the Moderna vaccine provided 92% effectiveness against hospitalization, whereas the Pfizer vaccine’s effectiveness dropped to 77%, the CDC said. There was no similar calculation for the Johnson & Johnson vaccine.
The CDC studied 3,689 adults at 21 hospitals in 18 states who got the two-shot Pfizer or Moderna vaccine or the one-shot Johnson & Johnson vaccine between March and August.
The agency noted some factors that could have come into play.
“Differences in vaccine effectiveness between the Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine might be due to higher mRNA content in the Moderna vaccine, differences in timing between doses (3 weeks for Pfizer-BioNTech vs. 4 weeks for Moderna), or possible differences between groups that received each vaccine that were not accounted for in the analysis,” the report said.
The CDC noted limitations in the findings. Children, immunocompromised adults, and vaccine effectiveness against COVID-19 that did not result in hospitalization were not studied.
Other studies have shown all three U.S. vaccines provide a high rate of protection against coronavirus.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
the Centers for Disease Control and Protection has said.
“Among U.S. adults without immunocompromising conditions, vaccine effectiveness against COVID-19 hospitalization during March 11–Aug. 15, 2021, was higher for the Moderna vaccine (93%) than the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine (88%) and the Janssen vaccine (71%),” the agency’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report said. Janssen refers to the Johnson & Johnson vaccine.
The CDC said the data could help people make informed decisions.
“Understanding differences in VE [vaccine effectiveness] by vaccine product can guide individual choices and policy recommendations regarding vaccine boosters. All Food and Drug Administration–approved or authorized COVID-19 vaccines provide substantial protection against COVID-19 hospitalization,” the report said.
The study also broke down effectiveness for longer periods. Moderna came out on top again.
After 120 days, the Moderna vaccine provided 92% effectiveness against hospitalization, whereas the Pfizer vaccine’s effectiveness dropped to 77%, the CDC said. There was no similar calculation for the Johnson & Johnson vaccine.
The CDC studied 3,689 adults at 21 hospitals in 18 states who got the two-shot Pfizer or Moderna vaccine or the one-shot Johnson & Johnson vaccine between March and August.
The agency noted some factors that could have come into play.
“Differences in vaccine effectiveness between the Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine might be due to higher mRNA content in the Moderna vaccine, differences in timing between doses (3 weeks for Pfizer-BioNTech vs. 4 weeks for Moderna), or possible differences between groups that received each vaccine that were not accounted for in the analysis,” the report said.
The CDC noted limitations in the findings. Children, immunocompromised adults, and vaccine effectiveness against COVID-19 that did not result in hospitalization were not studied.
Other studies have shown all three U.S. vaccines provide a high rate of protection against coronavirus.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
the Centers for Disease Control and Protection has said.
“Among U.S. adults without immunocompromising conditions, vaccine effectiveness against COVID-19 hospitalization during March 11–Aug. 15, 2021, was higher for the Moderna vaccine (93%) than the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine (88%) and the Janssen vaccine (71%),” the agency’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report said. Janssen refers to the Johnson & Johnson vaccine.
The CDC said the data could help people make informed decisions.
“Understanding differences in VE [vaccine effectiveness] by vaccine product can guide individual choices and policy recommendations regarding vaccine boosters. All Food and Drug Administration–approved or authorized COVID-19 vaccines provide substantial protection against COVID-19 hospitalization,” the report said.
The study also broke down effectiveness for longer periods. Moderna came out on top again.
After 120 days, the Moderna vaccine provided 92% effectiveness against hospitalization, whereas the Pfizer vaccine’s effectiveness dropped to 77%, the CDC said. There was no similar calculation for the Johnson & Johnson vaccine.
The CDC studied 3,689 adults at 21 hospitals in 18 states who got the two-shot Pfizer or Moderna vaccine or the one-shot Johnson & Johnson vaccine between March and August.
The agency noted some factors that could have come into play.
“Differences in vaccine effectiveness between the Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine might be due to higher mRNA content in the Moderna vaccine, differences in timing between doses (3 weeks for Pfizer-BioNTech vs. 4 weeks for Moderna), or possible differences between groups that received each vaccine that were not accounted for in the analysis,” the report said.
The CDC noted limitations in the findings. Children, immunocompromised adults, and vaccine effectiveness against COVID-19 that did not result in hospitalization were not studied.
Other studies have shown all three U.S. vaccines provide a high rate of protection against coronavirus.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
Nonopioid med promising for neuropathic pain
Top-line results from a phase 2 study suggest vixotrigine (BIIB074, Biogen), a nonopioid investigational oral pain medication, reduces chronic neuropathic pain caused by small fiber neuropathy (SFN) and is generally well tolerated.
“We are encouraged by the overall results of the CONVEY study, especially given the significant unmet medical need for additional agents to treat chronic painful neuropathy,” Katherine Dawson, MD, senior vice president and head of the therapeutics development unit at Biogen, said in a news release.
Vixotrigine (BIIB074) is a peripherally and centrally acting, orally administered, voltage- and use-dependent voltage-gated sodium channel blocker.
CONVEY was a phase 2, placebo-controlled, double-blind, randomized withdrawal study of 265 patients experiencing pain from confirmed idiopathic or diabetes-associated SFN.
Following a 4-week open-label run-in period, 123 responders to vixotrigine were randomly allocated to 200 mg or 350 mg vixotrigine or placebo twice daily for 12 weeks in the double-blind portion of the study.
At week 12, vixotrigine 200 mg twice daily met the primary endpoint of a statistically significant reduction from baseline in the mean average daily pain (ADP) score versus placebo (P = .0501).
A subgroup analysis showed a treatment effect in patients with diabetes-associated SFN but not in the smaller subgroup of patients with idiopathic SFN.
The 200-mg dose also led to a significant improvement over placebo in mean worst daily pain score at 12 weeks (P = .0455).
A numeric advantage of 200 mg vixotrigine over placebo was observed in additional secondary endpoints, including the proportion of patients with at least a 2-point improvement in ADP score and the proportion with at least a 30% reduction in ADP at week 12, but these failed to reach statistical significance.
Vixotrigine 350 mg twice daily did not meet the primary endpoint of mean change in ADP at 12 weeks.
However, treatment at the higher dose led to a significant increase in the proportion of patients who reported being “very much improved” or “much improved” over baseline (P = .0580), Biogen reported.
In addition, a numeric advantage of 350 mg over placebo was observed in the proportion of patients with a 2-point or greater improvement in ADP score and the proportion with at least a 30% reduction in ADP at 12 weeks, but these also did not reach statistical significance.
Both doses of vixotrigine were “generally well tolerated and the safety profile was consistent with previous studies of vixotrigine with no evidence of abuse potential,” the company said.
In the open-label period, common adverse events seen in at least 2.5% of patients were dizziness, headache, vertigo, and nausea; adverse events led 5.3% of patients to discontinue the open-label portion of the study. Across the entire study, most adverse events were mild or moderate in severity.
“The totality of data from the vixotrigine program will inform potential doses for study in future phase 3 clinical trials,” the company said.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Top-line results from a phase 2 study suggest vixotrigine (BIIB074, Biogen), a nonopioid investigational oral pain medication, reduces chronic neuropathic pain caused by small fiber neuropathy (SFN) and is generally well tolerated.
“We are encouraged by the overall results of the CONVEY study, especially given the significant unmet medical need for additional agents to treat chronic painful neuropathy,” Katherine Dawson, MD, senior vice president and head of the therapeutics development unit at Biogen, said in a news release.
Vixotrigine (BIIB074) is a peripherally and centrally acting, orally administered, voltage- and use-dependent voltage-gated sodium channel blocker.
CONVEY was a phase 2, placebo-controlled, double-blind, randomized withdrawal study of 265 patients experiencing pain from confirmed idiopathic or diabetes-associated SFN.
Following a 4-week open-label run-in period, 123 responders to vixotrigine were randomly allocated to 200 mg or 350 mg vixotrigine or placebo twice daily for 12 weeks in the double-blind portion of the study.
At week 12, vixotrigine 200 mg twice daily met the primary endpoint of a statistically significant reduction from baseline in the mean average daily pain (ADP) score versus placebo (P = .0501).
A subgroup analysis showed a treatment effect in patients with diabetes-associated SFN but not in the smaller subgroup of patients with idiopathic SFN.
The 200-mg dose also led to a significant improvement over placebo in mean worst daily pain score at 12 weeks (P = .0455).
A numeric advantage of 200 mg vixotrigine over placebo was observed in additional secondary endpoints, including the proportion of patients with at least a 2-point improvement in ADP score and the proportion with at least a 30% reduction in ADP at week 12, but these failed to reach statistical significance.
Vixotrigine 350 mg twice daily did not meet the primary endpoint of mean change in ADP at 12 weeks.
However, treatment at the higher dose led to a significant increase in the proportion of patients who reported being “very much improved” or “much improved” over baseline (P = .0580), Biogen reported.
In addition, a numeric advantage of 350 mg over placebo was observed in the proportion of patients with a 2-point or greater improvement in ADP score and the proportion with at least a 30% reduction in ADP at 12 weeks, but these also did not reach statistical significance.
Both doses of vixotrigine were “generally well tolerated and the safety profile was consistent with previous studies of vixotrigine with no evidence of abuse potential,” the company said.
In the open-label period, common adverse events seen in at least 2.5% of patients were dizziness, headache, vertigo, and nausea; adverse events led 5.3% of patients to discontinue the open-label portion of the study. Across the entire study, most adverse events were mild or moderate in severity.
“The totality of data from the vixotrigine program will inform potential doses for study in future phase 3 clinical trials,” the company said.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Top-line results from a phase 2 study suggest vixotrigine (BIIB074, Biogen), a nonopioid investigational oral pain medication, reduces chronic neuropathic pain caused by small fiber neuropathy (SFN) and is generally well tolerated.
“We are encouraged by the overall results of the CONVEY study, especially given the significant unmet medical need for additional agents to treat chronic painful neuropathy,” Katherine Dawson, MD, senior vice president and head of the therapeutics development unit at Biogen, said in a news release.
Vixotrigine (BIIB074) is a peripherally and centrally acting, orally administered, voltage- and use-dependent voltage-gated sodium channel blocker.
CONVEY was a phase 2, placebo-controlled, double-blind, randomized withdrawal study of 265 patients experiencing pain from confirmed idiopathic or diabetes-associated SFN.
Following a 4-week open-label run-in period, 123 responders to vixotrigine were randomly allocated to 200 mg or 350 mg vixotrigine or placebo twice daily for 12 weeks in the double-blind portion of the study.
At week 12, vixotrigine 200 mg twice daily met the primary endpoint of a statistically significant reduction from baseline in the mean average daily pain (ADP) score versus placebo (P = .0501).
A subgroup analysis showed a treatment effect in patients with diabetes-associated SFN but not in the smaller subgroup of patients with idiopathic SFN.
The 200-mg dose also led to a significant improvement over placebo in mean worst daily pain score at 12 weeks (P = .0455).
A numeric advantage of 200 mg vixotrigine over placebo was observed in additional secondary endpoints, including the proportion of patients with at least a 2-point improvement in ADP score and the proportion with at least a 30% reduction in ADP at week 12, but these failed to reach statistical significance.
Vixotrigine 350 mg twice daily did not meet the primary endpoint of mean change in ADP at 12 weeks.
However, treatment at the higher dose led to a significant increase in the proportion of patients who reported being “very much improved” or “much improved” over baseline (P = .0580), Biogen reported.
In addition, a numeric advantage of 350 mg over placebo was observed in the proportion of patients with a 2-point or greater improvement in ADP score and the proportion with at least a 30% reduction in ADP at 12 weeks, but these also did not reach statistical significance.
Both doses of vixotrigine were “generally well tolerated and the safety profile was consistent with previous studies of vixotrigine with no evidence of abuse potential,” the company said.
In the open-label period, common adverse events seen in at least 2.5% of patients were dizziness, headache, vertigo, and nausea; adverse events led 5.3% of patients to discontinue the open-label portion of the study. Across the entire study, most adverse events were mild or moderate in severity.
“The totality of data from the vixotrigine program will inform potential doses for study in future phase 3 clinical trials,” the company said.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Low RA flare rate reported after Pfizer COVID vaccination
Patients with rheumatoid arthritis in remission had a rate of flare following vaccination with the Pfizer/BioNtech COVID-19 vaccine that appears to be on par with rates seen with other vaccines in patients with RA, according to results from a small Italian cohort study.
“Our data show a very low flare rate [7.8% (6 of 77)] after the BNT162b2 COVID-19 vaccine in patients with RA in remission and are consistent with previous findings about varicella-zoster virus (6.7%) and hepatitis B virus (2.2%) vaccinations,” Riccardo Bixio, MD, and colleagues from University of Verona (Italy) Hospital Trust wrote in ACR Open Rheumatology. “Because remission is not commonly obtained in the real world, we are aware that our findings may not be generalizable to all patients with RA receiving COVID-19 vaccination.”
Other studies of flare rate after COVID-19 vaccination in patients with a variety of rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases have reported rates ranging from 5% to 17%, they said.
The 77 consecutive patients from the University of Verona center that conducted the study were all in clinical remission in the 3 months before vaccination based on a 28-joint Disease Activity Score based on C-reactive protein (DAS28-CRP) of less than 2.6, and all had discontinued antirheumatic therapies according to American College of Rheumatology COVID-19 recommendations. The researchers defined flares as agreement between patient and rheumatologist assessments and a DAS28-CRP increase of more than 1.2.
Five of the six people with a flare had it occur after the second dose at a mean of 2.6 days later, and all flares were resolved within 2 weeks using glucocorticoids with or without anti-inflammatory drugs. One flare was called severe. The overall disease activity of the cohort after 3 months was not significantly changed after vaccination.
In noting that five out of the six patients with flares had withdrawn or delayed antirheumatic therapies around the time of vaccination according to ACR recommendations, the authors wrote that “Even if there is no direct evidence that holding therapies could occur in a higher proportion of disease flares, we suggest that clinicians consider this possibility when counseling patients about COVID-19 vaccination.”
The authors had no outside funding for the study and had no potential conflicts of interest to disclose.
Patients with rheumatoid arthritis in remission had a rate of flare following vaccination with the Pfizer/BioNtech COVID-19 vaccine that appears to be on par with rates seen with other vaccines in patients with RA, according to results from a small Italian cohort study.
“Our data show a very low flare rate [7.8% (6 of 77)] after the BNT162b2 COVID-19 vaccine in patients with RA in remission and are consistent with previous findings about varicella-zoster virus (6.7%) and hepatitis B virus (2.2%) vaccinations,” Riccardo Bixio, MD, and colleagues from University of Verona (Italy) Hospital Trust wrote in ACR Open Rheumatology. “Because remission is not commonly obtained in the real world, we are aware that our findings may not be generalizable to all patients with RA receiving COVID-19 vaccination.”
Other studies of flare rate after COVID-19 vaccination in patients with a variety of rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases have reported rates ranging from 5% to 17%, they said.
The 77 consecutive patients from the University of Verona center that conducted the study were all in clinical remission in the 3 months before vaccination based on a 28-joint Disease Activity Score based on C-reactive protein (DAS28-CRP) of less than 2.6, and all had discontinued antirheumatic therapies according to American College of Rheumatology COVID-19 recommendations. The researchers defined flares as agreement between patient and rheumatologist assessments and a DAS28-CRP increase of more than 1.2.
Five of the six people with a flare had it occur after the second dose at a mean of 2.6 days later, and all flares were resolved within 2 weeks using glucocorticoids with or without anti-inflammatory drugs. One flare was called severe. The overall disease activity of the cohort after 3 months was not significantly changed after vaccination.
In noting that five out of the six patients with flares had withdrawn or delayed antirheumatic therapies around the time of vaccination according to ACR recommendations, the authors wrote that “Even if there is no direct evidence that holding therapies could occur in a higher proportion of disease flares, we suggest that clinicians consider this possibility when counseling patients about COVID-19 vaccination.”
The authors had no outside funding for the study and had no potential conflicts of interest to disclose.
Patients with rheumatoid arthritis in remission had a rate of flare following vaccination with the Pfizer/BioNtech COVID-19 vaccine that appears to be on par with rates seen with other vaccines in patients with RA, according to results from a small Italian cohort study.
“Our data show a very low flare rate [7.8% (6 of 77)] after the BNT162b2 COVID-19 vaccine in patients with RA in remission and are consistent with previous findings about varicella-zoster virus (6.7%) and hepatitis B virus (2.2%) vaccinations,” Riccardo Bixio, MD, and colleagues from University of Verona (Italy) Hospital Trust wrote in ACR Open Rheumatology. “Because remission is not commonly obtained in the real world, we are aware that our findings may not be generalizable to all patients with RA receiving COVID-19 vaccination.”
Other studies of flare rate after COVID-19 vaccination in patients with a variety of rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases have reported rates ranging from 5% to 17%, they said.
The 77 consecutive patients from the University of Verona center that conducted the study were all in clinical remission in the 3 months before vaccination based on a 28-joint Disease Activity Score based on C-reactive protein (DAS28-CRP) of less than 2.6, and all had discontinued antirheumatic therapies according to American College of Rheumatology COVID-19 recommendations. The researchers defined flares as agreement between patient and rheumatologist assessments and a DAS28-CRP increase of more than 1.2.
Five of the six people with a flare had it occur after the second dose at a mean of 2.6 days later, and all flares were resolved within 2 weeks using glucocorticoids with or without anti-inflammatory drugs. One flare was called severe. The overall disease activity of the cohort after 3 months was not significantly changed after vaccination.
In noting that five out of the six patients with flares had withdrawn or delayed antirheumatic therapies around the time of vaccination according to ACR recommendations, the authors wrote that “Even if there is no direct evidence that holding therapies could occur in a higher proportion of disease flares, we suggest that clinicians consider this possibility when counseling patients about COVID-19 vaccination.”
The authors had no outside funding for the study and had no potential conflicts of interest to disclose.
FROM ACR OPEN RHEUMATOLOGY
Antibiotic use and colon cancer: More evidence of link
The latest data come from a Swedish population study. Investigators analyzed data from more than 40,000 colorectal cancer patients and 200,000 cancer-free control persons.
They found that moderate use of antibiotics increased the risk for proximal colon cancer by 9% and that very high antibiotic use increased the risk by 17%.
In contrast, the risk for rectal cancer was reduced by 4% with moderate use and 9% with very high use, but this association was confined to women.
Antibiotic use was categorized as no use (no reported use of antibiotics during the study period), low (use during a period of 1-10 days), moderate (11-60 days), high (61-180 days), and very high (>180 days).
The study, led by Sophia Harlid, PhD, department of radiation sciences, oncology, Umeå University, Sweden, was published online on Sept. 1 in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute.
The results complement findings from a recent study from Scotland, which found that a history of antibiotic use among individuals younger than 50 appeared to increase the risk of developing colon cancer but not rectal cancer by 49%.
The new data from Sweden “strengthen prior evidence and provide new insights into site-specific carcinogenesis as well as indirect support for the role of gut microbiota,” lead author Dr. Dr. Harlid commented in an interview.
“The positive associations between antibiotics use and proximal colon cancer began at the lowest level of antibiotics use, providing a potential justification for reducing antibiotics prescriptions in clinical practice,” she added.
In their article, the team suggests that the increased risk could be a result of antibiotics having a “disruptive effect” on the gut microbiome.
The finding of an increased risk for cancer in the proximal colon but not further along the alimentary tract “is consistent with a high microbial impact in the proximal colon and a decreasing concentration of short-chain fatty acids along the colon,” the authors comment.
This results “in higher bacterial activity, biofilm formation, and fermentation in the proximal compared with the distal colon and rectum.”
A further analysis showed that the use of quinolones and sulfonamides and/or trimethoprims was associated with an increased risk for proximal colon cancer, whereas use of nitrofurantoins, macrolides and/or lincosamides, and metronidazoles and/or tinidazoles was inversely associated with rectal cancer.
Details of the study findings
For their study, the team analyzed complete-population data from Swedish national registers for the period July 1, 2005 to Dec. 31, 2016.
They matched case patients who were diagnosed with colorectal cancer from Jan. 1, 2010 to Dec. 31, 2016 with cancer-free control persons in a 1:5 ratio. Data on antibiotic use were extracted from the Swedish Prescribed Drug Register.
Other variables, such as socioeconomic factors and health care utilization, were obtained from the Swedish Inpatient Register and the Longitudinal Integration Database for Health Insurance and Labor Market Studies.
The team identified 40,545 patients with colorectal cancer cases; there were 202,720 control persons. Just over half (52.9%) of the participants were men; the mean age at cancer diagnosis was 72 years. Among the cases, 36.4% were proximal colon cancers, 29.3% were distal colon cancers, and 33.0% rectal cancers.
Control patients were more likely to have been prescribed no antibiotics, at 22.4% versus 18.7% for case patients. Case patients were more likely than control persons to have used antibiotics for more than 2 months, at 20.8% versus 19.3% (P < .001).
Overall, antibiotic use was positively associated with colorectal cancer. In comparison with no use, the odds ratio for moderate use was 1.15; for very high use, it was 1.17 (P < .001 for trend).
Excluding all antibiotic use during the 2 years prior to a colorectal cancer diagnosis attenuated the association, such that it was no longer significant for very high use versus no antibiotic use.
Applying this cutoff to the remaining analyses, the team found that the dose-response relationship between antibiotic use and colorectal cancer was largely confined to proximal colon cancer, at an odds ratio of 1.09 for moderate use and 1.17 for very high use in comparison with no use (P < .001 for trend).
For distal colon cancer, the relationship was “close to null.”
There was a slight inverse relationship between rectal cancer and antibiotic use, at an odds rate of 0.96 for moderate use and 0.91 for very high use versus no use (P < .001 for trend). This association was found in women only, whereas the other associations were seen in both men and women.
The study was supported by the Lion’s Cancer Research Foundation, Umeå University, and Region Västerbotten. Dr. Harlid has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Three coauthors report various relationships with industry, as noted in the original article.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The latest data come from a Swedish population study. Investigators analyzed data from more than 40,000 colorectal cancer patients and 200,000 cancer-free control persons.
They found that moderate use of antibiotics increased the risk for proximal colon cancer by 9% and that very high antibiotic use increased the risk by 17%.
In contrast, the risk for rectal cancer was reduced by 4% with moderate use and 9% with very high use, but this association was confined to women.
Antibiotic use was categorized as no use (no reported use of antibiotics during the study period), low (use during a period of 1-10 days), moderate (11-60 days), high (61-180 days), and very high (>180 days).
The study, led by Sophia Harlid, PhD, department of radiation sciences, oncology, Umeå University, Sweden, was published online on Sept. 1 in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute.
The results complement findings from a recent study from Scotland, which found that a history of antibiotic use among individuals younger than 50 appeared to increase the risk of developing colon cancer but not rectal cancer by 49%.
The new data from Sweden “strengthen prior evidence and provide new insights into site-specific carcinogenesis as well as indirect support for the role of gut microbiota,” lead author Dr. Dr. Harlid commented in an interview.
“The positive associations between antibiotics use and proximal colon cancer began at the lowest level of antibiotics use, providing a potential justification for reducing antibiotics prescriptions in clinical practice,” she added.
In their article, the team suggests that the increased risk could be a result of antibiotics having a “disruptive effect” on the gut microbiome.
The finding of an increased risk for cancer in the proximal colon but not further along the alimentary tract “is consistent with a high microbial impact in the proximal colon and a decreasing concentration of short-chain fatty acids along the colon,” the authors comment.
This results “in higher bacterial activity, biofilm formation, and fermentation in the proximal compared with the distal colon and rectum.”
A further analysis showed that the use of quinolones and sulfonamides and/or trimethoprims was associated with an increased risk for proximal colon cancer, whereas use of nitrofurantoins, macrolides and/or lincosamides, and metronidazoles and/or tinidazoles was inversely associated with rectal cancer.
Details of the study findings
For their study, the team analyzed complete-population data from Swedish national registers for the period July 1, 2005 to Dec. 31, 2016.
They matched case patients who were diagnosed with colorectal cancer from Jan. 1, 2010 to Dec. 31, 2016 with cancer-free control persons in a 1:5 ratio. Data on antibiotic use were extracted from the Swedish Prescribed Drug Register.
Other variables, such as socioeconomic factors and health care utilization, were obtained from the Swedish Inpatient Register and the Longitudinal Integration Database for Health Insurance and Labor Market Studies.
The team identified 40,545 patients with colorectal cancer cases; there were 202,720 control persons. Just over half (52.9%) of the participants were men; the mean age at cancer diagnosis was 72 years. Among the cases, 36.4% were proximal colon cancers, 29.3% were distal colon cancers, and 33.0% rectal cancers.
Control patients were more likely to have been prescribed no antibiotics, at 22.4% versus 18.7% for case patients. Case patients were more likely than control persons to have used antibiotics for more than 2 months, at 20.8% versus 19.3% (P < .001).
Overall, antibiotic use was positively associated with colorectal cancer. In comparison with no use, the odds ratio for moderate use was 1.15; for very high use, it was 1.17 (P < .001 for trend).
Excluding all antibiotic use during the 2 years prior to a colorectal cancer diagnosis attenuated the association, such that it was no longer significant for very high use versus no antibiotic use.
Applying this cutoff to the remaining analyses, the team found that the dose-response relationship between antibiotic use and colorectal cancer was largely confined to proximal colon cancer, at an odds ratio of 1.09 for moderate use and 1.17 for very high use in comparison with no use (P < .001 for trend).
For distal colon cancer, the relationship was “close to null.”
There was a slight inverse relationship between rectal cancer and antibiotic use, at an odds rate of 0.96 for moderate use and 0.91 for very high use versus no use (P < .001 for trend). This association was found in women only, whereas the other associations were seen in both men and women.
The study was supported by the Lion’s Cancer Research Foundation, Umeå University, and Region Västerbotten. Dr. Harlid has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Three coauthors report various relationships with industry, as noted in the original article.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The latest data come from a Swedish population study. Investigators analyzed data from more than 40,000 colorectal cancer patients and 200,000 cancer-free control persons.
They found that moderate use of antibiotics increased the risk for proximal colon cancer by 9% and that very high antibiotic use increased the risk by 17%.
In contrast, the risk for rectal cancer was reduced by 4% with moderate use and 9% with very high use, but this association was confined to women.
Antibiotic use was categorized as no use (no reported use of antibiotics during the study period), low (use during a period of 1-10 days), moderate (11-60 days), high (61-180 days), and very high (>180 days).
The study, led by Sophia Harlid, PhD, department of radiation sciences, oncology, Umeå University, Sweden, was published online on Sept. 1 in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute.
The results complement findings from a recent study from Scotland, which found that a history of antibiotic use among individuals younger than 50 appeared to increase the risk of developing colon cancer but not rectal cancer by 49%.
The new data from Sweden “strengthen prior evidence and provide new insights into site-specific carcinogenesis as well as indirect support for the role of gut microbiota,” lead author Dr. Dr. Harlid commented in an interview.
“The positive associations between antibiotics use and proximal colon cancer began at the lowest level of antibiotics use, providing a potential justification for reducing antibiotics prescriptions in clinical practice,” she added.
In their article, the team suggests that the increased risk could be a result of antibiotics having a “disruptive effect” on the gut microbiome.
The finding of an increased risk for cancer in the proximal colon but not further along the alimentary tract “is consistent with a high microbial impact in the proximal colon and a decreasing concentration of short-chain fatty acids along the colon,” the authors comment.
This results “in higher bacterial activity, biofilm formation, and fermentation in the proximal compared with the distal colon and rectum.”
A further analysis showed that the use of quinolones and sulfonamides and/or trimethoprims was associated with an increased risk for proximal colon cancer, whereas use of nitrofurantoins, macrolides and/or lincosamides, and metronidazoles and/or tinidazoles was inversely associated with rectal cancer.
Details of the study findings
For their study, the team analyzed complete-population data from Swedish national registers for the period July 1, 2005 to Dec. 31, 2016.
They matched case patients who were diagnosed with colorectal cancer from Jan. 1, 2010 to Dec. 31, 2016 with cancer-free control persons in a 1:5 ratio. Data on antibiotic use were extracted from the Swedish Prescribed Drug Register.
Other variables, such as socioeconomic factors and health care utilization, were obtained from the Swedish Inpatient Register and the Longitudinal Integration Database for Health Insurance and Labor Market Studies.
The team identified 40,545 patients with colorectal cancer cases; there were 202,720 control persons. Just over half (52.9%) of the participants were men; the mean age at cancer diagnosis was 72 years. Among the cases, 36.4% were proximal colon cancers, 29.3% were distal colon cancers, and 33.0% rectal cancers.
Control patients were more likely to have been prescribed no antibiotics, at 22.4% versus 18.7% for case patients. Case patients were more likely than control persons to have used antibiotics for more than 2 months, at 20.8% versus 19.3% (P < .001).
Overall, antibiotic use was positively associated with colorectal cancer. In comparison with no use, the odds ratio for moderate use was 1.15; for very high use, it was 1.17 (P < .001 for trend).
Excluding all antibiotic use during the 2 years prior to a colorectal cancer diagnosis attenuated the association, such that it was no longer significant for very high use versus no antibiotic use.
Applying this cutoff to the remaining analyses, the team found that the dose-response relationship between antibiotic use and colorectal cancer was largely confined to proximal colon cancer, at an odds ratio of 1.09 for moderate use and 1.17 for very high use in comparison with no use (P < .001 for trend).
For distal colon cancer, the relationship was “close to null.”
There was a slight inverse relationship between rectal cancer and antibiotic use, at an odds rate of 0.96 for moderate use and 0.91 for very high use versus no use (P < .001 for trend). This association was found in women only, whereas the other associations were seen in both men and women.
The study was supported by the Lion’s Cancer Research Foundation, Umeå University, and Region Västerbotten. Dr. Harlid has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Three coauthors report various relationships with industry, as noted in the original article.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Will interchangeable insulin be more affordable in the U.S.?
When the Food and Drug Administration approved Semglee, the first interchangeable biosimilar insulin, the agency pitched it as having the potential to be less costly than insulins currently on the market, but lack of transparency in pharmaceutical pricing has left analysts and advocates guessing whether it will indeed be a source of relief.
Semglee (Mylan Pharmaceuticals), first approved as a biosimilar in June 2020, costs about $100 a vial.
But receiving the “interchangeable designation” in July 2021, the first for any insulin, now allows Semglee to be substituted for the branded Lantus (insulin glargine, Sanofi) at the pharmacy without the need for a separate prescription, the same way as generic medicines.
A spokesperson for Viatris – Mylan’s parent company told this news organization that the interchangeable, with its new labeling, will be “introduced before the end of the year,” but it would not give any more details.
“Additional information, including pricing information, for interchangeable biosimilar Semglee will be provided at the time of product launch,” said the spokesperson.
Even at $100 a vial, it is not cheap
Ian Devaney, a spokesman for the advocacy group T1 International, said the organization is optimistic, given that “another player has been able to enter into a space that has for so long been dominated by Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk, and Sanofi.” Increased competition “will help drive down the overall costs of insulin,” Mr. Devaney said in an interview. But, he added, for many people, especially in low-income countries, Semglee’s launch will have little to no impact on price.
Even at $100 a vial in the United States, “this is not an insignificant amount of money and presents a very difficult financial challenge for those dependent on insulin to survive,” he said.
A current Semglee user agreed, sharing her story with this news organization via T1 International. “My son uses three to five vials of long-acting insulin per month, and I use one to three vials per month,” said the woman, who prefers to remain anonymous. “If we were to lose Medicaid, we would still be paying up to $800 out of pocket monthly to survive, and that’s not even counting fast-acting insulin or other supplies. While $100 a vial may be cheaper, these costs are still outrageous.”
The woman also noted that, while new competitors are welcome, they also have been disruptive. After her doctor switched her to Semglee, she was notified that it was on back order. “It took a week to get it filled, and when it finally came in, it was in short supply,” she said, noting that she and her son received one Semglee pen each, “well short of the three and five each we were expecting.”
U.S. pricing is all ‘smoke and mirrors’
Sara W. Koblitz, a food and drug law attorney with Hyman Phelps in Washington, D.C., noted in a blog post that interchangeable Semglee will likely be awarded a year of marketing exclusivity, which will block other interchangeable competitors from entering the market during that time.
With no competition, “Mylan can price Semglee only slightly less than Lantus and still take market share, only marginally reducing costs to consumers,” she wrote.
Jing Luo, MD, MPH, an assistant professor of medicine at the University of Pittsburgh, who has studied insulin access and costs, said that having just one interchangeable on the market might not be enough to drive insulin costs down.
And, he told this news organization, “there’s even a possibility that Semglee prices will go up, but hopefully that will not be the case.”
Manufacturers like Mylan can also offer confidential discounts and rebates to pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs), health plans, and health plan sponsors (usually large companies that are self-insured) that make it difficult to assess the true cost, said David Steinberg, PharmD, director of pharmacy insights at Scripta Insights. The Wellesley, Mass.–based company advises self-insured employers on how to optimize pharmacy benefits.
When it comes to pricing, “it’s a lot of smoke and mirrors,” Dr. Steinberg said in an interview.
Dr. Steinberg also noted that some PBMs might choose to continue contracts with Sanofi that offer rebates for Lantus, leaving Semglee in a less-preferred position on a formulary, which could increase how much the patient pays at the pharmacy counter.
Medicare and Medicaid, however, can put Semglee in the top-tier preferred formulary position. Most Medicaid plans cover Semglee, but it appears that Medicare has not added coverage yet.
Does current pricing predict the future?
The currently marketed Semglee has an average wholesale price (AWP) that is one third of Lantus’, and about half of what is published for Basaglar (insulin glargine, Eli Lilly), a “follow-on biologic” approved in 2015 that is similar to Lantus, Dr. Steinberg said.
The AWP is often cited by analysts when talking about costs. The AWP of the current Semglee 10-mL vial is $118.38; the Lantus 10-mL vial is $340.27, said Steinberg.
Five prefilled Semglee pens (each 3 mL) are $177.58; for Lantus, the AWP for five 3-mL pens is $510.37.
Dr. Luo said he has seen a box of Semglee pens retail between $177 and $195, compared with about $500 retail for the Lantus pens.
Currently, people with commercial insurance can get Semglee for $0-75 a month, for up to a year, using the company’s savings program.
Steinberg said it’s possible that Mylan could increase the list price for the interchangeable Semglee, but that move could backfire. “I think their goal initially is to get market share,” he said.
After Basaglar came on the market – in late 2016 – the price of Lantus came down significantly over the next few years, according to a 2019 study by Dr. Luo’s colleagues at the University of Pittsburgh.
But Basaglar has not hung on to market share, according to Scott Strumello, a person with autoimmune type 1 diabetes who tweets and blogs about insulin and other issues.
In early August, Mr. Strumello tweeted some Lilly data that showed U.S. sales of Basaglar declined 42% in the first two quarters of 2021, compared with the same period in 2020.
Dr. Steinberg noted that the decline may have to do with rebates being given to PBMs by competitors Sanofi and Novo Nordisk. Sanofi “is very aggressive when it comes to pricing with their PBM partners,” he said.
While Mr. Devaney said people with diabetes are hopeful that Semglee can break the big three manufacturers’ monopoly, he added: “We don’t see Semglee as something that is solving the root cause of the insulin price crisis, which is high list prices and pharmaceutical industry greed.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
When the Food and Drug Administration approved Semglee, the first interchangeable biosimilar insulin, the agency pitched it as having the potential to be less costly than insulins currently on the market, but lack of transparency in pharmaceutical pricing has left analysts and advocates guessing whether it will indeed be a source of relief.
Semglee (Mylan Pharmaceuticals), first approved as a biosimilar in June 2020, costs about $100 a vial.
But receiving the “interchangeable designation” in July 2021, the first for any insulin, now allows Semglee to be substituted for the branded Lantus (insulin glargine, Sanofi) at the pharmacy without the need for a separate prescription, the same way as generic medicines.
A spokesperson for Viatris – Mylan’s parent company told this news organization that the interchangeable, with its new labeling, will be “introduced before the end of the year,” but it would not give any more details.
“Additional information, including pricing information, for interchangeable biosimilar Semglee will be provided at the time of product launch,” said the spokesperson.
Even at $100 a vial, it is not cheap
Ian Devaney, a spokesman for the advocacy group T1 International, said the organization is optimistic, given that “another player has been able to enter into a space that has for so long been dominated by Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk, and Sanofi.” Increased competition “will help drive down the overall costs of insulin,” Mr. Devaney said in an interview. But, he added, for many people, especially in low-income countries, Semglee’s launch will have little to no impact on price.
Even at $100 a vial in the United States, “this is not an insignificant amount of money and presents a very difficult financial challenge for those dependent on insulin to survive,” he said.
A current Semglee user agreed, sharing her story with this news organization via T1 International. “My son uses three to five vials of long-acting insulin per month, and I use one to three vials per month,” said the woman, who prefers to remain anonymous. “If we were to lose Medicaid, we would still be paying up to $800 out of pocket monthly to survive, and that’s not even counting fast-acting insulin or other supplies. While $100 a vial may be cheaper, these costs are still outrageous.”
The woman also noted that, while new competitors are welcome, they also have been disruptive. After her doctor switched her to Semglee, she was notified that it was on back order. “It took a week to get it filled, and when it finally came in, it was in short supply,” she said, noting that she and her son received one Semglee pen each, “well short of the three and five each we were expecting.”
U.S. pricing is all ‘smoke and mirrors’
Sara W. Koblitz, a food and drug law attorney with Hyman Phelps in Washington, D.C., noted in a blog post that interchangeable Semglee will likely be awarded a year of marketing exclusivity, which will block other interchangeable competitors from entering the market during that time.
With no competition, “Mylan can price Semglee only slightly less than Lantus and still take market share, only marginally reducing costs to consumers,” she wrote.
Jing Luo, MD, MPH, an assistant professor of medicine at the University of Pittsburgh, who has studied insulin access and costs, said that having just one interchangeable on the market might not be enough to drive insulin costs down.
And, he told this news organization, “there’s even a possibility that Semglee prices will go up, but hopefully that will not be the case.”
Manufacturers like Mylan can also offer confidential discounts and rebates to pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs), health plans, and health plan sponsors (usually large companies that are self-insured) that make it difficult to assess the true cost, said David Steinberg, PharmD, director of pharmacy insights at Scripta Insights. The Wellesley, Mass.–based company advises self-insured employers on how to optimize pharmacy benefits.
When it comes to pricing, “it’s a lot of smoke and mirrors,” Dr. Steinberg said in an interview.
Dr. Steinberg also noted that some PBMs might choose to continue contracts with Sanofi that offer rebates for Lantus, leaving Semglee in a less-preferred position on a formulary, which could increase how much the patient pays at the pharmacy counter.
Medicare and Medicaid, however, can put Semglee in the top-tier preferred formulary position. Most Medicaid plans cover Semglee, but it appears that Medicare has not added coverage yet.
Does current pricing predict the future?
The currently marketed Semglee has an average wholesale price (AWP) that is one third of Lantus’, and about half of what is published for Basaglar (insulin glargine, Eli Lilly), a “follow-on biologic” approved in 2015 that is similar to Lantus, Dr. Steinberg said.
The AWP is often cited by analysts when talking about costs. The AWP of the current Semglee 10-mL vial is $118.38; the Lantus 10-mL vial is $340.27, said Steinberg.
Five prefilled Semglee pens (each 3 mL) are $177.58; for Lantus, the AWP for five 3-mL pens is $510.37.
Dr. Luo said he has seen a box of Semglee pens retail between $177 and $195, compared with about $500 retail for the Lantus pens.
Currently, people with commercial insurance can get Semglee for $0-75 a month, for up to a year, using the company’s savings program.
Steinberg said it’s possible that Mylan could increase the list price for the interchangeable Semglee, but that move could backfire. “I think their goal initially is to get market share,” he said.
After Basaglar came on the market – in late 2016 – the price of Lantus came down significantly over the next few years, according to a 2019 study by Dr. Luo’s colleagues at the University of Pittsburgh.
But Basaglar has not hung on to market share, according to Scott Strumello, a person with autoimmune type 1 diabetes who tweets and blogs about insulin and other issues.
In early August, Mr. Strumello tweeted some Lilly data that showed U.S. sales of Basaglar declined 42% in the first two quarters of 2021, compared with the same period in 2020.
Dr. Steinberg noted that the decline may have to do with rebates being given to PBMs by competitors Sanofi and Novo Nordisk. Sanofi “is very aggressive when it comes to pricing with their PBM partners,” he said.
While Mr. Devaney said people with diabetes are hopeful that Semglee can break the big three manufacturers’ monopoly, he added: “We don’t see Semglee as something that is solving the root cause of the insulin price crisis, which is high list prices and pharmaceutical industry greed.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
When the Food and Drug Administration approved Semglee, the first interchangeable biosimilar insulin, the agency pitched it as having the potential to be less costly than insulins currently on the market, but lack of transparency in pharmaceutical pricing has left analysts and advocates guessing whether it will indeed be a source of relief.
Semglee (Mylan Pharmaceuticals), first approved as a biosimilar in June 2020, costs about $100 a vial.
But receiving the “interchangeable designation” in July 2021, the first for any insulin, now allows Semglee to be substituted for the branded Lantus (insulin glargine, Sanofi) at the pharmacy without the need for a separate prescription, the same way as generic medicines.
A spokesperson for Viatris – Mylan’s parent company told this news organization that the interchangeable, with its new labeling, will be “introduced before the end of the year,” but it would not give any more details.
“Additional information, including pricing information, for interchangeable biosimilar Semglee will be provided at the time of product launch,” said the spokesperson.
Even at $100 a vial, it is not cheap
Ian Devaney, a spokesman for the advocacy group T1 International, said the organization is optimistic, given that “another player has been able to enter into a space that has for so long been dominated by Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk, and Sanofi.” Increased competition “will help drive down the overall costs of insulin,” Mr. Devaney said in an interview. But, he added, for many people, especially in low-income countries, Semglee’s launch will have little to no impact on price.
Even at $100 a vial in the United States, “this is not an insignificant amount of money and presents a very difficult financial challenge for those dependent on insulin to survive,” he said.
A current Semglee user agreed, sharing her story with this news organization via T1 International. “My son uses three to five vials of long-acting insulin per month, and I use one to three vials per month,” said the woman, who prefers to remain anonymous. “If we were to lose Medicaid, we would still be paying up to $800 out of pocket monthly to survive, and that’s not even counting fast-acting insulin or other supplies. While $100 a vial may be cheaper, these costs are still outrageous.”
The woman also noted that, while new competitors are welcome, they also have been disruptive. After her doctor switched her to Semglee, she was notified that it was on back order. “It took a week to get it filled, and when it finally came in, it was in short supply,” she said, noting that she and her son received one Semglee pen each, “well short of the three and five each we were expecting.”
U.S. pricing is all ‘smoke and mirrors’
Sara W. Koblitz, a food and drug law attorney with Hyman Phelps in Washington, D.C., noted in a blog post that interchangeable Semglee will likely be awarded a year of marketing exclusivity, which will block other interchangeable competitors from entering the market during that time.
With no competition, “Mylan can price Semglee only slightly less than Lantus and still take market share, only marginally reducing costs to consumers,” she wrote.
Jing Luo, MD, MPH, an assistant professor of medicine at the University of Pittsburgh, who has studied insulin access and costs, said that having just one interchangeable on the market might not be enough to drive insulin costs down.
And, he told this news organization, “there’s even a possibility that Semglee prices will go up, but hopefully that will not be the case.”
Manufacturers like Mylan can also offer confidential discounts and rebates to pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs), health plans, and health plan sponsors (usually large companies that are self-insured) that make it difficult to assess the true cost, said David Steinberg, PharmD, director of pharmacy insights at Scripta Insights. The Wellesley, Mass.–based company advises self-insured employers on how to optimize pharmacy benefits.
When it comes to pricing, “it’s a lot of smoke and mirrors,” Dr. Steinberg said in an interview.
Dr. Steinberg also noted that some PBMs might choose to continue contracts with Sanofi that offer rebates for Lantus, leaving Semglee in a less-preferred position on a formulary, which could increase how much the patient pays at the pharmacy counter.
Medicare and Medicaid, however, can put Semglee in the top-tier preferred formulary position. Most Medicaid plans cover Semglee, but it appears that Medicare has not added coverage yet.
Does current pricing predict the future?
The currently marketed Semglee has an average wholesale price (AWP) that is one third of Lantus’, and about half of what is published for Basaglar (insulin glargine, Eli Lilly), a “follow-on biologic” approved in 2015 that is similar to Lantus, Dr. Steinberg said.
The AWP is often cited by analysts when talking about costs. The AWP of the current Semglee 10-mL vial is $118.38; the Lantus 10-mL vial is $340.27, said Steinberg.
Five prefilled Semglee pens (each 3 mL) are $177.58; for Lantus, the AWP for five 3-mL pens is $510.37.
Dr. Luo said he has seen a box of Semglee pens retail between $177 and $195, compared with about $500 retail for the Lantus pens.
Currently, people with commercial insurance can get Semglee for $0-75 a month, for up to a year, using the company’s savings program.
Steinberg said it’s possible that Mylan could increase the list price for the interchangeable Semglee, but that move could backfire. “I think their goal initially is to get market share,” he said.
After Basaglar came on the market – in late 2016 – the price of Lantus came down significantly over the next few years, according to a 2019 study by Dr. Luo’s colleagues at the University of Pittsburgh.
But Basaglar has not hung on to market share, according to Scott Strumello, a person with autoimmune type 1 diabetes who tweets and blogs about insulin and other issues.
In early August, Mr. Strumello tweeted some Lilly data that showed U.S. sales of Basaglar declined 42% in the first two quarters of 2021, compared with the same period in 2020.
Dr. Steinberg noted that the decline may have to do with rebates being given to PBMs by competitors Sanofi and Novo Nordisk. Sanofi “is very aggressive when it comes to pricing with their PBM partners,” he said.
While Mr. Devaney said people with diabetes are hopeful that Semglee can break the big three manufacturers’ monopoly, he added: “We don’t see Semglee as something that is solving the root cause of the insulin price crisis, which is high list prices and pharmaceutical industry greed.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Anakinra improved survival in hospitalized COVID-19 patients
Hospitalized COVID-19 patients at increased risk for respiratory failure showed significant improvement after treatment with anakinra, compared with placebo, based on data from a phase 3, randomized trial of nearly 600 patients who also received standard of care treatment.
Anakinra, a recombinant interleukin (IL)-1 receptor antagonist that blocks activity for both IL-1 alpha and beta, showed a 70% decrease in the risk of progression to severe respiratory failure in a prior open-label, phase 2, proof-of-concept study, wrote Evdoxia Kyriazopoulou, MD, PhD, of National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, and colleagues.
Previous research has shown that soluble urokinase plasminogen activator receptor (suPAR) serum levels can signal increased risk of progression to severe disease and respiratory failure in COVID-19 patients, they noted.
Supported by these early findings, “the SAVE-MORE study (suPAR-guided anakinra treatment for validation of the risk and early management of severe respiratory failure by COVID-19) is a pivotal, confirmatory, phase 3, double-blind, randomized controlled trial that evaluated the efficacy and safety of early initiation of anakinra treatment in hospitalized patients with moderate or severe COVID-19,” the researchers said.
In the SAVE-MORE study published Sept. 3 in Nature Medicine, the researchers identified 594 adults with COVID-19 who were hospitalized at 37 centers in Greece and Italy and at risk of progressing to respiratory failure based on plasma suPAR levels of at least 6 ng/mL.
The primary objective was to assess the impact of early anakinra treatment on the clinical status of COVID-19 patients at risk for severe disease according to the 11-point, ordinal World Health Organization Clinical Progression Scale (WHO-CPS) at 28 days after starting treatment. All patients received standard of care, which consisted of regular monitoring of physical signs, oximetry, and anticoagulation. Patients with severe disease by the WHO definition were also received 6 mg of dexamethasone intravenously daily for 10 days. A total of 405 were randomized to anakinra and 189 to placebo. Approximately 92% of the study participants had severe pneumonia according to the WHO classification for COVID-19. The average age of the patients was 62 years, 58% were male, and the average body mass index was 29.5 kg/m2.
At 28 days, 204 (50.4%) of the anakinra-treated patients had fully recovered, with no detectable viral RNA, compared with 50 (26.5%) of the placebo-treated patients (P < .0001). In addition, significantly fewer patients in the anakinra group had died by 28 days (13 patients, 3.2%), compared with patients in the placebo group (13 patients, 6.9%).
The median decrease in WHO-CPS scores from baseline to 28 days was 4 points in the anakinra group and 3 points in the placebo group, a statistically significant difference (P < .0001).
“Overall, the unadjusted proportional odds of having a worse score on the 11-point WHO-CPS at day 28 with anakinra was 0.36 versus placebo,” and this number remained the same in adjusted analysis, the researchers wrote.
All five secondary endpoints on the WHO-CPS showed significant benefits of anakinra, compared with placebo. These included an absolute decrease of WHO-CPS at day 28 and day 14 from baseline; an absolute decrease of Sequential Organ Failure Assessment scores at day 7 from baseline; and a significantly shorter mean time to both hospital and ICU discharge (1 day and 4 days, respectively) with anakinra versus placebo.
Follow-up laboratory data showed a significant increase in absolute lymphocyte count at 7 days, a significant decrease in circulating IL-6 levels at 4 and 7 days, and significantly decreased plasma C-reactive protein (CRP) levels at 7 days.
Serious treatment-emergent adverse events were reported in 16% with anakinra and in 21.7% with placebo; the most common of these events were infections (8.4% with anakinra and 15.9% with placebo). The next most common serious treatment-emergent adverse events were ventilator-associated pneumonia, septic shock and multiple organ dysfunction, bloodstream infections, and pulmonary embolism. The most common nonserious treatment-emergent adverse events were an increase of liver function tests and hyperglycemia (similar in anakinra and placebo groups) and nonserious anemia (lower in the anakinra group).
The study findings were limited by several factors, including the lack of patients with critical COVID-19 disease and the challenge of application of suPAR in all hospital settings, the researchers noted. However, “the results validate the findings of the previous SAVE open-label phase 2 trial,” they said. The results suggest “that suPAR should be measured upon admission of all patients with COVID-19 who do not need oxygen or who need nasal or mask oxygen, and that, if suPAR levels are 6 ng/mL or higher, anakinra treatment might be a suitable therapy,” they concluded.
Cytokine storm syndrome remains a treatment challenge
“Many who die from COVID-19 suffer hyperinflammation with features of cytokine storm syndrome (CSS) and associated acute respiratory distress syndrome,” wrote Randy Q. Cron, MD, and W. Winn Chatham, MD, of the University of Alabama at Birmingham, and Roberto Caricchio, MD, of Temple University, Philadelphia, in an accompanying editorial. They noted that the SAVE-MORE trial results contrast with another recent randomized trial of canakinumab, which failed to show notable benefits, compared with placebo, in treating hospitalized patients with COVID-19 pneumonia.
“There are some key differences between these trials, one being that anakinra blocks signaling of both IL-1 alpha and IL-1 beta, whereas canakinumab binds only IL-1 beta,” the editorialists explained. “SARS-CoV-2–infected endothelium may be a particularly important source of IL-1 alpha that is not targeted by canakinumab,” they noted.
Additional studies have examined IL-6 inhibition to treat COVID-19 patients, but data have been inconsistent, the editorialists said.
“One thing that is clearly emerging from this pandemic is that the CSS associated with COVID-19 is relatively unique, with only modestly elevated levels of IL-6, CRP, and ferritin, for example,” they noted. However, the SAVE-MORE study suggests that more targeted approaches, such as anakinra, “may allow earlier introduction of anticytokine treatment” and support the use of IL-1 blockade with anakinra for cases of severe COVID-19 pneumonia.
Predicting risk for severe disease
“One of the major challenges in the management of patients with COVID-19 is identifying patients at risk of severe disease who would warrant early intervention with anti-inflammatory therapy,” said Salim Hayek, MD, medical director of the University of Michigan’s Frankel Cardiovascular Center Clinics, in an interview. “We and others had found that soluble urokinase plasminogen activator receptor (suPAR) levels are the strongest predictor of severe disease amongst biomarkers of inflammation,” he said. “In this study, patients with high suPAR levels derived benefit from anakinra, compared to those with placebo. This study is a great example of how suPAR levels could be used to identify high-risk patients that would benefit from therapies targeting inflammation,” Dr. Hayek emphasized.
“The findings are in line with the hypothesis that patients with the highest degrees of inflammation would benefit the best from targeting the hyperinflammatory cascade using anakinra or other interleukin antagonists,” Dr. Hayek said. “Given suPAR levels are the best predictors of high-risk disease, it is not surprising to see that patients with high levels benefit from targeting inflammation,” he noted.
The take-home message for clinicians at this time is that anakinra effectively improves outcomes in COVID-19 patients with high suPAR levels, Dr. Hayek said. “SuPAR can be measured easily at the point of care. Thus, a targeted strategy using suPAR to identify patients who would benefit from anakinra appears to be viable,” he explained.
However, “Whether anakinra is effective in patients with lower suPAR levels (<6 ng/mL) is unclear and was not answered by this study,” he said. “We eagerly await results of other trials to make that determination. Whether suPAR levels can also help guide the use of other therapies for COVID-19 should be explored and would enhance the personalization of treatment for COVID-19 according to the underlying inflammatory state,” he added.
The SAVE-MORE study was funded by the Hellenic Institute for the Study of Sepsis and Sobi, which manufactures anakinra. Some of the study authors reported financial relationships with Sobi and other pharmaceutical companies.
Dr. Cron disclosed serving as a consultant to Sobi, Novartis, Pfizer, and Sironax. Dr. Cron and Dr. Chatham disclosed having received grant support from Sobi for investigator-initiated clinical trials, and Dr. Caricchio disclosed serving as a consultant to GlaxoSmithKline, Johnson & Johnson, Aurinia, and Bristol-Myers Squibb. Dr. Hayek had no relevant financial conflicts to disclose.
Hospitalized COVID-19 patients at increased risk for respiratory failure showed significant improvement after treatment with anakinra, compared with placebo, based on data from a phase 3, randomized trial of nearly 600 patients who also received standard of care treatment.
Anakinra, a recombinant interleukin (IL)-1 receptor antagonist that blocks activity for both IL-1 alpha and beta, showed a 70% decrease in the risk of progression to severe respiratory failure in a prior open-label, phase 2, proof-of-concept study, wrote Evdoxia Kyriazopoulou, MD, PhD, of National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, and colleagues.
Previous research has shown that soluble urokinase plasminogen activator receptor (suPAR) serum levels can signal increased risk of progression to severe disease and respiratory failure in COVID-19 patients, they noted.
Supported by these early findings, “the SAVE-MORE study (suPAR-guided anakinra treatment for validation of the risk and early management of severe respiratory failure by COVID-19) is a pivotal, confirmatory, phase 3, double-blind, randomized controlled trial that evaluated the efficacy and safety of early initiation of anakinra treatment in hospitalized patients with moderate or severe COVID-19,” the researchers said.
In the SAVE-MORE study published Sept. 3 in Nature Medicine, the researchers identified 594 adults with COVID-19 who were hospitalized at 37 centers in Greece and Italy and at risk of progressing to respiratory failure based on plasma suPAR levels of at least 6 ng/mL.
The primary objective was to assess the impact of early anakinra treatment on the clinical status of COVID-19 patients at risk for severe disease according to the 11-point, ordinal World Health Organization Clinical Progression Scale (WHO-CPS) at 28 days after starting treatment. All patients received standard of care, which consisted of regular monitoring of physical signs, oximetry, and anticoagulation. Patients with severe disease by the WHO definition were also received 6 mg of dexamethasone intravenously daily for 10 days. A total of 405 were randomized to anakinra and 189 to placebo. Approximately 92% of the study participants had severe pneumonia according to the WHO classification for COVID-19. The average age of the patients was 62 years, 58% were male, and the average body mass index was 29.5 kg/m2.
At 28 days, 204 (50.4%) of the anakinra-treated patients had fully recovered, with no detectable viral RNA, compared with 50 (26.5%) of the placebo-treated patients (P < .0001). In addition, significantly fewer patients in the anakinra group had died by 28 days (13 patients, 3.2%), compared with patients in the placebo group (13 patients, 6.9%).
The median decrease in WHO-CPS scores from baseline to 28 days was 4 points in the anakinra group and 3 points in the placebo group, a statistically significant difference (P < .0001).
“Overall, the unadjusted proportional odds of having a worse score on the 11-point WHO-CPS at day 28 with anakinra was 0.36 versus placebo,” and this number remained the same in adjusted analysis, the researchers wrote.
All five secondary endpoints on the WHO-CPS showed significant benefits of anakinra, compared with placebo. These included an absolute decrease of WHO-CPS at day 28 and day 14 from baseline; an absolute decrease of Sequential Organ Failure Assessment scores at day 7 from baseline; and a significantly shorter mean time to both hospital and ICU discharge (1 day and 4 days, respectively) with anakinra versus placebo.
Follow-up laboratory data showed a significant increase in absolute lymphocyte count at 7 days, a significant decrease in circulating IL-6 levels at 4 and 7 days, and significantly decreased plasma C-reactive protein (CRP) levels at 7 days.
Serious treatment-emergent adverse events were reported in 16% with anakinra and in 21.7% with placebo; the most common of these events were infections (8.4% with anakinra and 15.9% with placebo). The next most common serious treatment-emergent adverse events were ventilator-associated pneumonia, septic shock and multiple organ dysfunction, bloodstream infections, and pulmonary embolism. The most common nonserious treatment-emergent adverse events were an increase of liver function tests and hyperglycemia (similar in anakinra and placebo groups) and nonserious anemia (lower in the anakinra group).
The study findings were limited by several factors, including the lack of patients with critical COVID-19 disease and the challenge of application of suPAR in all hospital settings, the researchers noted. However, “the results validate the findings of the previous SAVE open-label phase 2 trial,” they said. The results suggest “that suPAR should be measured upon admission of all patients with COVID-19 who do not need oxygen or who need nasal or mask oxygen, and that, if suPAR levels are 6 ng/mL or higher, anakinra treatment might be a suitable therapy,” they concluded.
Cytokine storm syndrome remains a treatment challenge
“Many who die from COVID-19 suffer hyperinflammation with features of cytokine storm syndrome (CSS) and associated acute respiratory distress syndrome,” wrote Randy Q. Cron, MD, and W. Winn Chatham, MD, of the University of Alabama at Birmingham, and Roberto Caricchio, MD, of Temple University, Philadelphia, in an accompanying editorial. They noted that the SAVE-MORE trial results contrast with another recent randomized trial of canakinumab, which failed to show notable benefits, compared with placebo, in treating hospitalized patients with COVID-19 pneumonia.
“There are some key differences between these trials, one being that anakinra blocks signaling of both IL-1 alpha and IL-1 beta, whereas canakinumab binds only IL-1 beta,” the editorialists explained. “SARS-CoV-2–infected endothelium may be a particularly important source of IL-1 alpha that is not targeted by canakinumab,” they noted.
Additional studies have examined IL-6 inhibition to treat COVID-19 patients, but data have been inconsistent, the editorialists said.
“One thing that is clearly emerging from this pandemic is that the CSS associated with COVID-19 is relatively unique, with only modestly elevated levels of IL-6, CRP, and ferritin, for example,” they noted. However, the SAVE-MORE study suggests that more targeted approaches, such as anakinra, “may allow earlier introduction of anticytokine treatment” and support the use of IL-1 blockade with anakinra for cases of severe COVID-19 pneumonia.
Predicting risk for severe disease
“One of the major challenges in the management of patients with COVID-19 is identifying patients at risk of severe disease who would warrant early intervention with anti-inflammatory therapy,” said Salim Hayek, MD, medical director of the University of Michigan’s Frankel Cardiovascular Center Clinics, in an interview. “We and others had found that soluble urokinase plasminogen activator receptor (suPAR) levels are the strongest predictor of severe disease amongst biomarkers of inflammation,” he said. “In this study, patients with high suPAR levels derived benefit from anakinra, compared to those with placebo. This study is a great example of how suPAR levels could be used to identify high-risk patients that would benefit from therapies targeting inflammation,” Dr. Hayek emphasized.
“The findings are in line with the hypothesis that patients with the highest degrees of inflammation would benefit the best from targeting the hyperinflammatory cascade using anakinra or other interleukin antagonists,” Dr. Hayek said. “Given suPAR levels are the best predictors of high-risk disease, it is not surprising to see that patients with high levels benefit from targeting inflammation,” he noted.
The take-home message for clinicians at this time is that anakinra effectively improves outcomes in COVID-19 patients with high suPAR levels, Dr. Hayek said. “SuPAR can be measured easily at the point of care. Thus, a targeted strategy using suPAR to identify patients who would benefit from anakinra appears to be viable,” he explained.
However, “Whether anakinra is effective in patients with lower suPAR levels (<6 ng/mL) is unclear and was not answered by this study,” he said. “We eagerly await results of other trials to make that determination. Whether suPAR levels can also help guide the use of other therapies for COVID-19 should be explored and would enhance the personalization of treatment for COVID-19 according to the underlying inflammatory state,” he added.
The SAVE-MORE study was funded by the Hellenic Institute for the Study of Sepsis and Sobi, which manufactures anakinra. Some of the study authors reported financial relationships with Sobi and other pharmaceutical companies.
Dr. Cron disclosed serving as a consultant to Sobi, Novartis, Pfizer, and Sironax. Dr. Cron and Dr. Chatham disclosed having received grant support from Sobi for investigator-initiated clinical trials, and Dr. Caricchio disclosed serving as a consultant to GlaxoSmithKline, Johnson & Johnson, Aurinia, and Bristol-Myers Squibb. Dr. Hayek had no relevant financial conflicts to disclose.
Hospitalized COVID-19 patients at increased risk for respiratory failure showed significant improvement after treatment with anakinra, compared with placebo, based on data from a phase 3, randomized trial of nearly 600 patients who also received standard of care treatment.
Anakinra, a recombinant interleukin (IL)-1 receptor antagonist that blocks activity for both IL-1 alpha and beta, showed a 70% decrease in the risk of progression to severe respiratory failure in a prior open-label, phase 2, proof-of-concept study, wrote Evdoxia Kyriazopoulou, MD, PhD, of National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, and colleagues.
Previous research has shown that soluble urokinase plasminogen activator receptor (suPAR) serum levels can signal increased risk of progression to severe disease and respiratory failure in COVID-19 patients, they noted.
Supported by these early findings, “the SAVE-MORE study (suPAR-guided anakinra treatment for validation of the risk and early management of severe respiratory failure by COVID-19) is a pivotal, confirmatory, phase 3, double-blind, randomized controlled trial that evaluated the efficacy and safety of early initiation of anakinra treatment in hospitalized patients with moderate or severe COVID-19,” the researchers said.
In the SAVE-MORE study published Sept. 3 in Nature Medicine, the researchers identified 594 adults with COVID-19 who were hospitalized at 37 centers in Greece and Italy and at risk of progressing to respiratory failure based on plasma suPAR levels of at least 6 ng/mL.
The primary objective was to assess the impact of early anakinra treatment on the clinical status of COVID-19 patients at risk for severe disease according to the 11-point, ordinal World Health Organization Clinical Progression Scale (WHO-CPS) at 28 days after starting treatment. All patients received standard of care, which consisted of regular monitoring of physical signs, oximetry, and anticoagulation. Patients with severe disease by the WHO definition were also received 6 mg of dexamethasone intravenously daily for 10 days. A total of 405 were randomized to anakinra and 189 to placebo. Approximately 92% of the study participants had severe pneumonia according to the WHO classification for COVID-19. The average age of the patients was 62 years, 58% were male, and the average body mass index was 29.5 kg/m2.
At 28 days, 204 (50.4%) of the anakinra-treated patients had fully recovered, with no detectable viral RNA, compared with 50 (26.5%) of the placebo-treated patients (P < .0001). In addition, significantly fewer patients in the anakinra group had died by 28 days (13 patients, 3.2%), compared with patients in the placebo group (13 patients, 6.9%).
The median decrease in WHO-CPS scores from baseline to 28 days was 4 points in the anakinra group and 3 points in the placebo group, a statistically significant difference (P < .0001).
“Overall, the unadjusted proportional odds of having a worse score on the 11-point WHO-CPS at day 28 with anakinra was 0.36 versus placebo,” and this number remained the same in adjusted analysis, the researchers wrote.
All five secondary endpoints on the WHO-CPS showed significant benefits of anakinra, compared with placebo. These included an absolute decrease of WHO-CPS at day 28 and day 14 from baseline; an absolute decrease of Sequential Organ Failure Assessment scores at day 7 from baseline; and a significantly shorter mean time to both hospital and ICU discharge (1 day and 4 days, respectively) with anakinra versus placebo.
Follow-up laboratory data showed a significant increase in absolute lymphocyte count at 7 days, a significant decrease in circulating IL-6 levels at 4 and 7 days, and significantly decreased plasma C-reactive protein (CRP) levels at 7 days.
Serious treatment-emergent adverse events were reported in 16% with anakinra and in 21.7% with placebo; the most common of these events were infections (8.4% with anakinra and 15.9% with placebo). The next most common serious treatment-emergent adverse events were ventilator-associated pneumonia, septic shock and multiple organ dysfunction, bloodstream infections, and pulmonary embolism. The most common nonserious treatment-emergent adverse events were an increase of liver function tests and hyperglycemia (similar in anakinra and placebo groups) and nonserious anemia (lower in the anakinra group).
The study findings were limited by several factors, including the lack of patients with critical COVID-19 disease and the challenge of application of suPAR in all hospital settings, the researchers noted. However, “the results validate the findings of the previous SAVE open-label phase 2 trial,” they said. The results suggest “that suPAR should be measured upon admission of all patients with COVID-19 who do not need oxygen or who need nasal or mask oxygen, and that, if suPAR levels are 6 ng/mL or higher, anakinra treatment might be a suitable therapy,” they concluded.
Cytokine storm syndrome remains a treatment challenge
“Many who die from COVID-19 suffer hyperinflammation with features of cytokine storm syndrome (CSS) and associated acute respiratory distress syndrome,” wrote Randy Q. Cron, MD, and W. Winn Chatham, MD, of the University of Alabama at Birmingham, and Roberto Caricchio, MD, of Temple University, Philadelphia, in an accompanying editorial. They noted that the SAVE-MORE trial results contrast with another recent randomized trial of canakinumab, which failed to show notable benefits, compared with placebo, in treating hospitalized patients with COVID-19 pneumonia.
“There are some key differences between these trials, one being that anakinra blocks signaling of both IL-1 alpha and IL-1 beta, whereas canakinumab binds only IL-1 beta,” the editorialists explained. “SARS-CoV-2–infected endothelium may be a particularly important source of IL-1 alpha that is not targeted by canakinumab,” they noted.
Additional studies have examined IL-6 inhibition to treat COVID-19 patients, but data have been inconsistent, the editorialists said.
“One thing that is clearly emerging from this pandemic is that the CSS associated with COVID-19 is relatively unique, with only modestly elevated levels of IL-6, CRP, and ferritin, for example,” they noted. However, the SAVE-MORE study suggests that more targeted approaches, such as anakinra, “may allow earlier introduction of anticytokine treatment” and support the use of IL-1 blockade with anakinra for cases of severe COVID-19 pneumonia.
Predicting risk for severe disease
“One of the major challenges in the management of patients with COVID-19 is identifying patients at risk of severe disease who would warrant early intervention with anti-inflammatory therapy,” said Salim Hayek, MD, medical director of the University of Michigan’s Frankel Cardiovascular Center Clinics, in an interview. “We and others had found that soluble urokinase plasminogen activator receptor (suPAR) levels are the strongest predictor of severe disease amongst biomarkers of inflammation,” he said. “In this study, patients with high suPAR levels derived benefit from anakinra, compared to those with placebo. This study is a great example of how suPAR levels could be used to identify high-risk patients that would benefit from therapies targeting inflammation,” Dr. Hayek emphasized.
“The findings are in line with the hypothesis that patients with the highest degrees of inflammation would benefit the best from targeting the hyperinflammatory cascade using anakinra or other interleukin antagonists,” Dr. Hayek said. “Given suPAR levels are the best predictors of high-risk disease, it is not surprising to see that patients with high levels benefit from targeting inflammation,” he noted.
The take-home message for clinicians at this time is that anakinra effectively improves outcomes in COVID-19 patients with high suPAR levels, Dr. Hayek said. “SuPAR can be measured easily at the point of care. Thus, a targeted strategy using suPAR to identify patients who would benefit from anakinra appears to be viable,” he explained.
However, “Whether anakinra is effective in patients with lower suPAR levels (<6 ng/mL) is unclear and was not answered by this study,” he said. “We eagerly await results of other trials to make that determination. Whether suPAR levels can also help guide the use of other therapies for COVID-19 should be explored and would enhance the personalization of treatment for COVID-19 according to the underlying inflammatory state,” he added.
The SAVE-MORE study was funded by the Hellenic Institute for the Study of Sepsis and Sobi, which manufactures anakinra. Some of the study authors reported financial relationships with Sobi and other pharmaceutical companies.
Dr. Cron disclosed serving as a consultant to Sobi, Novartis, Pfizer, and Sironax. Dr. Cron and Dr. Chatham disclosed having received grant support from Sobi for investigator-initiated clinical trials, and Dr. Caricchio disclosed serving as a consultant to GlaxoSmithKline, Johnson & Johnson, Aurinia, and Bristol-Myers Squibb. Dr. Hayek had no relevant financial conflicts to disclose.
FROM NATURE MEDICINE
‘Dawn of a new era’ in the treatment of renal cell carcinoma
according to expert opinion.
The high hopes have been generated by results from the randomized, phase 3 KEYNOTE-564 trial, showing that monotherapy with pembrolizumab (Keytruda, Merck) was associated with significantly longer disease-free survival (DFS) after nephrectomy than placebo (77.3% vs. 68.1%, respectively). Median follow-up was 24 months.
The results come from the trial’s first interim analysis of data from 994 patients with clear-cell renal cell carcinoma (RCC) at high risk of recurrence.
For the pembrolizumab group, the estimated percentage alive at 24 months was 96.6%, compared with 93.5% in the placebo group (hazard ratio for death, 0.54), said Toni Choueiri, MD, of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, and colleagues.
However, grade 3 or higher adverse events (any cause) occurred at almost twice the rate in the pembrolizumab versus the placebo group (32.4% vs. 17.7%). The new study was published online Aug. 18, 2021, in the New England Journal of Medicine.
The study results were first presented at the 2021 American Society of Clinical Oncology annual meeting and described as likely to be practice changing in this setting, as reported by this news organization.
Currently, this patient population has “no options for adjuvant therapy to reduce the risk of recurrence that have high levels of supporting evidence,” observed the authors.
That’s about to change, as the trial results “herald the dawn of a new era in the treatment of renal cell carcinoma,” Rana McKay, MD, University of California San Diego Health, wrote in an accompanying editorial.
Multiple studies have investigated potential adjuvant therapies in RCC since the 1980s, she observed.
“For the first time, we now have an effective adjuvant immunotherapy option for patients with resected renal cell carcinoma at high risk of recurrence,” Dr. McKay said in an interview.
To date, the lack of clinically beneficial adjuvant therapy options in RCC has been “humbling,” Dr. Choueiri said in an interview. “We hope we can push the envelope further and get more patients with RCC some good options that make them live longer and better.”
Although the standard of care for patients diagnosed with locoregional RCC is partial or total nephrectomy, nearly half of patients eventually experience disease recurrence following surgery, Dr. Choueiri noted.
“No standard, globally approved adjuvant therapy options are currently available for this population,” he said. Clinical guidelines recommend patients at high risk of disease recurrence after surgery be entered into a clinical trial or undergo active surveillance.
Researchers will continue to follow the results for overall survival, a secondary endpoint. “The very early look suggests encouraging results [in overall survival] with an HR of 0.54,” Dr. Choueiri noted.
In the meantime, the prolongation of DFS represents a clear clinical benefit, said Dr. McKay, “given the magnitude of the increase” and “the limited incidence of toxic effects.”
KEYNOTE-564 will alter the adjuvant treatment landscape for RCC as a positive phase 3 trial of adjuvant immunotherapy for the disease, she added.
A number of earlier studies have investigated the use of adjuvant vascular endothelial growth factor–targeting agents in RCC. Only the 2016 Sunitinib Treatment of Renal Adjuvant Cancer (S-TRAC) trial showed improved DFS with sunitinib, compared with placebo (6.8 vs. 5.6 years). Subsequently, sunitinib was approved for adjuvant use in the United States. However, the S-TRAC trial also showed that sunitinib therapy was associated with an increased incidence of toxic effects and lower quality of life scores, and researchers did not observe any benefit in overall survival.
“Despite regulatory approval in the U.S., sunitinib is not approved for adjuvant use by the European Medicines Agency and has limited utilization in clinical practice given the low benefit-risk ratio,” Dr. McKay pointed out.
Study details
KEYNOTE-564 involved 996 patients with clear-cell RCC at high risk for recurrence after nephrectomy, with or without metastasectomy. They were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive a 200-mg dose of adjuvant pembrolizumab or placebo given intravenously once every 3 weeks for up to 17 cycles for approximately 1 year.
The vast majority of patients enrolled in the study had localized disease with no evidence of metastases (M0) and intermediate to high or high risk of disease recurrence after partial or complete nephrectomy. However, 5.8% of patients in both the pembrolizumab and placebo groups had M1 NED (metastatic stage 1, no evidence of disease) status after nephrectomy and resection of metastatic lesions. These patients were also at intermediate to high or high risk of recurrence.
The benefit of pembrolizumab, compared with placebo, was maintained in this subgroup, said the investigators. “At this point, we continue to look at the data, but we know that there was a benefit for DFS in the population we included,” said Dr. Choueiri. “When we looked at several subgroups such as PD-L1 status, geography, gender, performance status, M0/M1, all HRs were less than 1 suggesting benefit from pembrolizumab over placebo.”
“Subset analyses by stage are going to be important to determine which group of patients will derive the most benefit,” asserted Dr. McKay. “While those with M1 NED appear to derive benefit with HR for DFS of 0.29, those with M1 NED comprise a small percentage of patient enrolled in the trial.”
Studies exploring tissue- and blood-based biomarkers, including circulating tumor DNA, will be key to identify patients at highest risk for recurrence or adjuvant treatment, Dr. McKay emphasized. “The adoption of adjuvant immune checkpoint inhibitors brings along new questions regarding patient selection, therapeutic use in patients with non–clear-cell renal cell carcinoma, and systemic treatment after recurrence during or after the receipt of adjuvant therapy.”
KEYNOTE-564 was funded by Merck. Multiple study authors including Dr. Choueiri have financial ties to the pharmaceutical industry, including Merck.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
according to expert opinion.
The high hopes have been generated by results from the randomized, phase 3 KEYNOTE-564 trial, showing that monotherapy with pembrolizumab (Keytruda, Merck) was associated with significantly longer disease-free survival (DFS) after nephrectomy than placebo (77.3% vs. 68.1%, respectively). Median follow-up was 24 months.
The results come from the trial’s first interim analysis of data from 994 patients with clear-cell renal cell carcinoma (RCC) at high risk of recurrence.
For the pembrolizumab group, the estimated percentage alive at 24 months was 96.6%, compared with 93.5% in the placebo group (hazard ratio for death, 0.54), said Toni Choueiri, MD, of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, and colleagues.
However, grade 3 or higher adverse events (any cause) occurred at almost twice the rate in the pembrolizumab versus the placebo group (32.4% vs. 17.7%). The new study was published online Aug. 18, 2021, in the New England Journal of Medicine.
The study results were first presented at the 2021 American Society of Clinical Oncology annual meeting and described as likely to be practice changing in this setting, as reported by this news organization.
Currently, this patient population has “no options for adjuvant therapy to reduce the risk of recurrence that have high levels of supporting evidence,” observed the authors.
That’s about to change, as the trial results “herald the dawn of a new era in the treatment of renal cell carcinoma,” Rana McKay, MD, University of California San Diego Health, wrote in an accompanying editorial.
Multiple studies have investigated potential adjuvant therapies in RCC since the 1980s, she observed.
“For the first time, we now have an effective adjuvant immunotherapy option for patients with resected renal cell carcinoma at high risk of recurrence,” Dr. McKay said in an interview.
To date, the lack of clinically beneficial adjuvant therapy options in RCC has been “humbling,” Dr. Choueiri said in an interview. “We hope we can push the envelope further and get more patients with RCC some good options that make them live longer and better.”
Although the standard of care for patients diagnosed with locoregional RCC is partial or total nephrectomy, nearly half of patients eventually experience disease recurrence following surgery, Dr. Choueiri noted.
“No standard, globally approved adjuvant therapy options are currently available for this population,” he said. Clinical guidelines recommend patients at high risk of disease recurrence after surgery be entered into a clinical trial or undergo active surveillance.
Researchers will continue to follow the results for overall survival, a secondary endpoint. “The very early look suggests encouraging results [in overall survival] with an HR of 0.54,” Dr. Choueiri noted.
In the meantime, the prolongation of DFS represents a clear clinical benefit, said Dr. McKay, “given the magnitude of the increase” and “the limited incidence of toxic effects.”
KEYNOTE-564 will alter the adjuvant treatment landscape for RCC as a positive phase 3 trial of adjuvant immunotherapy for the disease, she added.
A number of earlier studies have investigated the use of adjuvant vascular endothelial growth factor–targeting agents in RCC. Only the 2016 Sunitinib Treatment of Renal Adjuvant Cancer (S-TRAC) trial showed improved DFS with sunitinib, compared with placebo (6.8 vs. 5.6 years). Subsequently, sunitinib was approved for adjuvant use in the United States. However, the S-TRAC trial also showed that sunitinib therapy was associated with an increased incidence of toxic effects and lower quality of life scores, and researchers did not observe any benefit in overall survival.
“Despite regulatory approval in the U.S., sunitinib is not approved for adjuvant use by the European Medicines Agency and has limited utilization in clinical practice given the low benefit-risk ratio,” Dr. McKay pointed out.
Study details
KEYNOTE-564 involved 996 patients with clear-cell RCC at high risk for recurrence after nephrectomy, with or without metastasectomy. They were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive a 200-mg dose of adjuvant pembrolizumab or placebo given intravenously once every 3 weeks for up to 17 cycles for approximately 1 year.
The vast majority of patients enrolled in the study had localized disease with no evidence of metastases (M0) and intermediate to high or high risk of disease recurrence after partial or complete nephrectomy. However, 5.8% of patients in both the pembrolizumab and placebo groups had M1 NED (metastatic stage 1, no evidence of disease) status after nephrectomy and resection of metastatic lesions. These patients were also at intermediate to high or high risk of recurrence.
The benefit of pembrolizumab, compared with placebo, was maintained in this subgroup, said the investigators. “At this point, we continue to look at the data, but we know that there was a benefit for DFS in the population we included,” said Dr. Choueiri. “When we looked at several subgroups such as PD-L1 status, geography, gender, performance status, M0/M1, all HRs were less than 1 suggesting benefit from pembrolizumab over placebo.”
“Subset analyses by stage are going to be important to determine which group of patients will derive the most benefit,” asserted Dr. McKay. “While those with M1 NED appear to derive benefit with HR for DFS of 0.29, those with M1 NED comprise a small percentage of patient enrolled in the trial.”
Studies exploring tissue- and blood-based biomarkers, including circulating tumor DNA, will be key to identify patients at highest risk for recurrence or adjuvant treatment, Dr. McKay emphasized. “The adoption of adjuvant immune checkpoint inhibitors brings along new questions regarding patient selection, therapeutic use in patients with non–clear-cell renal cell carcinoma, and systemic treatment after recurrence during or after the receipt of adjuvant therapy.”
KEYNOTE-564 was funded by Merck. Multiple study authors including Dr. Choueiri have financial ties to the pharmaceutical industry, including Merck.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
according to expert opinion.
The high hopes have been generated by results from the randomized, phase 3 KEYNOTE-564 trial, showing that monotherapy with pembrolizumab (Keytruda, Merck) was associated with significantly longer disease-free survival (DFS) after nephrectomy than placebo (77.3% vs. 68.1%, respectively). Median follow-up was 24 months.
The results come from the trial’s first interim analysis of data from 994 patients with clear-cell renal cell carcinoma (RCC) at high risk of recurrence.
For the pembrolizumab group, the estimated percentage alive at 24 months was 96.6%, compared with 93.5% in the placebo group (hazard ratio for death, 0.54), said Toni Choueiri, MD, of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, and colleagues.
However, grade 3 or higher adverse events (any cause) occurred at almost twice the rate in the pembrolizumab versus the placebo group (32.4% vs. 17.7%). The new study was published online Aug. 18, 2021, in the New England Journal of Medicine.
The study results were first presented at the 2021 American Society of Clinical Oncology annual meeting and described as likely to be practice changing in this setting, as reported by this news organization.
Currently, this patient population has “no options for adjuvant therapy to reduce the risk of recurrence that have high levels of supporting evidence,” observed the authors.
That’s about to change, as the trial results “herald the dawn of a new era in the treatment of renal cell carcinoma,” Rana McKay, MD, University of California San Diego Health, wrote in an accompanying editorial.
Multiple studies have investigated potential adjuvant therapies in RCC since the 1980s, she observed.
“For the first time, we now have an effective adjuvant immunotherapy option for patients with resected renal cell carcinoma at high risk of recurrence,” Dr. McKay said in an interview.
To date, the lack of clinically beneficial adjuvant therapy options in RCC has been “humbling,” Dr. Choueiri said in an interview. “We hope we can push the envelope further and get more patients with RCC some good options that make them live longer and better.”
Although the standard of care for patients diagnosed with locoregional RCC is partial or total nephrectomy, nearly half of patients eventually experience disease recurrence following surgery, Dr. Choueiri noted.
“No standard, globally approved adjuvant therapy options are currently available for this population,” he said. Clinical guidelines recommend patients at high risk of disease recurrence after surgery be entered into a clinical trial or undergo active surveillance.
Researchers will continue to follow the results for overall survival, a secondary endpoint. “The very early look suggests encouraging results [in overall survival] with an HR of 0.54,” Dr. Choueiri noted.
In the meantime, the prolongation of DFS represents a clear clinical benefit, said Dr. McKay, “given the magnitude of the increase” and “the limited incidence of toxic effects.”
KEYNOTE-564 will alter the adjuvant treatment landscape for RCC as a positive phase 3 trial of adjuvant immunotherapy for the disease, she added.
A number of earlier studies have investigated the use of adjuvant vascular endothelial growth factor–targeting agents in RCC. Only the 2016 Sunitinib Treatment of Renal Adjuvant Cancer (S-TRAC) trial showed improved DFS with sunitinib, compared with placebo (6.8 vs. 5.6 years). Subsequently, sunitinib was approved for adjuvant use in the United States. However, the S-TRAC trial also showed that sunitinib therapy was associated with an increased incidence of toxic effects and lower quality of life scores, and researchers did not observe any benefit in overall survival.
“Despite regulatory approval in the U.S., sunitinib is not approved for adjuvant use by the European Medicines Agency and has limited utilization in clinical practice given the low benefit-risk ratio,” Dr. McKay pointed out.
Study details
KEYNOTE-564 involved 996 patients with clear-cell RCC at high risk for recurrence after nephrectomy, with or without metastasectomy. They were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive a 200-mg dose of adjuvant pembrolizumab or placebo given intravenously once every 3 weeks for up to 17 cycles for approximately 1 year.
The vast majority of patients enrolled in the study had localized disease with no evidence of metastases (M0) and intermediate to high or high risk of disease recurrence after partial or complete nephrectomy. However, 5.8% of patients in both the pembrolizumab and placebo groups had M1 NED (metastatic stage 1, no evidence of disease) status after nephrectomy and resection of metastatic lesions. These patients were also at intermediate to high or high risk of recurrence.
The benefit of pembrolizumab, compared with placebo, was maintained in this subgroup, said the investigators. “At this point, we continue to look at the data, but we know that there was a benefit for DFS in the population we included,” said Dr. Choueiri. “When we looked at several subgroups such as PD-L1 status, geography, gender, performance status, M0/M1, all HRs were less than 1 suggesting benefit from pembrolizumab over placebo.”
“Subset analyses by stage are going to be important to determine which group of patients will derive the most benefit,” asserted Dr. McKay. “While those with M1 NED appear to derive benefit with HR for DFS of 0.29, those with M1 NED comprise a small percentage of patient enrolled in the trial.”
Studies exploring tissue- and blood-based biomarkers, including circulating tumor DNA, will be key to identify patients at highest risk for recurrence or adjuvant treatment, Dr. McKay emphasized. “The adoption of adjuvant immune checkpoint inhibitors brings along new questions regarding patient selection, therapeutic use in patients with non–clear-cell renal cell carcinoma, and systemic treatment after recurrence during or after the receipt of adjuvant therapy.”
KEYNOTE-564 was funded by Merck. Multiple study authors including Dr. Choueiri have financial ties to the pharmaceutical industry, including Merck.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Beta-blocker reduces lung inflammation in critical COVID-19
In a small study, intravenous administration of the beta-blocker metoprolol to critically ill COVID-19 patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) safely blunted lung inflammation associated with the disease.
Metoprolol administration also resulted in better oxygenation and fewer days on intensive mechanical ventilation and in the ICU, compared with no treatment.
These data suggest that metoprolol repurposing for the treatment of ARDS in COVID-19 patients is a safe and inexpensive strategy with the potential to improve outcomes, the researchers said.
“Metoprolol repurposing for the treatment of ARDS associated with COVID-19 is a safe and cheap intervention that can help to alleviate the massive personal and health care burden associated with the pandemic,” they concluded.
The results, from the MADRID-COVID pilot trial from Agustin Clemente-Moragon, BSc, Centro National de Investigaciones Cardiovasculares, Madrid, and colleagues, were published online Aug. 30, 2021, in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
In previous work, the researchers showed that metoprolol, but not other clinically available intravenous beta-blockers, abrogates neutrophil-driven exacerbated inflammation, neutrophil-platelet interaction, and formation of neutrophil extracellular traps in a mouse model of acute lung injury.
These results prompted the current pilot trial in 20 patients, ages 18-80 years, with COVID-19–associated ARDS.
Randomization was stratified by age (59 and younger vs. 60 and older), history of hypertension (yes or no), and circulating neutrophil counts (<6,000 vs. ≥6,000). Bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) fluid and blood samples were obtained from patients at randomization and 24 hours after the third metoprolol dose in the treatment group, and on day 4 in controls.
Because of the cardiovascular effects of metoprolol, patients were monitored invasively and by echocardiography, the authors noted.
As expected, metoprolol significantly reduced heart rate (P < .01) and systolic blood pressure (P < .05), although both remained within the physiological range. Echocardiography showed no deterioration of cardiac function after metoprolol treatment.
To assess the ability of metoprolol to address neutrophil-mediated exacerbated lung inflammation, the researchers analyzed leukocyte populations in BAL samples by flow cytometry at baseline and on day 4.
At baseline, the metoprolol and control groups showed no differences in BAL neutrophil content. But on day 4, after 3 days of treatment with metoprolol, neutrophil content was significantly lower in the metoprolol group (median, 14.3 neutrophils/mcL) than in the control group (median, 397 neutrophils/mcL).
Metoprolol-treated patients also had lower total inflammatory-cell content and lower monocyte/macrophage content. Lymphocytes did not differ between the groups.
The investigators also explored the impact of metoprolol on the chemokine, monocyte chemoattractant protein–1 (MCP-1), as it has been shown to promote pulmonary fibrosis in late-stage ARDS.
They found that MCP-1 was significantly attenuated after 3 days of metoprolol treatment. At baseline, the median MCP-1 level was 298 pg/mL; on day 4 after metoprolol, it was 203 pg/mL (P = .009).
MCP-1 levels remained unchanged in control patients.
An elegant study
In an accompanying editorial, Mourad H. Senussi, MD, assistant professor at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, wrote: “Although the study has a small sample size, we commend the authors, who attempt to shed light on the important pathophysiological underpinnings that help establish biological plausibility for this inexpensive, safe, and widely available medication.”
In an interview with this news organization, Dr. Senussi added that metoprolol is not itself something primarily used to treat COVID-19 per se. “Rather, the drug blunts the sympathetic-host response. There is a fine balance between that sympathetic surge that is helpful to the body, and then a sympathetic surge that if left unchecked, can lead to significant damage. And so, I think this study really shows that medications like metoprolol can help blunt that initial sympathetic effect.”
A larger study is “absolutely” warranted, he added, “this is a drug that is readily available, safe, and inexpensive. The study design here was simple and most importantly, showed biological plausibility.”
Dr. Senussi also noted that, although the benefit was noted in COVID-19 patients, the study sets the groundwork for further research in the use of beta-blockade in the critically ill. “Further studies are needed to elucidate and identify where along the inflammatory spectrum these critically ill patients lie, which patients would benefit from beta-blockers, and at what time point during their hospital stay.”
The MADRID-COVID authors and Dr. Senussi disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
In a small study, intravenous administration of the beta-blocker metoprolol to critically ill COVID-19 patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) safely blunted lung inflammation associated with the disease.
Metoprolol administration also resulted in better oxygenation and fewer days on intensive mechanical ventilation and in the ICU, compared with no treatment.
These data suggest that metoprolol repurposing for the treatment of ARDS in COVID-19 patients is a safe and inexpensive strategy with the potential to improve outcomes, the researchers said.
“Metoprolol repurposing for the treatment of ARDS associated with COVID-19 is a safe and cheap intervention that can help to alleviate the massive personal and health care burden associated with the pandemic,” they concluded.
The results, from the MADRID-COVID pilot trial from Agustin Clemente-Moragon, BSc, Centro National de Investigaciones Cardiovasculares, Madrid, and colleagues, were published online Aug. 30, 2021, in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
In previous work, the researchers showed that metoprolol, but not other clinically available intravenous beta-blockers, abrogates neutrophil-driven exacerbated inflammation, neutrophil-platelet interaction, and formation of neutrophil extracellular traps in a mouse model of acute lung injury.
These results prompted the current pilot trial in 20 patients, ages 18-80 years, with COVID-19–associated ARDS.
Randomization was stratified by age (59 and younger vs. 60 and older), history of hypertension (yes or no), and circulating neutrophil counts (<6,000 vs. ≥6,000). Bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) fluid and blood samples were obtained from patients at randomization and 24 hours after the third metoprolol dose in the treatment group, and on day 4 in controls.
Because of the cardiovascular effects of metoprolol, patients were monitored invasively and by echocardiography, the authors noted.
As expected, metoprolol significantly reduced heart rate (P < .01) and systolic blood pressure (P < .05), although both remained within the physiological range. Echocardiography showed no deterioration of cardiac function after metoprolol treatment.
To assess the ability of metoprolol to address neutrophil-mediated exacerbated lung inflammation, the researchers analyzed leukocyte populations in BAL samples by flow cytometry at baseline and on day 4.
At baseline, the metoprolol and control groups showed no differences in BAL neutrophil content. But on day 4, after 3 days of treatment with metoprolol, neutrophil content was significantly lower in the metoprolol group (median, 14.3 neutrophils/mcL) than in the control group (median, 397 neutrophils/mcL).
Metoprolol-treated patients also had lower total inflammatory-cell content and lower monocyte/macrophage content. Lymphocytes did not differ between the groups.
The investigators also explored the impact of metoprolol on the chemokine, monocyte chemoattractant protein–1 (MCP-1), as it has been shown to promote pulmonary fibrosis in late-stage ARDS.
They found that MCP-1 was significantly attenuated after 3 days of metoprolol treatment. At baseline, the median MCP-1 level was 298 pg/mL; on day 4 after metoprolol, it was 203 pg/mL (P = .009).
MCP-1 levels remained unchanged in control patients.
An elegant study
In an accompanying editorial, Mourad H. Senussi, MD, assistant professor at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, wrote: “Although the study has a small sample size, we commend the authors, who attempt to shed light on the important pathophysiological underpinnings that help establish biological plausibility for this inexpensive, safe, and widely available medication.”
In an interview with this news organization, Dr. Senussi added that metoprolol is not itself something primarily used to treat COVID-19 per se. “Rather, the drug blunts the sympathetic-host response. There is a fine balance between that sympathetic surge that is helpful to the body, and then a sympathetic surge that if left unchecked, can lead to significant damage. And so, I think this study really shows that medications like metoprolol can help blunt that initial sympathetic effect.”
A larger study is “absolutely” warranted, he added, “this is a drug that is readily available, safe, and inexpensive. The study design here was simple and most importantly, showed biological plausibility.”
Dr. Senussi also noted that, although the benefit was noted in COVID-19 patients, the study sets the groundwork for further research in the use of beta-blockade in the critically ill. “Further studies are needed to elucidate and identify where along the inflammatory spectrum these critically ill patients lie, which patients would benefit from beta-blockers, and at what time point during their hospital stay.”
The MADRID-COVID authors and Dr. Senussi disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
In a small study, intravenous administration of the beta-blocker metoprolol to critically ill COVID-19 patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) safely blunted lung inflammation associated with the disease.
Metoprolol administration also resulted in better oxygenation and fewer days on intensive mechanical ventilation and in the ICU, compared with no treatment.
These data suggest that metoprolol repurposing for the treatment of ARDS in COVID-19 patients is a safe and inexpensive strategy with the potential to improve outcomes, the researchers said.
“Metoprolol repurposing for the treatment of ARDS associated with COVID-19 is a safe and cheap intervention that can help to alleviate the massive personal and health care burden associated with the pandemic,” they concluded.
The results, from the MADRID-COVID pilot trial from Agustin Clemente-Moragon, BSc, Centro National de Investigaciones Cardiovasculares, Madrid, and colleagues, were published online Aug. 30, 2021, in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
In previous work, the researchers showed that metoprolol, but not other clinically available intravenous beta-blockers, abrogates neutrophil-driven exacerbated inflammation, neutrophil-platelet interaction, and formation of neutrophil extracellular traps in a mouse model of acute lung injury.
These results prompted the current pilot trial in 20 patients, ages 18-80 years, with COVID-19–associated ARDS.
Randomization was stratified by age (59 and younger vs. 60 and older), history of hypertension (yes or no), and circulating neutrophil counts (<6,000 vs. ≥6,000). Bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) fluid and blood samples were obtained from patients at randomization and 24 hours after the third metoprolol dose in the treatment group, and on day 4 in controls.
Because of the cardiovascular effects of metoprolol, patients were monitored invasively and by echocardiography, the authors noted.
As expected, metoprolol significantly reduced heart rate (P < .01) and systolic blood pressure (P < .05), although both remained within the physiological range. Echocardiography showed no deterioration of cardiac function after metoprolol treatment.
To assess the ability of metoprolol to address neutrophil-mediated exacerbated lung inflammation, the researchers analyzed leukocyte populations in BAL samples by flow cytometry at baseline and on day 4.
At baseline, the metoprolol and control groups showed no differences in BAL neutrophil content. But on day 4, after 3 days of treatment with metoprolol, neutrophil content was significantly lower in the metoprolol group (median, 14.3 neutrophils/mcL) than in the control group (median, 397 neutrophils/mcL).
Metoprolol-treated patients also had lower total inflammatory-cell content and lower monocyte/macrophage content. Lymphocytes did not differ between the groups.
The investigators also explored the impact of metoprolol on the chemokine, monocyte chemoattractant protein–1 (MCP-1), as it has been shown to promote pulmonary fibrosis in late-stage ARDS.
They found that MCP-1 was significantly attenuated after 3 days of metoprolol treatment. At baseline, the median MCP-1 level was 298 pg/mL; on day 4 after metoprolol, it was 203 pg/mL (P = .009).
MCP-1 levels remained unchanged in control patients.
An elegant study
In an accompanying editorial, Mourad H. Senussi, MD, assistant professor at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, wrote: “Although the study has a small sample size, we commend the authors, who attempt to shed light on the important pathophysiological underpinnings that help establish biological plausibility for this inexpensive, safe, and widely available medication.”
In an interview with this news organization, Dr. Senussi added that metoprolol is not itself something primarily used to treat COVID-19 per se. “Rather, the drug blunts the sympathetic-host response. There is a fine balance between that sympathetic surge that is helpful to the body, and then a sympathetic surge that if left unchecked, can lead to significant damage. And so, I think this study really shows that medications like metoprolol can help blunt that initial sympathetic effect.”
A larger study is “absolutely” warranted, he added, “this is a drug that is readily available, safe, and inexpensive. The study design here was simple and most importantly, showed biological plausibility.”
Dr. Senussi also noted that, although the benefit was noted in COVID-19 patients, the study sets the groundwork for further research in the use of beta-blockade in the critically ill. “Further studies are needed to elucidate and identify where along the inflammatory spectrum these critically ill patients lie, which patients would benefit from beta-blockers, and at what time point during their hospital stay.”
The MADRID-COVID authors and Dr. Senussi disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Antidepressant helps prevent hospitalization in COVID patients: Study
A handful of studies have suggested that for newly infected COVID-19 patients, risk for serious illness may be reduced with a short course of fluvoxamine (Luvox), a decades-old pill typically prescribed for depression or obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD). But those were small studies involving just a few hundred people.
This week, researchers reported promising data from a large, randomized phase 3 trial that enrolled COVID-19 patients from 11 sites in Brazil. In this study, in which 1,472 people were assigned to receive either a 10-day course of fluvoxamine or placebo pills, the antidepressant cut emergency department and hospital admissions by 29%.
Findings from the new study, which have not yet been peer reviewed, were published August 23 in MedRxiv.
Around the globe, particularly in countries without access to vaccines, “treatment options that are cheap and available and supported by good-quality evidence are the only hope we’ve got to reduce mortality within high-risk populations,” said Edward Mills, PhD, professor in the department of health research methods, evidence, and impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont.
The new findings came from TOGETHER, a large platform trial coordinated by Dr. Mills and colleagues to evaluate the use of fluvoxamine and other repurposed drug candidates for symptomatic, high-risk, adult outpatients with confirmed cases of COVID-19.
The trial’s adaptive format allows multiple agents to be added and tested alongside placebo in a single master protocol – similar to the United Kingdom’s Recovery trial, which found that the common steroid dexamethasone could reduce deaths among hospitalized COVID-19 patients.
In platform trials, treatment arms can be dropped for futility, as was the case with hydroxychloroquine and lopinavir-ritonavir, neither of which did better than placebo at preventing hospitalization in an earlier TOGETHER trial analysis.
Study details
In the newly reported analysis, patients were randomly assigned to receive fluvoxamine or placebo between January and August 2021. Participants took fluvoxamine 100 mg twice daily for 10 days. By comparison, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration recommends a maximum daily dose of 300 mg of fluvoxamine for patients with OCD; full psychiatric benefits occur after 6 weeks.
For the primary outcome, the investigators assessed whether the conditions of patients with COVID worsened over a 28-day period so as to require either hospitalization or observation in the emergency department for more than 6 hours. In the placebo group, 108 of 733 patients’ conditions deteriorated to this extent (14.7%); by contrast, only 77 of 739 patients in the fluvoxamine group (10.4%) met these primary criteria – a relative risk reduction of 29%.
The treatment effect was greater (34%) in the per protocol analysis of participants who completed their course of pills.
The investigators also collected data on vital signs, including temperature and oxygen saturation, as well as adverse events reported at clinic visits or through video conferencing, phone calls, or social media applications. Side effects were mild, most commonly nausea and fatigue, and did not differ significantly between active treatment and control groups, Dr. Mills said in an interview.
Amid scores of studies evaluating repurposed drugs for COVID-19, the data on fluvoxamine are “looking much more favorable than anyone could have guessed – at least anyone in infectious disease,” said Paul Sax, MD, clinical director of the Division of Infectious Diseases at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston.
The new TOGETHER trial results augment supportive data published in JAMA last November from a phase 2 randomized trial that was small but “very well done,” Dr. Sax told this news organization.
Those results got a boost from a subsequent study of 65 racetrack workers who chose to take fluvoxamine during a COVID-19 outbreak in the San Francisco Bay area. Forty-eight persons opted against taking the drug. In this small, nonrandomized study, “the people who chose to be treated with fluvoxamine were sicker [at baseline] than the people who didn’t go on it, and yet the [treated group] ended up better,” said Dr. Sax, who discussed accumulating data on the use of fluvoxamine for COVID-19 in a recent New England Journal of Medicine blog post.
Anti-inflammatory effect?
After reviewing the new findings, Frank Domino, MD, professor of family medicine and community health at the University of Massachusetts, Worcester, said he would encourage patients with high-risk COVID-19 to consider taking fluvoxamine to lower their risk of being hospitalized. “But I would make it clear this was not a ‘cure,’ “ he said, “and we are unsure how it helps.”
At this point, U.S. treatment guidelines do not recommend fluvoxamine as the standard of care for nonhospitalized COVID-19 patients, but the National Institutes of Health is “very aware of the data,” Dr. Sax told this news organization.
Fluvoxamine is a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) – a class of drugs that includes the more commonly prescribed antidepressant fluoxetine (Prozac). If prescribed off-label to COVID-19 patients, fluvoxamine should not be used within 2 weeks of starting treatment with other SSRI or monoamine oxidase inhibitor antidepressants and should be used with caution with other QT-interval prolonging medications, Dr. Sax said.
In addition, fluvoxamine can enhance the effect of antiplatelet and anticoagulant drugs, potentially triggering bleeding.
On the basis of in vitro and mouse studies of fluvoxamine, “we think it has an anti-inflammatory effect,” said child psychiatrist Angela Reiersen, MD, of Washington University, St. Louis, who came up with the idea for testing fluvoxamine in last year’s phase 2 trial and coauthored a recent article describing the drug’s potential mechanisms of action in COVID-19.
She and other researchers believe fluvoxamine’s anti-inflammatory effects derive from the molecule’s binding to the sigma-1 receptor in the endoplasmic reticulum, which regulates cellular responses to stress and infection.
Fluvoxamine also inhibits the activation of platelets. “In COVID-19, there does seem to be a problem with hyperactivation of platelets and excessive blood clots forming, so it is possible this could be another mechanism where it might be helping,” Dr. Reiersen said.
If sigma-1 activation turns out to be the main mechanism underlying fluvoxamine’s benefits in COVID-19, other sigma-1 agonists, such as fluoxetine, may also help. In a retrospective analysis of thousands of adults hospitalized for COVID-19 in France early in the pandemic, those who were taking antidepressants had a 44% lower risk for intubation or death.
And in a study under review, researchers at Stanford (Calif.) University and the University of California, San Francisco, analyzed electronic health records to explore a potential link between fluoxetine use and COVID outcomes among more than 80,000 patients from over 80 institutions across the United States. Other research suggests that antipsychotics could also have protective effects for patients with COVID-19.
Long COVID, long-term challenges
On the basis of its potential mechanisms of action, fluvoxamine may be able to prevent or treat long COVID, Dr. Reiersen said. That possibility will be assessed among other secondary endpoints in two ongoing studies of repurposed drugs: the NIH’s ACTIV-6, and the University of Minnesota’s COVID-OUT, an at-home trial of ivermectin, metformin, and fluvoxamine.
Dr. Reiersen and Washington University colleagues are also analyzing longer-term outcomes of participants in their own phase 3 trial of fluvoxamine (Stop COVID 2), which was discontinued when enrollment slowed to a trickle during the U.S. vaccine rollout. Logistical hurdles and scant funding have greatly hampered efforts to test the use of off-patent drugs for COVID-19 outpatients during the pandemic.
U.S. efforts face other obstacles as well. Elsewhere in the world – including Brazil, where the TOGETHER trial was run – vaccines are scarce, and there are no monoclonal antibodies.
“People have a great sense of community duty, and they’re participating in the trials,” Dr. Mills said. “You’re in a much more political environment in the U.S. on these outpatient trials.”
The TOGETHER trial was funded by Fast Grants and the Rainwater Foundation. Dr. Reiersen is an inventor on a patent application related to methods of treating COVID-19, which was filed by Washington University, St. Louis. Dr. Mills, Dr. Domino, and Dr. Sax report no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
A handful of studies have suggested that for newly infected COVID-19 patients, risk for serious illness may be reduced with a short course of fluvoxamine (Luvox), a decades-old pill typically prescribed for depression or obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD). But those were small studies involving just a few hundred people.
This week, researchers reported promising data from a large, randomized phase 3 trial that enrolled COVID-19 patients from 11 sites in Brazil. In this study, in which 1,472 people were assigned to receive either a 10-day course of fluvoxamine or placebo pills, the antidepressant cut emergency department and hospital admissions by 29%.
Findings from the new study, which have not yet been peer reviewed, were published August 23 in MedRxiv.
Around the globe, particularly in countries without access to vaccines, “treatment options that are cheap and available and supported by good-quality evidence are the only hope we’ve got to reduce mortality within high-risk populations,” said Edward Mills, PhD, professor in the department of health research methods, evidence, and impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont.
The new findings came from TOGETHER, a large platform trial coordinated by Dr. Mills and colleagues to evaluate the use of fluvoxamine and other repurposed drug candidates for symptomatic, high-risk, adult outpatients with confirmed cases of COVID-19.
The trial’s adaptive format allows multiple agents to be added and tested alongside placebo in a single master protocol – similar to the United Kingdom’s Recovery trial, which found that the common steroid dexamethasone could reduce deaths among hospitalized COVID-19 patients.
In platform trials, treatment arms can be dropped for futility, as was the case with hydroxychloroquine and lopinavir-ritonavir, neither of which did better than placebo at preventing hospitalization in an earlier TOGETHER trial analysis.
Study details
In the newly reported analysis, patients were randomly assigned to receive fluvoxamine or placebo between January and August 2021. Participants took fluvoxamine 100 mg twice daily for 10 days. By comparison, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration recommends a maximum daily dose of 300 mg of fluvoxamine for patients with OCD; full psychiatric benefits occur after 6 weeks.
For the primary outcome, the investigators assessed whether the conditions of patients with COVID worsened over a 28-day period so as to require either hospitalization or observation in the emergency department for more than 6 hours. In the placebo group, 108 of 733 patients’ conditions deteriorated to this extent (14.7%); by contrast, only 77 of 739 patients in the fluvoxamine group (10.4%) met these primary criteria – a relative risk reduction of 29%.
The treatment effect was greater (34%) in the per protocol analysis of participants who completed their course of pills.
The investigators also collected data on vital signs, including temperature and oxygen saturation, as well as adverse events reported at clinic visits or through video conferencing, phone calls, or social media applications. Side effects were mild, most commonly nausea and fatigue, and did not differ significantly between active treatment and control groups, Dr. Mills said in an interview.
Amid scores of studies evaluating repurposed drugs for COVID-19, the data on fluvoxamine are “looking much more favorable than anyone could have guessed – at least anyone in infectious disease,” said Paul Sax, MD, clinical director of the Division of Infectious Diseases at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston.
The new TOGETHER trial results augment supportive data published in JAMA last November from a phase 2 randomized trial that was small but “very well done,” Dr. Sax told this news organization.
Those results got a boost from a subsequent study of 65 racetrack workers who chose to take fluvoxamine during a COVID-19 outbreak in the San Francisco Bay area. Forty-eight persons opted against taking the drug. In this small, nonrandomized study, “the people who chose to be treated with fluvoxamine were sicker [at baseline] than the people who didn’t go on it, and yet the [treated group] ended up better,” said Dr. Sax, who discussed accumulating data on the use of fluvoxamine for COVID-19 in a recent New England Journal of Medicine blog post.
Anti-inflammatory effect?
After reviewing the new findings, Frank Domino, MD, professor of family medicine and community health at the University of Massachusetts, Worcester, said he would encourage patients with high-risk COVID-19 to consider taking fluvoxamine to lower their risk of being hospitalized. “But I would make it clear this was not a ‘cure,’ “ he said, “and we are unsure how it helps.”
At this point, U.S. treatment guidelines do not recommend fluvoxamine as the standard of care for nonhospitalized COVID-19 patients, but the National Institutes of Health is “very aware of the data,” Dr. Sax told this news organization.
Fluvoxamine is a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) – a class of drugs that includes the more commonly prescribed antidepressant fluoxetine (Prozac). If prescribed off-label to COVID-19 patients, fluvoxamine should not be used within 2 weeks of starting treatment with other SSRI or monoamine oxidase inhibitor antidepressants and should be used with caution with other QT-interval prolonging medications, Dr. Sax said.
In addition, fluvoxamine can enhance the effect of antiplatelet and anticoagulant drugs, potentially triggering bleeding.
On the basis of in vitro and mouse studies of fluvoxamine, “we think it has an anti-inflammatory effect,” said child psychiatrist Angela Reiersen, MD, of Washington University, St. Louis, who came up with the idea for testing fluvoxamine in last year’s phase 2 trial and coauthored a recent article describing the drug’s potential mechanisms of action in COVID-19.
She and other researchers believe fluvoxamine’s anti-inflammatory effects derive from the molecule’s binding to the sigma-1 receptor in the endoplasmic reticulum, which regulates cellular responses to stress and infection.
Fluvoxamine also inhibits the activation of platelets. “In COVID-19, there does seem to be a problem with hyperactivation of platelets and excessive blood clots forming, so it is possible this could be another mechanism where it might be helping,” Dr. Reiersen said.
If sigma-1 activation turns out to be the main mechanism underlying fluvoxamine’s benefits in COVID-19, other sigma-1 agonists, such as fluoxetine, may also help. In a retrospective analysis of thousands of adults hospitalized for COVID-19 in France early in the pandemic, those who were taking antidepressants had a 44% lower risk for intubation or death.
And in a study under review, researchers at Stanford (Calif.) University and the University of California, San Francisco, analyzed electronic health records to explore a potential link between fluoxetine use and COVID outcomes among more than 80,000 patients from over 80 institutions across the United States. Other research suggests that antipsychotics could also have protective effects for patients with COVID-19.
Long COVID, long-term challenges
On the basis of its potential mechanisms of action, fluvoxamine may be able to prevent or treat long COVID, Dr. Reiersen said. That possibility will be assessed among other secondary endpoints in two ongoing studies of repurposed drugs: the NIH’s ACTIV-6, and the University of Minnesota’s COVID-OUT, an at-home trial of ivermectin, metformin, and fluvoxamine.
Dr. Reiersen and Washington University colleagues are also analyzing longer-term outcomes of participants in their own phase 3 trial of fluvoxamine (Stop COVID 2), which was discontinued when enrollment slowed to a trickle during the U.S. vaccine rollout. Logistical hurdles and scant funding have greatly hampered efforts to test the use of off-patent drugs for COVID-19 outpatients during the pandemic.
U.S. efforts face other obstacles as well. Elsewhere in the world – including Brazil, where the TOGETHER trial was run – vaccines are scarce, and there are no monoclonal antibodies.
“People have a great sense of community duty, and they’re participating in the trials,” Dr. Mills said. “You’re in a much more political environment in the U.S. on these outpatient trials.”
The TOGETHER trial was funded by Fast Grants and the Rainwater Foundation. Dr. Reiersen is an inventor on a patent application related to methods of treating COVID-19, which was filed by Washington University, St. Louis. Dr. Mills, Dr. Domino, and Dr. Sax report no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
A handful of studies have suggested that for newly infected COVID-19 patients, risk for serious illness may be reduced with a short course of fluvoxamine (Luvox), a decades-old pill typically prescribed for depression or obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD). But those were small studies involving just a few hundred people.
This week, researchers reported promising data from a large, randomized phase 3 trial that enrolled COVID-19 patients from 11 sites in Brazil. In this study, in which 1,472 people were assigned to receive either a 10-day course of fluvoxamine or placebo pills, the antidepressant cut emergency department and hospital admissions by 29%.
Findings from the new study, which have not yet been peer reviewed, were published August 23 in MedRxiv.
Around the globe, particularly in countries without access to vaccines, “treatment options that are cheap and available and supported by good-quality evidence are the only hope we’ve got to reduce mortality within high-risk populations,” said Edward Mills, PhD, professor in the department of health research methods, evidence, and impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont.
The new findings came from TOGETHER, a large platform trial coordinated by Dr. Mills and colleagues to evaluate the use of fluvoxamine and other repurposed drug candidates for symptomatic, high-risk, adult outpatients with confirmed cases of COVID-19.
The trial’s adaptive format allows multiple agents to be added and tested alongside placebo in a single master protocol – similar to the United Kingdom’s Recovery trial, which found that the common steroid dexamethasone could reduce deaths among hospitalized COVID-19 patients.
In platform trials, treatment arms can be dropped for futility, as was the case with hydroxychloroquine and lopinavir-ritonavir, neither of which did better than placebo at preventing hospitalization in an earlier TOGETHER trial analysis.
Study details
In the newly reported analysis, patients were randomly assigned to receive fluvoxamine or placebo between January and August 2021. Participants took fluvoxamine 100 mg twice daily for 10 days. By comparison, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration recommends a maximum daily dose of 300 mg of fluvoxamine for patients with OCD; full psychiatric benefits occur after 6 weeks.
For the primary outcome, the investigators assessed whether the conditions of patients with COVID worsened over a 28-day period so as to require either hospitalization or observation in the emergency department for more than 6 hours. In the placebo group, 108 of 733 patients’ conditions deteriorated to this extent (14.7%); by contrast, only 77 of 739 patients in the fluvoxamine group (10.4%) met these primary criteria – a relative risk reduction of 29%.
The treatment effect was greater (34%) in the per protocol analysis of participants who completed their course of pills.
The investigators also collected data on vital signs, including temperature and oxygen saturation, as well as adverse events reported at clinic visits or through video conferencing, phone calls, or social media applications. Side effects were mild, most commonly nausea and fatigue, and did not differ significantly between active treatment and control groups, Dr. Mills said in an interview.
Amid scores of studies evaluating repurposed drugs for COVID-19, the data on fluvoxamine are “looking much more favorable than anyone could have guessed – at least anyone in infectious disease,” said Paul Sax, MD, clinical director of the Division of Infectious Diseases at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston.
The new TOGETHER trial results augment supportive data published in JAMA last November from a phase 2 randomized trial that was small but “very well done,” Dr. Sax told this news organization.
Those results got a boost from a subsequent study of 65 racetrack workers who chose to take fluvoxamine during a COVID-19 outbreak in the San Francisco Bay area. Forty-eight persons opted against taking the drug. In this small, nonrandomized study, “the people who chose to be treated with fluvoxamine were sicker [at baseline] than the people who didn’t go on it, and yet the [treated group] ended up better,” said Dr. Sax, who discussed accumulating data on the use of fluvoxamine for COVID-19 in a recent New England Journal of Medicine blog post.
Anti-inflammatory effect?
After reviewing the new findings, Frank Domino, MD, professor of family medicine and community health at the University of Massachusetts, Worcester, said he would encourage patients with high-risk COVID-19 to consider taking fluvoxamine to lower their risk of being hospitalized. “But I would make it clear this was not a ‘cure,’ “ he said, “and we are unsure how it helps.”
At this point, U.S. treatment guidelines do not recommend fluvoxamine as the standard of care for nonhospitalized COVID-19 patients, but the National Institutes of Health is “very aware of the data,” Dr. Sax told this news organization.
Fluvoxamine is a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) – a class of drugs that includes the more commonly prescribed antidepressant fluoxetine (Prozac). If prescribed off-label to COVID-19 patients, fluvoxamine should not be used within 2 weeks of starting treatment with other SSRI or monoamine oxidase inhibitor antidepressants and should be used with caution with other QT-interval prolonging medications, Dr. Sax said.
In addition, fluvoxamine can enhance the effect of antiplatelet and anticoagulant drugs, potentially triggering bleeding.
On the basis of in vitro and mouse studies of fluvoxamine, “we think it has an anti-inflammatory effect,” said child psychiatrist Angela Reiersen, MD, of Washington University, St. Louis, who came up with the idea for testing fluvoxamine in last year’s phase 2 trial and coauthored a recent article describing the drug’s potential mechanisms of action in COVID-19.
She and other researchers believe fluvoxamine’s anti-inflammatory effects derive from the molecule’s binding to the sigma-1 receptor in the endoplasmic reticulum, which regulates cellular responses to stress and infection.
Fluvoxamine also inhibits the activation of platelets. “In COVID-19, there does seem to be a problem with hyperactivation of platelets and excessive blood clots forming, so it is possible this could be another mechanism where it might be helping,” Dr. Reiersen said.
If sigma-1 activation turns out to be the main mechanism underlying fluvoxamine’s benefits in COVID-19, other sigma-1 agonists, such as fluoxetine, may also help. In a retrospective analysis of thousands of adults hospitalized for COVID-19 in France early in the pandemic, those who were taking antidepressants had a 44% lower risk for intubation or death.
And in a study under review, researchers at Stanford (Calif.) University and the University of California, San Francisco, analyzed electronic health records to explore a potential link between fluoxetine use and COVID outcomes among more than 80,000 patients from over 80 institutions across the United States. Other research suggests that antipsychotics could also have protective effects for patients with COVID-19.
Long COVID, long-term challenges
On the basis of its potential mechanisms of action, fluvoxamine may be able to prevent or treat long COVID, Dr. Reiersen said. That possibility will be assessed among other secondary endpoints in two ongoing studies of repurposed drugs: the NIH’s ACTIV-6, and the University of Minnesota’s COVID-OUT, an at-home trial of ivermectin, metformin, and fluvoxamine.
Dr. Reiersen and Washington University colleagues are also analyzing longer-term outcomes of participants in their own phase 3 trial of fluvoxamine (Stop COVID 2), which was discontinued when enrollment slowed to a trickle during the U.S. vaccine rollout. Logistical hurdles and scant funding have greatly hampered efforts to test the use of off-patent drugs for COVID-19 outpatients during the pandemic.
U.S. efforts face other obstacles as well. Elsewhere in the world – including Brazil, where the TOGETHER trial was run – vaccines are scarce, and there are no monoclonal antibodies.
“People have a great sense of community duty, and they’re participating in the trials,” Dr. Mills said. “You’re in a much more political environment in the U.S. on these outpatient trials.”
The TOGETHER trial was funded by Fast Grants and the Rainwater Foundation. Dr. Reiersen is an inventor on a patent application related to methods of treating COVID-19, which was filed by Washington University, St. Louis. Dr. Mills, Dr. Domino, and Dr. Sax report no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Although inconclusive, CV safety study of cancer therapy attracts attention
The first global trial to compare the cardiovascular (CV) safety of two therapies for prostate cancer proved inconclusive because of inadequate enrollment and events, but the study is a harbinger of growth in the emerging specialty of cardio-oncology, according to experts.
“Many new cancer agents have extended patient survival, yet some of these agents have significant potential cardiovascular toxicity,” said Renato D. Lopes, MD, in presenting a study at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.
In the context of improving survival in patients with or at risk for both cancer and cardiovascular disease, he suggested that the prostate cancer study he led could be “a model for interdisciplinary collaboration” needed to address the relative and sometimes competing risks of these disease states.
This point was seconded by several pioneers in cardio-oncology who participated in the discussion of the results of the trial, called PRONOUNCE.
“We know many drugs in oncology increase cardiovascular risk, so these are the types of trials we need,” according Thomas M. Suter, MD, who leads the cardio-oncology service at the University Hospital, Berne, Switzerland. He was the ESC-invited discussant for PRONOUNCE.
More than 100 centers in 12 countries involved
In PRONOUNCE, 545 patients with prostate cancer and established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease were randomized to degarelix, a gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist, or leuprolide, a GnRH agonist. The patients were enrolled at 113 participating centers in 12 countries. All of the patients had an indication for an androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT).
In numerous previous studies, “ADT has been associated with higher CV morbidity and mortality, particularly in men with preexisting CV disease,” explained Dr. Lopes, but the relative cardiovascular safety of GnRH agonists relative to GnRH antagonists has been “controversial.”
The PRONOUNCE study was designed to resolve this issue, but the study was terminated early because of slow enrollment (not related to the COVID-19 pandemic). The planned enrollment was 900 patients.
In addition, the rate of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), defined as myocardial infarction, stroke, or death, was lower over the course of follow-up than anticipated in the study design.
No significant difference on primary endpoint
At the end of 12 months, MACE occurred in 11 (4.1%) of patients randomized to leuprolide and 15 (5.5%) of those randomized to degarelix. The greater hazard ratio for MACE in the degarelix group did not approach statistical significance (hazard ratio, 1.28; P = .53).
As a result, the question of the relative CV safety of these drugs “remains unresolved,” according to Dr. Lopes, professor of medicine at Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C.
This does not diminish the need to answer this question. In the addition to the fact that cancer is a malignancy primarily of advancing age when CV disease is prevalent – the mean age in this study was 73 years and 44% were over age 75 – it is often an indolent disease with long periods of survival, according to Dr. Lopes. About half of prostate cancer patients have concomitant CV disease, and about half will receive ADT at some point in their treatment.
In patients receiving ADT, leuprolide is far more commonly used than GnRH antagonists, which are offered in only about 4% of patients, according to data cited by Dr. Lopes. The underlying hypothesis of this study was that leuprolide is associated with greater CV risk, which might have been relevant to a risk-benefit calculation, if the hypothesis had been confirmed.
Cancer drugs can increase CV risk
Based on experimental data, “there is concern the leuprolide is involved in plaque destabilization,” said Dr. Lopes, but he noted that ADTs in general are associated with adverse metabolic changes, including increases in LDL cholesterol, insulin resistance, and body fat, all of which could be relevant to CV risk.
It is the improving rates of survival for prostate cancer as well for other types of cancer that have increased attention to the potential for cancer drugs to increase CV risk, another major cause of early mortality. For these competing risks, objective data are needed to evaluate a relative risk-to-benefit ratio for treatment choices.
This dilemma led the ESC to recently establish its Council on Cardio-Oncology, and many centers around the world are also creating interdisciplinary groups to guide treatment choices for patients with both diseases.
“You will certainly get a lot of referrals,” said Rudolf de Boer, MD, professor of translational cardiology, University Medical Center, Groningen, Netherlands. Basing his remark on his own experience starting a cardio-oncology clinic at his institution, he called this work challenging and agreed that the need for objective data is urgent.
“We need data to provide common ground on which to judge relative risks,” Dr. de Boer said. He also praised the PRONOUNCE investigators for their efforts even if the data failed to answer the question posed.
The PRONOUNCE results were published online in Circulation at the time of Dr. Lopes’s presentation.
The study received funding from Ferring Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Lopes reports financial relationships with Bristol-Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, Medtronic, Pfizer, and Sanofi. Dr. Suter reports financial relationships with Boehringer Ingelheim, GlaxoSmithKline, and Roche. Dr. de Boer reports financial relationships with AstraZeneca, Abbott, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, and Roche.
The first global trial to compare the cardiovascular (CV) safety of two therapies for prostate cancer proved inconclusive because of inadequate enrollment and events, but the study is a harbinger of growth in the emerging specialty of cardio-oncology, according to experts.
“Many new cancer agents have extended patient survival, yet some of these agents have significant potential cardiovascular toxicity,” said Renato D. Lopes, MD, in presenting a study at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.
In the context of improving survival in patients with or at risk for both cancer and cardiovascular disease, he suggested that the prostate cancer study he led could be “a model for interdisciplinary collaboration” needed to address the relative and sometimes competing risks of these disease states.
This point was seconded by several pioneers in cardio-oncology who participated in the discussion of the results of the trial, called PRONOUNCE.
“We know many drugs in oncology increase cardiovascular risk, so these are the types of trials we need,” according Thomas M. Suter, MD, who leads the cardio-oncology service at the University Hospital, Berne, Switzerland. He was the ESC-invited discussant for PRONOUNCE.
More than 100 centers in 12 countries involved
In PRONOUNCE, 545 patients with prostate cancer and established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease were randomized to degarelix, a gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist, or leuprolide, a GnRH agonist. The patients were enrolled at 113 participating centers in 12 countries. All of the patients had an indication for an androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT).
In numerous previous studies, “ADT has been associated with higher CV morbidity and mortality, particularly in men with preexisting CV disease,” explained Dr. Lopes, but the relative cardiovascular safety of GnRH agonists relative to GnRH antagonists has been “controversial.”
The PRONOUNCE study was designed to resolve this issue, but the study was terminated early because of slow enrollment (not related to the COVID-19 pandemic). The planned enrollment was 900 patients.
In addition, the rate of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), defined as myocardial infarction, stroke, or death, was lower over the course of follow-up than anticipated in the study design.
No significant difference on primary endpoint
At the end of 12 months, MACE occurred in 11 (4.1%) of patients randomized to leuprolide and 15 (5.5%) of those randomized to degarelix. The greater hazard ratio for MACE in the degarelix group did not approach statistical significance (hazard ratio, 1.28; P = .53).
As a result, the question of the relative CV safety of these drugs “remains unresolved,” according to Dr. Lopes, professor of medicine at Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C.
This does not diminish the need to answer this question. In the addition to the fact that cancer is a malignancy primarily of advancing age when CV disease is prevalent – the mean age in this study was 73 years and 44% were over age 75 – it is often an indolent disease with long periods of survival, according to Dr. Lopes. About half of prostate cancer patients have concomitant CV disease, and about half will receive ADT at some point in their treatment.
In patients receiving ADT, leuprolide is far more commonly used than GnRH antagonists, which are offered in only about 4% of patients, according to data cited by Dr. Lopes. The underlying hypothesis of this study was that leuprolide is associated with greater CV risk, which might have been relevant to a risk-benefit calculation, if the hypothesis had been confirmed.
Cancer drugs can increase CV risk
Based on experimental data, “there is concern the leuprolide is involved in plaque destabilization,” said Dr. Lopes, but he noted that ADTs in general are associated with adverse metabolic changes, including increases in LDL cholesterol, insulin resistance, and body fat, all of which could be relevant to CV risk.
It is the improving rates of survival for prostate cancer as well for other types of cancer that have increased attention to the potential for cancer drugs to increase CV risk, another major cause of early mortality. For these competing risks, objective data are needed to evaluate a relative risk-to-benefit ratio for treatment choices.
This dilemma led the ESC to recently establish its Council on Cardio-Oncology, and many centers around the world are also creating interdisciplinary groups to guide treatment choices for patients with both diseases.
“You will certainly get a lot of referrals,” said Rudolf de Boer, MD, professor of translational cardiology, University Medical Center, Groningen, Netherlands. Basing his remark on his own experience starting a cardio-oncology clinic at his institution, he called this work challenging and agreed that the need for objective data is urgent.
“We need data to provide common ground on which to judge relative risks,” Dr. de Boer said. He also praised the PRONOUNCE investigators for their efforts even if the data failed to answer the question posed.
The PRONOUNCE results were published online in Circulation at the time of Dr. Lopes’s presentation.
The study received funding from Ferring Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Lopes reports financial relationships with Bristol-Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, Medtronic, Pfizer, and Sanofi. Dr. Suter reports financial relationships with Boehringer Ingelheim, GlaxoSmithKline, and Roche. Dr. de Boer reports financial relationships with AstraZeneca, Abbott, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, and Roche.
The first global trial to compare the cardiovascular (CV) safety of two therapies for prostate cancer proved inconclusive because of inadequate enrollment and events, but the study is a harbinger of growth in the emerging specialty of cardio-oncology, according to experts.
“Many new cancer agents have extended patient survival, yet some of these agents have significant potential cardiovascular toxicity,” said Renato D. Lopes, MD, in presenting a study at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.
In the context of improving survival in patients with or at risk for both cancer and cardiovascular disease, he suggested that the prostate cancer study he led could be “a model for interdisciplinary collaboration” needed to address the relative and sometimes competing risks of these disease states.
This point was seconded by several pioneers in cardio-oncology who participated in the discussion of the results of the trial, called PRONOUNCE.
“We know many drugs in oncology increase cardiovascular risk, so these are the types of trials we need,” according Thomas M. Suter, MD, who leads the cardio-oncology service at the University Hospital, Berne, Switzerland. He was the ESC-invited discussant for PRONOUNCE.
More than 100 centers in 12 countries involved
In PRONOUNCE, 545 patients with prostate cancer and established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease were randomized to degarelix, a gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist, or leuprolide, a GnRH agonist. The patients were enrolled at 113 participating centers in 12 countries. All of the patients had an indication for an androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT).
In numerous previous studies, “ADT has been associated with higher CV morbidity and mortality, particularly in men with preexisting CV disease,” explained Dr. Lopes, but the relative cardiovascular safety of GnRH agonists relative to GnRH antagonists has been “controversial.”
The PRONOUNCE study was designed to resolve this issue, but the study was terminated early because of slow enrollment (not related to the COVID-19 pandemic). The planned enrollment was 900 patients.
In addition, the rate of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), defined as myocardial infarction, stroke, or death, was lower over the course of follow-up than anticipated in the study design.
No significant difference on primary endpoint
At the end of 12 months, MACE occurred in 11 (4.1%) of patients randomized to leuprolide and 15 (5.5%) of those randomized to degarelix. The greater hazard ratio for MACE in the degarelix group did not approach statistical significance (hazard ratio, 1.28; P = .53).
As a result, the question of the relative CV safety of these drugs “remains unresolved,” according to Dr. Lopes, professor of medicine at Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C.
This does not diminish the need to answer this question. In the addition to the fact that cancer is a malignancy primarily of advancing age when CV disease is prevalent – the mean age in this study was 73 years and 44% were over age 75 – it is often an indolent disease with long periods of survival, according to Dr. Lopes. About half of prostate cancer patients have concomitant CV disease, and about half will receive ADT at some point in their treatment.
In patients receiving ADT, leuprolide is far more commonly used than GnRH antagonists, which are offered in only about 4% of patients, according to data cited by Dr. Lopes. The underlying hypothesis of this study was that leuprolide is associated with greater CV risk, which might have been relevant to a risk-benefit calculation, if the hypothesis had been confirmed.
Cancer drugs can increase CV risk
Based on experimental data, “there is concern the leuprolide is involved in plaque destabilization,” said Dr. Lopes, but he noted that ADTs in general are associated with adverse metabolic changes, including increases in LDL cholesterol, insulin resistance, and body fat, all of which could be relevant to CV risk.
It is the improving rates of survival for prostate cancer as well for other types of cancer that have increased attention to the potential for cancer drugs to increase CV risk, another major cause of early mortality. For these competing risks, objective data are needed to evaluate a relative risk-to-benefit ratio for treatment choices.
This dilemma led the ESC to recently establish its Council on Cardio-Oncology, and many centers around the world are also creating interdisciplinary groups to guide treatment choices for patients with both diseases.
“You will certainly get a lot of referrals,” said Rudolf de Boer, MD, professor of translational cardiology, University Medical Center, Groningen, Netherlands. Basing his remark on his own experience starting a cardio-oncology clinic at his institution, he called this work challenging and agreed that the need for objective data is urgent.
“We need data to provide common ground on which to judge relative risks,” Dr. de Boer said. He also praised the PRONOUNCE investigators for their efforts even if the data failed to answer the question posed.
The PRONOUNCE results were published online in Circulation at the time of Dr. Lopes’s presentation.
The study received funding from Ferring Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Lopes reports financial relationships with Bristol-Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, Medtronic, Pfizer, and Sanofi. Dr. Suter reports financial relationships with Boehringer Ingelheim, GlaxoSmithKline, and Roche. Dr. de Boer reports financial relationships with AstraZeneca, Abbott, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, and Roche.
FROM ESC 2021