Pharmacology

Physicians often face the choice of whether to treat elderly patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) with a full or reduced dose intensity (DI) of R-CHOP (cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisolone + rituximab), according to Edward J. Bataillard of the Imperial College Healthcare National Health Service Trust, London, and colleagues.

To address this issue, the researchers conducted a systematic review assessing the impact of R-CHOP DI on DLBCL survival outcomes, according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses for Protocols (PRISMA-P) guidelines. They found that greater than 80 years of age is an important cutoff for treating patients with a reduced R-CHOP dosage, according to their results, published in Blood Advances (2021;5[9]:2426-37).

Cutoff at 80 years of age

Their final review comprised 13 studies including 5,188 patients. Overall, the lower DI (intended or relative) was associated with inferior survival in seven of nine studies reporting crude survival analyses. In addition, most studies and those larger studies of higher quality showed poorer outcomes associated with reduced R-CHOP DI.

However, in subgroups of patients aged 80 years or more, survival was not consistently affected by the use of lower dosage R-CHOP, according to the researchers.

“We found evidence of improved survival with higher RDIs (up to R-CHOP-21) in those aged < 80 years, but the literature to date does not support full-dose intensity in those 80 years [or older],” they stated.

However, the researchers concluded that: “In the absence of improved options beyond R-CHOP in DLBCL over the past 20 years, prospective studies of DI are warranted, despite the recognized challenges involved.”

Two of the authors reported being previously employed by Roche. A third served as a consultant and adviser and received honoraria from Roche and other pharmaceutical companies. Several authors reported disclosures related to multiple other pharmaceutical companies.

[email protected]

Physicians often face the choice of whether to treat elderly patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) with a full or reduced dose intensity (DI) of R-CHOP (cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisolone + rituximab), according to Edward J. Bataillard of the Imperial College Healthcare National Health Service Trust, London, and colleagues.

To address this issue, the researchers conducted a systematic review assessing the impact of R-CHOP DI on DLBCL survival outcomes, according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses for Protocols (PRISMA-P) guidelines. They found that greater than 80 years of age is an important cutoff for treating patients with a reduced R-CHOP dosage, according to their results, published in Blood Advances (2021;5[9]:2426-37).

Cutoff at 80 years of age

Their final review comprised 13 studies including 5,188 patients. Overall, the lower DI (intended or relative) was associated with inferior survival in seven of nine studies reporting crude survival analyses. In addition, most studies and those larger studies of higher quality showed poorer outcomes associated with reduced R-CHOP DI.

However, in subgroups of patients aged 80 years or more, survival was not consistently affected by the use of lower dosage R-CHOP, according to the researchers.

“We found evidence of improved survival with higher RDIs (up to R-CHOP-21) in those aged < 80 years, but the literature to date does not support full-dose intensity in those 80 years [or older],” they stated.

However, the researchers concluded that: “In the absence of improved options beyond R-CHOP in DLBCL over the past 20 years, prospective studies of DI are warranted, despite the recognized challenges involved.”

Two of the authors reported being previously employed by Roche. A third served as a consultant and adviser and received honoraria from Roche and other pharmaceutical companies. Several authors reported disclosures related to multiple other pharmaceutical companies.

[email protected]

Physicians often face the choice of whether to treat elderly patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) with a full or reduced dose intensity (DI) of R-CHOP (cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisolone + rituximab), according to Edward J. Bataillard of the Imperial College Healthcare National Health Service Trust, London, and colleagues.

To address this issue, the researchers conducted a systematic review assessing the impact of R-CHOP DI on DLBCL survival outcomes, according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses for Protocols (PRISMA-P) guidelines. They found that greater than 80 years of age is an important cutoff for treating patients with a reduced R-CHOP dosage, according to their results, published in Blood Advances (2021;5[9]:2426-37).

Cutoff at 80 years of age

Their final review comprised 13 studies including 5,188 patients. Overall, the lower DI (intended or relative) was associated with inferior survival in seven of nine studies reporting crude survival analyses. In addition, most studies and those larger studies of higher quality showed poorer outcomes associated with reduced R-CHOP DI.

However, in subgroups of patients aged 80 years or more, survival was not consistently affected by the use of lower dosage R-CHOP, according to the researchers.

“We found evidence of improved survival with higher RDIs (up to R-CHOP-21) in those aged < 80 years, but the literature to date does not support full-dose intensity in those 80 years [or older],” they stated.

However, the researchers concluded that: “In the absence of improved options beyond R-CHOP in DLBCL over the past 20 years, prospective studies of DI are warranted, despite the recognized challenges involved.”

Two of the authors reported being previously employed by Roche. A third served as a consultant and adviser and received honoraria from Roche and other pharmaceutical companies. Several authors reported disclosures related to multiple other pharmaceutical companies.

[email protected]

Treating insulin resistance may improve treatment-resistant bipolar depression, early research suggests.

In a randomized, placebo-controlled trial, treatment with the diabetes drug metformin reversed insulin resistance in 50% of patients, and this reversal was associated with significant improvement of depressive symptoms. One patient randomly assigned to placebo also achieved a reversal of insulin resistance and improved depressive symptoms.

“The study needs replication, but this early clinical trial suggests that the mitigation of insulin resistance by metformin significantly improves depressive symptoms in a significant percentage of treatment resistant bipolar patients,” presenting author Jessica M. Gannon, MD, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center (UPMC), said in an interview.

“It looks like in treatment-resistant bipolar depression, treating insulin resistance is a way to get people well again, to get out of their depression,” principal investigator Cynthia Calkin, MD, Dalhousie University, Halifax, N.S., added.

The findings were presented at the virtual American Society of Clinical Psychopharmacology 2021 Annual Meeting.
 

Chronic inflammation

The study was a joint effort by UPMC and Dalhousie University and was sponsored by the Stanley Medical Research Institute.

Patients with bipolar disorder (BD) who are obese tend to have more serious illness, with a more chronic course, more rapid cycling, and more morbidity. These patients also fail to respond to lithium, Dr. Calkin said.

“Untreated hyperinsulinemia could be contributing to a state of chronic inflammation and be involved in disease progression. So the question for me was, if we treat this insulin resistance, would patients get better?” she said.

Dr. Calkin said investigators used metformin because it is already used by psychiatrists for weight management in patients on antipsychotics.

“I wanted to test the drug that would work to reverse insulin resistance and that psychiatrists would be comfortable prescribing,” she said.

The 26-week study randomly assigned 20 patients to receive metformin and 25 patients to placebo.

All participants were 18 years and older, had a diagnosis of BD I or II, and had nonremitting BD defined by moderate depressive symptoms as measured on the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) score of 15 or greater, despite being on optimal, guideline-compatible treatment.

All patients were stable, were on optimal doses of mood-stabilizing medications for at least 4 weeks prior to study entry, and had insulin resistance as defined by a Homeostatic Model Assessment for Insulin Resistance (HOMA-IR) ≥1.8.

Characteristics were similar between the two groups, including baseline MADRS scores, body mass index, fasting glucose and insulin serum levels.

Patients were titrated up to 2,000 mg of metformin, which was the full dose, over 2 weeks and then maintained on treatment for a further 24 weeks.
 

Highly resistant population

The study’s primary outcome measure was change in MADRS score, with a response defined as a 30% reduction in MADRS from baseline.

By week 14, 10 metformin-treated patients (50%) and one patient in the placebo group (4%) no longer met insulin resistance criteria.

“It was a bit of a surprise to me that 50% of patients converted to being insulin sensitive again. When you use metformin to treat diabetes, people respond to it at more than a 50% rate, so I was expecting more people to respond,” Dr. Calkin said.

Nevertheless, the 11 patients who did respond and reversed insulin resistance achieved greater reduction in MADRS scores compared with nonconverters.

“Those who reversed their insulin resistance showed a remarkable resolution in their depressive symptoms. The reduction in MADRS scores began at week six, and were maintained through to the end of the study, and the Cohen’s d effect size for MADRS depression scores for converters was 0.52 at week 14 and 0.55 at week 26,” Dr. Calkin said.

“They were moderately to severely depressed going in, and at the end of the study, they had mild residual depressive symptoms, or they were completely well. These were very treatment-resistant patients.”

“All had failed, on average, eight or nine trials in their lifetime. When they came to us, nothing else would work. That’s one of the remarkable things about our results, just how well they responded when they had not responded to any other psychotropic medications. This approach may be very helpful for some patients,” Dr. Calkin said.
 

A holistic approach

Commenting on the study, Michael E. Thase, MD, professor of psychiatry, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said the findings need to be replicated but provide further support for the broader strategy of taking a holistic approach to the care of patients with difficult-to-treat mood disorders.

“Approximately one-half of people with treatment-resistant bipolar depression showed evidence of glucose resistance, and that adjunctive treatment with metformin, a medication that enhances insulin sensitivity, was moderately effective in normalizing glucose metabolism, with about a 50% response rate. Among those who experienced improved glucose regulation, there was a significant reduction in depressive symptoms,” he noted.

The study was funded by the Stanley Medical Research Institute (SMRI). Dr. Calkin and Dr. Thase have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Treating insulin resistance may improve treatment-resistant bipolar depression, early research suggests.

In a randomized, placebo-controlled trial, treatment with the diabetes drug metformin reversed insulin resistance in 50% of patients, and this reversal was associated with significant improvement of depressive symptoms. One patient randomly assigned to placebo also achieved a reversal of insulin resistance and improved depressive symptoms.

“The study needs replication, but this early clinical trial suggests that the mitigation of insulin resistance by metformin significantly improves depressive symptoms in a significant percentage of treatment resistant bipolar patients,” presenting author Jessica M. Gannon, MD, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center (UPMC), said in an interview.

“It looks like in treatment-resistant bipolar depression, treating insulin resistance is a way to get people well again, to get out of their depression,” principal investigator Cynthia Calkin, MD, Dalhousie University, Halifax, N.S., added.

The findings were presented at the virtual American Society of Clinical Psychopharmacology 2021 Annual Meeting.
 

Chronic inflammation

The study was a joint effort by UPMC and Dalhousie University and was sponsored by the Stanley Medical Research Institute.

Patients with bipolar disorder (BD) who are obese tend to have more serious illness, with a more chronic course, more rapid cycling, and more morbidity. These patients also fail to respond to lithium, Dr. Calkin said.

“Untreated hyperinsulinemia could be contributing to a state of chronic inflammation and be involved in disease progression. So the question for me was, if we treat this insulin resistance, would patients get better?” she said.

Dr. Calkin said investigators used metformin because it is already used by psychiatrists for weight management in patients on antipsychotics.

“I wanted to test the drug that would work to reverse insulin resistance and that psychiatrists would be comfortable prescribing,” she said.

The 26-week study randomly assigned 20 patients to receive metformin and 25 patients to placebo.

All participants were 18 years and older, had a diagnosis of BD I or II, and had nonremitting BD defined by moderate depressive symptoms as measured on the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) score of 15 or greater, despite being on optimal, guideline-compatible treatment.

All patients were stable, were on optimal doses of mood-stabilizing medications for at least 4 weeks prior to study entry, and had insulin resistance as defined by a Homeostatic Model Assessment for Insulin Resistance (HOMA-IR) ≥1.8.

Characteristics were similar between the two groups, including baseline MADRS scores, body mass index, fasting glucose and insulin serum levels.

Patients were titrated up to 2,000 mg of metformin, which was the full dose, over 2 weeks and then maintained on treatment for a further 24 weeks.
 

Highly resistant population

The study’s primary outcome measure was change in MADRS score, with a response defined as a 30% reduction in MADRS from baseline.

By week 14, 10 metformin-treated patients (50%) and one patient in the placebo group (4%) no longer met insulin resistance criteria.

“It was a bit of a surprise to me that 50% of patients converted to being insulin sensitive again. When you use metformin to treat diabetes, people respond to it at more than a 50% rate, so I was expecting more people to respond,” Dr. Calkin said.

Nevertheless, the 11 patients who did respond and reversed insulin resistance achieved greater reduction in MADRS scores compared with nonconverters.

“Those who reversed their insulin resistance showed a remarkable resolution in their depressive symptoms. The reduction in MADRS scores began at week six, and were maintained through to the end of the study, and the Cohen’s d effect size for MADRS depression scores for converters was 0.52 at week 14 and 0.55 at week 26,” Dr. Calkin said.

“They were moderately to severely depressed going in, and at the end of the study, they had mild residual depressive symptoms, or they were completely well. These were very treatment-resistant patients.”

“All had failed, on average, eight or nine trials in their lifetime. When they came to us, nothing else would work. That’s one of the remarkable things about our results, just how well they responded when they had not responded to any other psychotropic medications. This approach may be very helpful for some patients,” Dr. Calkin said.
 

A holistic approach

Commenting on the study, Michael E. Thase, MD, professor of psychiatry, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said the findings need to be replicated but provide further support for the broader strategy of taking a holistic approach to the care of patients with difficult-to-treat mood disorders.

“Approximately one-half of people with treatment-resistant bipolar depression showed evidence of glucose resistance, and that adjunctive treatment with metformin, a medication that enhances insulin sensitivity, was moderately effective in normalizing glucose metabolism, with about a 50% response rate. Among those who experienced improved glucose regulation, there was a significant reduction in depressive symptoms,” he noted.

The study was funded by the Stanley Medical Research Institute (SMRI). Dr. Calkin and Dr. Thase have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Treating insulin resistance may improve treatment-resistant bipolar depression, early research suggests.

In a randomized, placebo-controlled trial, treatment with the diabetes drug metformin reversed insulin resistance in 50% of patients, and this reversal was associated with significant improvement of depressive symptoms. One patient randomly assigned to placebo also achieved a reversal of insulin resistance and improved depressive symptoms.

“The study needs replication, but this early clinical trial suggests that the mitigation of insulin resistance by metformin significantly improves depressive symptoms in a significant percentage of treatment resistant bipolar patients,” presenting author Jessica M. Gannon, MD, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center (UPMC), said in an interview.

“It looks like in treatment-resistant bipolar depression, treating insulin resistance is a way to get people well again, to get out of their depression,” principal investigator Cynthia Calkin, MD, Dalhousie University, Halifax, N.S., added.

The findings were presented at the virtual American Society of Clinical Psychopharmacology 2021 Annual Meeting.
 

Chronic inflammation

The study was a joint effort by UPMC and Dalhousie University and was sponsored by the Stanley Medical Research Institute.

Patients with bipolar disorder (BD) who are obese tend to have more serious illness, with a more chronic course, more rapid cycling, and more morbidity. These patients also fail to respond to lithium, Dr. Calkin said.

“Untreated hyperinsulinemia could be contributing to a state of chronic inflammation and be involved in disease progression. So the question for me was, if we treat this insulin resistance, would patients get better?” she said.

Dr. Calkin said investigators used metformin because it is already used by psychiatrists for weight management in patients on antipsychotics.

“I wanted to test the drug that would work to reverse insulin resistance and that psychiatrists would be comfortable prescribing,” she said.

The 26-week study randomly assigned 20 patients to receive metformin and 25 patients to placebo.

All participants were 18 years and older, had a diagnosis of BD I or II, and had nonremitting BD defined by moderate depressive symptoms as measured on the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) score of 15 or greater, despite being on optimal, guideline-compatible treatment.

All patients were stable, were on optimal doses of mood-stabilizing medications for at least 4 weeks prior to study entry, and had insulin resistance as defined by a Homeostatic Model Assessment for Insulin Resistance (HOMA-IR) ≥1.8.

Characteristics were similar between the two groups, including baseline MADRS scores, body mass index, fasting glucose and insulin serum levels.

Patients were titrated up to 2,000 mg of metformin, which was the full dose, over 2 weeks and then maintained on treatment for a further 24 weeks.
 

Highly resistant population

The study’s primary outcome measure was change in MADRS score, with a response defined as a 30% reduction in MADRS from baseline.

By week 14, 10 metformin-treated patients (50%) and one patient in the placebo group (4%) no longer met insulin resistance criteria.

“It was a bit of a surprise to me that 50% of patients converted to being insulin sensitive again. When you use metformin to treat diabetes, people respond to it at more than a 50% rate, so I was expecting more people to respond,” Dr. Calkin said.

Nevertheless, the 11 patients who did respond and reversed insulin resistance achieved greater reduction in MADRS scores compared with nonconverters.

“Those who reversed their insulin resistance showed a remarkable resolution in their depressive symptoms. The reduction in MADRS scores began at week six, and were maintained through to the end of the study, and the Cohen’s d effect size for MADRS depression scores for converters was 0.52 at week 14 and 0.55 at week 26,” Dr. Calkin said.

“They were moderately to severely depressed going in, and at the end of the study, they had mild residual depressive symptoms, or they were completely well. These were very treatment-resistant patients.”

“All had failed, on average, eight or nine trials in their lifetime. When they came to us, nothing else would work. That’s one of the remarkable things about our results, just how well they responded when they had not responded to any other psychotropic medications. This approach may be very helpful for some patients,” Dr. Calkin said.
 

A holistic approach

Commenting on the study, Michael E. Thase, MD, professor of psychiatry, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said the findings need to be replicated but provide further support for the broader strategy of taking a holistic approach to the care of patients with difficult-to-treat mood disorders.

“Approximately one-half of people with treatment-resistant bipolar depression showed evidence of glucose resistance, and that adjunctive treatment with metformin, a medication that enhances insulin sensitivity, was moderately effective in normalizing glucose metabolism, with about a 50% response rate. Among those who experienced improved glucose regulation, there was a significant reduction in depressive symptoms,” he noted.

The study was funded by the Stanley Medical Research Institute (SMRI). Dr. Calkin and Dr. Thase have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Amid significant controversy, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved the anti-amyloid agent aducanumab (Biogen, Eisai) for the treatment of Alzheimer’s disease, disregarding the recommendation by its own advisory panel not to approve the drug.

In November, the Peripheral and Central Nervous System Drugs Advisory Committee voted eight to one against approving the drug because, based on clinical trial results, evidence of efficacy was not strong enough. Two other members said they were uncertain on the issue of efficacy.

In a company release Michel Vounatsos, Biogen’s Chief Executive Officer, said, “this historic moment is the culmination of more than a decade of groundbreaking research in the complex field of Alzheimer’s disease. We believe this first-in-class medicine will transform the treatment of people living with Alzheimer’s disease and spark continuous innovation in the years to come.
 

Rocky road

The road to approval has been extremely rocky for aducanumab, an anti-amyloid-beta human monoclonal antibody, previously known as BIIB037.

As reported by this news organization, two phase 3 trials evaluating the drug were initially scrapped in March 2019 because of interim futility analysis. At the time, Biogen released a statement saying that aducanumab was unlikely to meet primary endpoints in the ENGAGE and EMERGE randomized controlled trials.

However, in an about-face 7 months later, Biogen and Eisai announced that a  new analysis showed the drug met its primary endpoint of reduction in clinical decline, including cognition and function, in the EMERGE trial.

Although ENGAGE still didn’t meet its primary endpoint, data from its new analysis “supported” the EMERGE findings, the drug companies said at the time.

However, 1 year later, a majority of the members of the FDA’s advisory panel were against the drug’s approval. Details of that decision were published online March 30 in the Journal of the American Medical Association.

As reported by this news organization, a Viewpoint written by three of the committee members notes that results from the drug’s only large positive clinical trial fell short.

“There is no persuasive evidence to support approval of aducanumab at this time,” they write.

Groups such as Public Citizen’s Health Research Group not only agree with the Viewpoint’s authors, they also criticized the FDA for its collaboration with the drug’s manufacturers on briefing documents and more.

On April 1, Health Research Group members sent a letter to the U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services requesting the temporary suspension of the FDA’s neuroscience chief, Bill Dunn, MD, because of his role in supervising the collaboration.
 

Alzheimer association weighs in

The Alzheimer’s Association has been a proponent of the drug throughout its development.

Ahead of today’s news, the organization noted in a statement that a decision to approve “would be historic” because it would make aducanumab “the first drug to slow Alzheimer’s disease” and would mark the beginning of a new future for AD treatments.

“The Alzheimer’s Association urgently supports FDA approval of the treatment based on clinical trial results that showed a 22% reduction in cognitive and function decline — something that could make a meaningful difference” for patients with AD, it said.

Kristen Clifford, chief program officer for the Alzheimer’s Association, said in an interview at the time that approval would be considered a “victory” for patients with AD and for the field overall.

“For individuals who would potentially be eligible for the treatment, this drug could mean more quality time. Slowing decline, particularly in early diagnosis, could add weeks or months or maybe even years of active life,” Clifford said.

“If approved, this would really be a landmark moment. And it could provide hope for those living with Alzheimer’s and their families,” she added.

Clifford noted that approval of this type of drug would also underscore the importance of early detection for AD. “This treatment would encourage earlier diagnosis of the disease,” she said.

In a new statement released just after approval for aducanumab was announced, the organization said that today’s news is a win-win for all patients with AD and their families.

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

Amid significant controversy, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved the anti-amyloid agent aducanumab (Biogen, Eisai) for the treatment of Alzheimer’s disease, disregarding the recommendation by its own advisory panel not to approve the drug.

In November, the Peripheral and Central Nervous System Drugs Advisory Committee voted eight to one against approving the drug because, based on clinical trial results, evidence of efficacy was not strong enough. Two other members said they were uncertain on the issue of efficacy.

In a company release Michel Vounatsos, Biogen’s Chief Executive Officer, said, “this historic moment is the culmination of more than a decade of groundbreaking research in the complex field of Alzheimer’s disease. We believe this first-in-class medicine will transform the treatment of people living with Alzheimer’s disease and spark continuous innovation in the years to come.
 

Rocky road

The road to approval has been extremely rocky for aducanumab, an anti-amyloid-beta human monoclonal antibody, previously known as BIIB037.

As reported by this news organization, two phase 3 trials evaluating the drug were initially scrapped in March 2019 because of interim futility analysis. At the time, Biogen released a statement saying that aducanumab was unlikely to meet primary endpoints in the ENGAGE and EMERGE randomized controlled trials.

However, in an about-face 7 months later, Biogen and Eisai announced that a  new analysis showed the drug met its primary endpoint of reduction in clinical decline, including cognition and function, in the EMERGE trial.

Although ENGAGE still didn’t meet its primary endpoint, data from its new analysis “supported” the EMERGE findings, the drug companies said at the time.

However, 1 year later, a majority of the members of the FDA’s advisory panel were against the drug’s approval. Details of that decision were published online March 30 in the Journal of the American Medical Association.

As reported by this news organization, a Viewpoint written by three of the committee members notes that results from the drug’s only large positive clinical trial fell short.

“There is no persuasive evidence to support approval of aducanumab at this time,” they write.

Groups such as Public Citizen’s Health Research Group not only agree with the Viewpoint’s authors, they also criticized the FDA for its collaboration with the drug’s manufacturers on briefing documents and more.

On April 1, Health Research Group members sent a letter to the U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services requesting the temporary suspension of the FDA’s neuroscience chief, Bill Dunn, MD, because of his role in supervising the collaboration.
 

Alzheimer association weighs in

The Alzheimer’s Association has been a proponent of the drug throughout its development.

Ahead of today’s news, the organization noted in a statement that a decision to approve “would be historic” because it would make aducanumab “the first drug to slow Alzheimer’s disease” and would mark the beginning of a new future for AD treatments.

“The Alzheimer’s Association urgently supports FDA approval of the treatment based on clinical trial results that showed a 22% reduction in cognitive and function decline — something that could make a meaningful difference” for patients with AD, it said.

Kristen Clifford, chief program officer for the Alzheimer’s Association, said in an interview at the time that approval would be considered a “victory” for patients with AD and for the field overall.

“For individuals who would potentially be eligible for the treatment, this drug could mean more quality time. Slowing decline, particularly in early diagnosis, could add weeks or months or maybe even years of active life,” Clifford said.

“If approved, this would really be a landmark moment. And it could provide hope for those living with Alzheimer’s and their families,” she added.

Clifford noted that approval of this type of drug would also underscore the importance of early detection for AD. “This treatment would encourage earlier diagnosis of the disease,” she said.

In a new statement released just after approval for aducanumab was announced, the organization said that today’s news is a win-win for all patients with AD and their families.

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

Amid significant controversy, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved the anti-amyloid agent aducanumab (Biogen, Eisai) for the treatment of Alzheimer’s disease, disregarding the recommendation by its own advisory panel not to approve the drug.

In November, the Peripheral and Central Nervous System Drugs Advisory Committee voted eight to one against approving the drug because, based on clinical trial results, evidence of efficacy was not strong enough. Two other members said they were uncertain on the issue of efficacy.

In a company release Michel Vounatsos, Biogen’s Chief Executive Officer, said, “this historic moment is the culmination of more than a decade of groundbreaking research in the complex field of Alzheimer’s disease. We believe this first-in-class medicine will transform the treatment of people living with Alzheimer’s disease and spark continuous innovation in the years to come.
 

Rocky road

The road to approval has been extremely rocky for aducanumab, an anti-amyloid-beta human monoclonal antibody, previously known as BIIB037.

As reported by this news organization, two phase 3 trials evaluating the drug were initially scrapped in March 2019 because of interim futility analysis. At the time, Biogen released a statement saying that aducanumab was unlikely to meet primary endpoints in the ENGAGE and EMERGE randomized controlled trials.

However, in an about-face 7 months later, Biogen and Eisai announced that a  new analysis showed the drug met its primary endpoint of reduction in clinical decline, including cognition and function, in the EMERGE trial.

Although ENGAGE still didn’t meet its primary endpoint, data from its new analysis “supported” the EMERGE findings, the drug companies said at the time.

However, 1 year later, a majority of the members of the FDA’s advisory panel were against the drug’s approval. Details of that decision were published online March 30 in the Journal of the American Medical Association.

As reported by this news organization, a Viewpoint written by three of the committee members notes that results from the drug’s only large positive clinical trial fell short.

“There is no persuasive evidence to support approval of aducanumab at this time,” they write.

Groups such as Public Citizen’s Health Research Group not only agree with the Viewpoint’s authors, they also criticized the FDA for its collaboration with the drug’s manufacturers on briefing documents and more.

On April 1, Health Research Group members sent a letter to the U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services requesting the temporary suspension of the FDA’s neuroscience chief, Bill Dunn, MD, because of his role in supervising the collaboration.
 

Alzheimer association weighs in

The Alzheimer’s Association has been a proponent of the drug throughout its development.

Ahead of today’s news, the organization noted in a statement that a decision to approve “would be historic” because it would make aducanumab “the first drug to slow Alzheimer’s disease” and would mark the beginning of a new future for AD treatments.

“The Alzheimer’s Association urgently supports FDA approval of the treatment based on clinical trial results that showed a 22% reduction in cognitive and function decline — something that could make a meaningful difference” for patients with AD, it said.

Kristen Clifford, chief program officer for the Alzheimer’s Association, said in an interview at the time that approval would be considered a “victory” for patients with AD and for the field overall.

“For individuals who would potentially be eligible for the treatment, this drug could mean more quality time. Slowing decline, particularly in early diagnosis, could add weeks or months or maybe even years of active life,” Clifford said.

“If approved, this would really be a landmark moment. And it could provide hope for those living with Alzheimer’s and their families,” she added.

Clifford noted that approval of this type of drug would also underscore the importance of early detection for AD. “This treatment would encourage earlier diagnosis of the disease,” she said.

In a new statement released just after approval for aducanumab was announced, the organization said that today’s news is a win-win for all patients with AD and their families.

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

Reassuring news for women who receive a diagnosis of breast cancer during pregnancy: Pregnancy-induced alterations in the pharmacokinetics of chemotherapy do not appear to compromise outcomes for the mother.

That’s according to investigators who reviewed registry data on 662 pregnant women and 2,081 nonpregnant women with a diagnosis of breast cancer. After a median follow-up of 66 months, there were no significant differences in either disease-free survival (DFS) or overall survival (OS), and women who received more than 60% of their chemotherapy doses during pregnancy had survival comparable to that of nonpregnant women, reported Frédéric Amant, MD, PhD, of University Hospitals Leuven (Belgium).

“These results support initiation of chemotherapy for breast cancer during pregnancy where indicated for oncological reasons,” they reported in a poster discussion session at the American Society of Clinical Oncology annual meeting. (Abstract 515).

Although in general a diagnosis of breast cancer during pregnancy does not appear to affect the mother’s prognosis when standard therapy is used, “caution is warranted as gestational changes in pharmacokinetics with respect to the distribution, metabolism, and excretion of drugs may lead to reduced chemotherapy concentration in pregnant patients,” the authors wrote.

To get a better picture of the prognosis for women diagnosed with breast cancer during pregnancy, the investigators created a cohort of patients from two multicenter registries: the International Network of Cancer, Infertility, and Pregnancy and the German Breast Group. Both registries collect data retrospectively and prospectively,

They used propensity scoring to smooth out differences in the baseline characteristics of pregnant women and nonpregnant controls.

The median age at diagnosis was 34 year for pregnant women, and 38 years for controls. Pregnant women were more likely than were controls to have stage II disease (60.1% vs. 56, 1%, P = .035), grade 3 tumors (74% vs. 62.2%, P < .001), hormone receptor–negative breast tumors (48.4% vs. 30%), and triple-negative breast cancer (38.9% vs. 26.9%, P < .001).

In Cox proportional hazard regression analysis controlling for age, stage, grade, hormone receptor status, HER2 status and histology, there were no significant differences between pregnant women and controls in either DFS (hazard ratio [HR] 1.02, P = .83) or OS (HR 1.08, P = .57).

As noted before, a subgroup analysis of 339 women who received more than 60% of their assigned chemotherapy doses during pregnancy also showed that survival was not significantly different from that of nonpregnant women (HR for DFS 0,71, P = .13; HR for OS 0.85, P = .39).
 

Termination does not benefit the mother

“Thanks to the important work of Dr. Amant in the INCIP [International Network on Cancer, Infertility, and Pregnancy] network and others around the world, we now have sufficient data to know that it’s safe to treat breast cancer during pregnancy, and that the prognosis of breast cancer during pregnancy is comparable to nonpregnant controls if we adjust for certain characteristics such as age and others,” said Fatima Cardoso, MD, of Champalimaud Clinical Center in Lisbon, Portugal, the invited discussant.

­­“With this and other studies, we can come to the conclusion that pregnancy-induced alterations in the chemotherapy concentration due to altered pharmacokinetics does not seem to affect maternal prognosis, and therefore we should initiate treatment of breast cancer during wherever it’s indicated for oncological reasons, knowing that you can only use chemotherapy during the second or third trimester,” she said.

Dr. Cardoso emphasized that breast cancer during pregnancy is a rare situation requiring that treatment be given in a specialized center by an experienced multidisciplinary team, and that interrupting the pregnancy does not improve the mother’s prognosis.

“We have to spread the word to all health professionals who come across these women to stop advising them to immediately terminate pregnancy. For the children, the most important take-home message is avoid prematurely delivery,” she said.

Treatment for women with a diagnosis of breast cancer during pregnancy should be similar to that for nonpregnant women, with the exception of endocrine therapy and anti-HER2 agents, which should be withheld until after delivery, she added.

The study was supported by the European Research Council, Research Foundation Flanders, and Kom op tegen kanker (Stand Up to Cancer). Dr. Amant disclosed a consulting or advisory role for AstraZeneca and Clovis Oncology. Dr. Cardoso disclosed consulting or advisory roles and travel support from multiple companies.

Reassuring news for women who receive a diagnosis of breast cancer during pregnancy: Pregnancy-induced alterations in the pharmacokinetics of chemotherapy do not appear to compromise outcomes for the mother.

That’s according to investigators who reviewed registry data on 662 pregnant women and 2,081 nonpregnant women with a diagnosis of breast cancer. After a median follow-up of 66 months, there were no significant differences in either disease-free survival (DFS) or overall survival (OS), and women who received more than 60% of their chemotherapy doses during pregnancy had survival comparable to that of nonpregnant women, reported Frédéric Amant, MD, PhD, of University Hospitals Leuven (Belgium).

“These results support initiation of chemotherapy for breast cancer during pregnancy where indicated for oncological reasons,” they reported in a poster discussion session at the American Society of Clinical Oncology annual meeting. (Abstract 515).

Although in general a diagnosis of breast cancer during pregnancy does not appear to affect the mother’s prognosis when standard therapy is used, “caution is warranted as gestational changes in pharmacokinetics with respect to the distribution, metabolism, and excretion of drugs may lead to reduced chemotherapy concentration in pregnant patients,” the authors wrote.

To get a better picture of the prognosis for women diagnosed with breast cancer during pregnancy, the investigators created a cohort of patients from two multicenter registries: the International Network of Cancer, Infertility, and Pregnancy and the German Breast Group. Both registries collect data retrospectively and prospectively,

They used propensity scoring to smooth out differences in the baseline characteristics of pregnant women and nonpregnant controls.

The median age at diagnosis was 34 year for pregnant women, and 38 years for controls. Pregnant women were more likely than were controls to have stage II disease (60.1% vs. 56, 1%, P = .035), grade 3 tumors (74% vs. 62.2%, P < .001), hormone receptor–negative breast tumors (48.4% vs. 30%), and triple-negative breast cancer (38.9% vs. 26.9%, P < .001).

In Cox proportional hazard regression analysis controlling for age, stage, grade, hormone receptor status, HER2 status and histology, there were no significant differences between pregnant women and controls in either DFS (hazard ratio [HR] 1.02, P = .83) or OS (HR 1.08, P = .57).

As noted before, a subgroup analysis of 339 women who received more than 60% of their assigned chemotherapy doses during pregnancy also showed that survival was not significantly different from that of nonpregnant women (HR for DFS 0,71, P = .13; HR for OS 0.85, P = .39).
 

Termination does not benefit the mother

“Thanks to the important work of Dr. Amant in the INCIP [International Network on Cancer, Infertility, and Pregnancy] network and others around the world, we now have sufficient data to know that it’s safe to treat breast cancer during pregnancy, and that the prognosis of breast cancer during pregnancy is comparable to nonpregnant controls if we adjust for certain characteristics such as age and others,” said Fatima Cardoso, MD, of Champalimaud Clinical Center in Lisbon, Portugal, the invited discussant.

­­“With this and other studies, we can come to the conclusion that pregnancy-induced alterations in the chemotherapy concentration due to altered pharmacokinetics does not seem to affect maternal prognosis, and therefore we should initiate treatment of breast cancer during wherever it’s indicated for oncological reasons, knowing that you can only use chemotherapy during the second or third trimester,” she said.

Dr. Cardoso emphasized that breast cancer during pregnancy is a rare situation requiring that treatment be given in a specialized center by an experienced multidisciplinary team, and that interrupting the pregnancy does not improve the mother’s prognosis.

“We have to spread the word to all health professionals who come across these women to stop advising them to immediately terminate pregnancy. For the children, the most important take-home message is avoid prematurely delivery,” she said.

Treatment for women with a diagnosis of breast cancer during pregnancy should be similar to that for nonpregnant women, with the exception of endocrine therapy and anti-HER2 agents, which should be withheld until after delivery, she added.

The study was supported by the European Research Council, Research Foundation Flanders, and Kom op tegen kanker (Stand Up to Cancer). Dr. Amant disclosed a consulting or advisory role for AstraZeneca and Clovis Oncology. Dr. Cardoso disclosed consulting or advisory roles and travel support from multiple companies.

Reassuring news for women who receive a diagnosis of breast cancer during pregnancy: Pregnancy-induced alterations in the pharmacokinetics of chemotherapy do not appear to compromise outcomes for the mother.

That’s according to investigators who reviewed registry data on 662 pregnant women and 2,081 nonpregnant women with a diagnosis of breast cancer. After a median follow-up of 66 months, there were no significant differences in either disease-free survival (DFS) or overall survival (OS), and women who received more than 60% of their chemotherapy doses during pregnancy had survival comparable to that of nonpregnant women, reported Frédéric Amant, MD, PhD, of University Hospitals Leuven (Belgium).

“These results support initiation of chemotherapy for breast cancer during pregnancy where indicated for oncological reasons,” they reported in a poster discussion session at the American Society of Clinical Oncology annual meeting. (Abstract 515).

Although in general a diagnosis of breast cancer during pregnancy does not appear to affect the mother’s prognosis when standard therapy is used, “caution is warranted as gestational changes in pharmacokinetics with respect to the distribution, metabolism, and excretion of drugs may lead to reduced chemotherapy concentration in pregnant patients,” the authors wrote.

To get a better picture of the prognosis for women diagnosed with breast cancer during pregnancy, the investigators created a cohort of patients from two multicenter registries: the International Network of Cancer, Infertility, and Pregnancy and the German Breast Group. Both registries collect data retrospectively and prospectively,

They used propensity scoring to smooth out differences in the baseline characteristics of pregnant women and nonpregnant controls.

The median age at diagnosis was 34 year for pregnant women, and 38 years for controls. Pregnant women were more likely than were controls to have stage II disease (60.1% vs. 56, 1%, P = .035), grade 3 tumors (74% vs. 62.2%, P < .001), hormone receptor–negative breast tumors (48.4% vs. 30%), and triple-negative breast cancer (38.9% vs. 26.9%, P < .001).

In Cox proportional hazard regression analysis controlling for age, stage, grade, hormone receptor status, HER2 status and histology, there were no significant differences between pregnant women and controls in either DFS (hazard ratio [HR] 1.02, P = .83) or OS (HR 1.08, P = .57).

As noted before, a subgroup analysis of 339 women who received more than 60% of their assigned chemotherapy doses during pregnancy also showed that survival was not significantly different from that of nonpregnant women (HR for DFS 0,71, P = .13; HR for OS 0.85, P = .39).
 

Termination does not benefit the mother

“Thanks to the important work of Dr. Amant in the INCIP [International Network on Cancer, Infertility, and Pregnancy] network and others around the world, we now have sufficient data to know that it’s safe to treat breast cancer during pregnancy, and that the prognosis of breast cancer during pregnancy is comparable to nonpregnant controls if we adjust for certain characteristics such as age and others,” said Fatima Cardoso, MD, of Champalimaud Clinical Center in Lisbon, Portugal, the invited discussant.

­­“With this and other studies, we can come to the conclusion that pregnancy-induced alterations in the chemotherapy concentration due to altered pharmacokinetics does not seem to affect maternal prognosis, and therefore we should initiate treatment of breast cancer during wherever it’s indicated for oncological reasons, knowing that you can only use chemotherapy during the second or third trimester,” she said.

Dr. Cardoso emphasized that breast cancer during pregnancy is a rare situation requiring that treatment be given in a specialized center by an experienced multidisciplinary team, and that interrupting the pregnancy does not improve the mother’s prognosis.

“We have to spread the word to all health professionals who come across these women to stop advising them to immediately terminate pregnancy. For the children, the most important take-home message is avoid prematurely delivery,” she said.

Treatment for women with a diagnosis of breast cancer during pregnancy should be similar to that for nonpregnant women, with the exception of endocrine therapy and anti-HER2 agents, which should be withheld until after delivery, she added.

The study was supported by the European Research Council, Research Foundation Flanders, and Kom op tegen kanker (Stand Up to Cancer). Dr. Amant disclosed a consulting or advisory role for AstraZeneca and Clovis Oncology. Dr. Cardoso disclosed consulting or advisory roles and travel support from multiple companies.

The first KRAS inhibitor approved for the treatment of lung cancer provided a clinically meaningful overall survival benefit in an updated analysis of a phase 2 study.

Treatment with sotorasib yielded a median overall survival (OS) of 12.5 months in patients with previously treated KRAS p.G12C-mutated non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), according to an analysis of the phase 2 CodeBreaK 100 trial data presented at the American Society of Clinical Oncology Annual Meeting.

Median progression-free survival (PFS) was 6.8 months in this update, which included a median follow-up of more than 15 months, according to investigator Ferdinandos Skoulidis, MD, PhD, assistant professor of thoracic/head and neck medical oncology at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston.

Efficacy responses

The confirmed objective response rate was 37.1%, including a 3.2% complete response rate and a median duration of response of 11.1 months, according to the report by Dr. Skoulidis.

In exploratory analyses, the benefit of sotorasib was consistent across patient subgroups, Dr. Skoulidis said in his presentation (Abstract 9003).

In particular, efficacy was observed in subgroups with co-occurring mutations in TP53, STK11, and KEAP1, which are molecular indicators of suboptimal outcomes on standard systemic treatments, according to Dr. Skoulidis.

This update on the registrational phase 2 CodeBreaK100 trial, published concurrently in the New England Journal of Medicine , came just one week after the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) granted accelerated approval to sotorasib.

Sotorasib was approved for the treatment of patients with previously treated KRAS G12C‑mutated locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC on the basis of previously reported results from CodeBreaK100.

This sotorasib indication represents a “historic milestone,” Dr. Skoulidis said in an interview.

No previously studied selective KRAS inhibitor has been approved despite scientific research efforts that stretch back nearly four decades, he explained.

“In a way, one can say that we have dealt KRAS-mutant lung cancer a knockdown blow, however, I should point out that the fight is not over,” he added.

“These clinical results will no doubt spearhead and galvanize further efforts to develop even more effective therapeutic combinations in the future, as well as identify and either forestall or overcome the eventual development of acquired resistance,” he said.
 

Only 1 out of 8 patients

The KRAS p.G12C mutation is present in about 13% of lung adenocarcinomas, or about one in every eight patients with nonsquamous NSCLC, Dr. Skoulidis said in the interview.

“We are estimating that this is in the region of 13,000 patients newly diagnosed every year in the U.S., and approximately 13,000 patients or so that are currently being treated in the second- or third-line setting,” he said.

The CodeBreaK100 trial included 126 patients with locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC and KRAS p.G12C mutation who had progressed on prior systemic therapies. About 43% had one prior line of treatment, while 35% had two lines, and 22% had three lines. A total of 81% had previously received both platinum-based chemotherapy and PD-1/PD-L1 axis inhibitors.

Most treatment-related adverse events in the study were grade 1-2 and generally manageable, according to Dr. Skoulidis. About 20% of patients experienced grade 3 treatment-related adverse events, which were mostly diarrhea or increases in aspartate aminotransferase and alanine aminotransferase levels. A grade 4 treatment-related adverse event, pneumonitis and dyspnea, was reported in one patient or approximately 1%.
 

Confirmatory trial

Although CodeBreak100 is not a randomized trial, the median OS of 12.5 months compares favorably to median OS times in the range of 7.9-10.3 months reported in randomized phase 3 clinical trials and subgroup analysis of randomized phase 3 trials of docetaxel for patients with KRAS-mutant lung adenocarcinoma, Dr. Skoulidis said in a question-and-answer session.

A confirmatory phase 3 CodeBreaK200 trial of sotorasib versus docetaxel in patients with previously treated KRAS p.G12C-mutated NSCLC is underway. That trial is evaluating PFS as a primary endpoint and OS as a secondary endpoint.

“If the same magnitude of benefit, 12.5 months median overall survival, is confirmed in the larger phase 3 clinical trial, as a clinician I would consider that beneficial for patients, compared to the standard of care,” Dr. Skoulidis said during the session.
 

Mature data

The updated analysis of the phase 2 CodeBreaK100 study is notable for its mature OS data, updated safety and the first molecular subgroup analyses, according to discussant Christine Marie Lovly, MD, PhD, of the division of hematology-oncology at Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville.

“The objective response rate was 37.1%,” she added. “This is a little bit lower than we’re used to for targeted therapies, but remember, this is a different mutation and a very different class of drugs.”

The KRAS G12C inhibitors, several of which are under clinical development, are not tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs), but rather allele-specific inhibitors that target mutant KRAS, trapping it in an inactive conformation, she explained.

Dr. Lovly referenced the exploratory analyses demonstrating efficacy in molecularly defined subgroups, calling it “interesting” that there was no difference in objective response rate between TP53 wild type and mutant tumors.

“We do have data that mutant TP53 seems to confer inferior outcomes for EGFR TKI-directed therapy in patients with EGFR-mutant lung cancer,” she said.

CodeBreaK100 was supported by Amgen, Inc. and partly by a National Institutes of Health Cancer Center Support Grant at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center.

Dr. Skoulidis reported honoraria from Bristol-Myers Squibb; research funding from AIMM Therapeutics and Amgen; and travel, accommodations, or expenses from Tango Therapeutics. Dr. Lovly reported disclosures related to Amgen, AstraZeneca, Genentech, Novartis, and Pfizer, among others.

The first KRAS inhibitor approved for the treatment of lung cancer provided a clinically meaningful overall survival benefit in an updated analysis of a phase 2 study.

Treatment with sotorasib yielded a median overall survival (OS) of 12.5 months in patients with previously treated KRAS p.G12C-mutated non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), according to an analysis of the phase 2 CodeBreaK 100 trial data presented at the American Society of Clinical Oncology Annual Meeting.

Median progression-free survival (PFS) was 6.8 months in this update, which included a median follow-up of more than 15 months, according to investigator Ferdinandos Skoulidis, MD, PhD, assistant professor of thoracic/head and neck medical oncology at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston.

Efficacy responses

The confirmed objective response rate was 37.1%, including a 3.2% complete response rate and a median duration of response of 11.1 months, according to the report by Dr. Skoulidis.

In exploratory analyses, the benefit of sotorasib was consistent across patient subgroups, Dr. Skoulidis said in his presentation (Abstract 9003).

In particular, efficacy was observed in subgroups with co-occurring mutations in TP53, STK11, and KEAP1, which are molecular indicators of suboptimal outcomes on standard systemic treatments, according to Dr. Skoulidis.

This update on the registrational phase 2 CodeBreaK100 trial, published concurrently in the New England Journal of Medicine , came just one week after the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) granted accelerated approval to sotorasib.

Sotorasib was approved for the treatment of patients with previously treated KRAS G12C‑mutated locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC on the basis of previously reported results from CodeBreaK100.

This sotorasib indication represents a “historic milestone,” Dr. Skoulidis said in an interview.

No previously studied selective KRAS inhibitor has been approved despite scientific research efforts that stretch back nearly four decades, he explained.

“In a way, one can say that we have dealt KRAS-mutant lung cancer a knockdown blow, however, I should point out that the fight is not over,” he added.

“These clinical results will no doubt spearhead and galvanize further efforts to develop even more effective therapeutic combinations in the future, as well as identify and either forestall or overcome the eventual development of acquired resistance,” he said.
 

Only 1 out of 8 patients

The KRAS p.G12C mutation is present in about 13% of lung adenocarcinomas, or about one in every eight patients with nonsquamous NSCLC, Dr. Skoulidis said in the interview.

“We are estimating that this is in the region of 13,000 patients newly diagnosed every year in the U.S., and approximately 13,000 patients or so that are currently being treated in the second- or third-line setting,” he said.

The CodeBreaK100 trial included 126 patients with locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC and KRAS p.G12C mutation who had progressed on prior systemic therapies. About 43% had one prior line of treatment, while 35% had two lines, and 22% had three lines. A total of 81% had previously received both platinum-based chemotherapy and PD-1/PD-L1 axis inhibitors.

Most treatment-related adverse events in the study were grade 1-2 and generally manageable, according to Dr. Skoulidis. About 20% of patients experienced grade 3 treatment-related adverse events, which were mostly diarrhea or increases in aspartate aminotransferase and alanine aminotransferase levels. A grade 4 treatment-related adverse event, pneumonitis and dyspnea, was reported in one patient or approximately 1%.
 

Confirmatory trial

Although CodeBreak100 is not a randomized trial, the median OS of 12.5 months compares favorably to median OS times in the range of 7.9-10.3 months reported in randomized phase 3 clinical trials and subgroup analysis of randomized phase 3 trials of docetaxel for patients with KRAS-mutant lung adenocarcinoma, Dr. Skoulidis said in a question-and-answer session.

A confirmatory phase 3 CodeBreaK200 trial of sotorasib versus docetaxel in patients with previously treated KRAS p.G12C-mutated NSCLC is underway. That trial is evaluating PFS as a primary endpoint and OS as a secondary endpoint.

“If the same magnitude of benefit, 12.5 months median overall survival, is confirmed in the larger phase 3 clinical trial, as a clinician I would consider that beneficial for patients, compared to the standard of care,” Dr. Skoulidis said during the session.
 

Mature data

The updated analysis of the phase 2 CodeBreaK100 study is notable for its mature OS data, updated safety and the first molecular subgroup analyses, according to discussant Christine Marie Lovly, MD, PhD, of the division of hematology-oncology at Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville.

“The objective response rate was 37.1%,” she added. “This is a little bit lower than we’re used to for targeted therapies, but remember, this is a different mutation and a very different class of drugs.”

The KRAS G12C inhibitors, several of which are under clinical development, are not tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs), but rather allele-specific inhibitors that target mutant KRAS, trapping it in an inactive conformation, she explained.

Dr. Lovly referenced the exploratory analyses demonstrating efficacy in molecularly defined subgroups, calling it “interesting” that there was no difference in objective response rate between TP53 wild type and mutant tumors.

“We do have data that mutant TP53 seems to confer inferior outcomes for EGFR TKI-directed therapy in patients with EGFR-mutant lung cancer,” she said.

CodeBreaK100 was supported by Amgen, Inc. and partly by a National Institutes of Health Cancer Center Support Grant at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center.

Dr. Skoulidis reported honoraria from Bristol-Myers Squibb; research funding from AIMM Therapeutics and Amgen; and travel, accommodations, or expenses from Tango Therapeutics. Dr. Lovly reported disclosures related to Amgen, AstraZeneca, Genentech, Novartis, and Pfizer, among others.

The first KRAS inhibitor approved for the treatment of lung cancer provided a clinically meaningful overall survival benefit in an updated analysis of a phase 2 study.

Treatment with sotorasib yielded a median overall survival (OS) of 12.5 months in patients with previously treated KRAS p.G12C-mutated non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), according to an analysis of the phase 2 CodeBreaK 100 trial data presented at the American Society of Clinical Oncology Annual Meeting.

Median progression-free survival (PFS) was 6.8 months in this update, which included a median follow-up of more than 15 months, according to investigator Ferdinandos Skoulidis, MD, PhD, assistant professor of thoracic/head and neck medical oncology at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston.

Efficacy responses

The confirmed objective response rate was 37.1%, including a 3.2% complete response rate and a median duration of response of 11.1 months, according to the report by Dr. Skoulidis.

In exploratory analyses, the benefit of sotorasib was consistent across patient subgroups, Dr. Skoulidis said in his presentation (Abstract 9003).

In particular, efficacy was observed in subgroups with co-occurring mutations in TP53, STK11, and KEAP1, which are molecular indicators of suboptimal outcomes on standard systemic treatments, according to Dr. Skoulidis.

This update on the registrational phase 2 CodeBreaK100 trial, published concurrently in the New England Journal of Medicine , came just one week after the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) granted accelerated approval to sotorasib.

Sotorasib was approved for the treatment of patients with previously treated KRAS G12C‑mutated locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC on the basis of previously reported results from CodeBreaK100.

This sotorasib indication represents a “historic milestone,” Dr. Skoulidis said in an interview.

No previously studied selective KRAS inhibitor has been approved despite scientific research efforts that stretch back nearly four decades, he explained.

“In a way, one can say that we have dealt KRAS-mutant lung cancer a knockdown blow, however, I should point out that the fight is not over,” he added.

“These clinical results will no doubt spearhead and galvanize further efforts to develop even more effective therapeutic combinations in the future, as well as identify and either forestall or overcome the eventual development of acquired resistance,” he said.
 

Only 1 out of 8 patients

The KRAS p.G12C mutation is present in about 13% of lung adenocarcinomas, or about one in every eight patients with nonsquamous NSCLC, Dr. Skoulidis said in the interview.

“We are estimating that this is in the region of 13,000 patients newly diagnosed every year in the U.S., and approximately 13,000 patients or so that are currently being treated in the second- or third-line setting,” he said.

The CodeBreaK100 trial included 126 patients with locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC and KRAS p.G12C mutation who had progressed on prior systemic therapies. About 43% had one prior line of treatment, while 35% had two lines, and 22% had three lines. A total of 81% had previously received both platinum-based chemotherapy and PD-1/PD-L1 axis inhibitors.

Most treatment-related adverse events in the study were grade 1-2 and generally manageable, according to Dr. Skoulidis. About 20% of patients experienced grade 3 treatment-related adverse events, which were mostly diarrhea or increases in aspartate aminotransferase and alanine aminotransferase levels. A grade 4 treatment-related adverse event, pneumonitis and dyspnea, was reported in one patient or approximately 1%.
 

Confirmatory trial

Although CodeBreak100 is not a randomized trial, the median OS of 12.5 months compares favorably to median OS times in the range of 7.9-10.3 months reported in randomized phase 3 clinical trials and subgroup analysis of randomized phase 3 trials of docetaxel for patients with KRAS-mutant lung adenocarcinoma, Dr. Skoulidis said in a question-and-answer session.

A confirmatory phase 3 CodeBreaK200 trial of sotorasib versus docetaxel in patients with previously treated KRAS p.G12C-mutated NSCLC is underway. That trial is evaluating PFS as a primary endpoint and OS as a secondary endpoint.

“If the same magnitude of benefit, 12.5 months median overall survival, is confirmed in the larger phase 3 clinical trial, as a clinician I would consider that beneficial for patients, compared to the standard of care,” Dr. Skoulidis said during the session.
 

Mature data

The updated analysis of the phase 2 CodeBreaK100 study is notable for its mature OS data, updated safety and the first molecular subgroup analyses, according to discussant Christine Marie Lovly, MD, PhD, of the division of hematology-oncology at Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville.

“The objective response rate was 37.1%,” she added. “This is a little bit lower than we’re used to for targeted therapies, but remember, this is a different mutation and a very different class of drugs.”

The KRAS G12C inhibitors, several of which are under clinical development, are not tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs), but rather allele-specific inhibitors that target mutant KRAS, trapping it in an inactive conformation, she explained.

Dr. Lovly referenced the exploratory analyses demonstrating efficacy in molecularly defined subgroups, calling it “interesting” that there was no difference in objective response rate between TP53 wild type and mutant tumors.

“We do have data that mutant TP53 seems to confer inferior outcomes for EGFR TKI-directed therapy in patients with EGFR-mutant lung cancer,” she said.

CodeBreaK100 was supported by Amgen, Inc. and partly by a National Institutes of Health Cancer Center Support Grant at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center.

Dr. Skoulidis reported honoraria from Bristol-Myers Squibb; research funding from AIMM Therapeutics and Amgen; and travel, accommodations, or expenses from Tango Therapeutics. Dr. Lovly reported disclosures related to Amgen, AstraZeneca, Genentech, Novartis, and Pfizer, among others.

Experiencing an immune-related adverse event during checkpoint inhibitor treatment may predict outcomes in patients with non-small cell lung cancer, exploratory analyses of phase 3 trials suggest.

Immune-related adverse events (irAEs) were tied to longer overall survival (OS) in exploratory pooled analyses of three phase 3 clinical trials evaluating atezolizumab-based regimens, according to investigator Mark A. Socinski, MD, of AdventHealth Cancer Institute, Orlando, Fla.

Median OS approached 26 months for patients who received first-line atezolizumab and experienced an irAE, compared with just 13 months for those who did not experience an irAE, according to results reported at the American Society of Clinical Oncology Annual Meeting (Abstract 9002).

Atezolizumab-treated patients with grade 3 or greater irAEs had the shortest OS, shorter than those atezolizumab-treated patients who experienced grade 1-2 irAEs or no irAEs at all. That short OS may be due to treatment interruptions or discontinuations, said Dr. Socinski.

“Data from these analyses suggest an association between irAEs and efficacy in patients with [non-small cell cancer] NSCLC,” he stated in his presentation of the results.
 

A lot more to learn about irAEs

Similar linkages between irAEs and outcomes were observed in pooled analyses of patients enrolled in the control arms of the phase 3 trials, with a median OS of about 20 months for control patients experiencing an irAE, versus about 13 months for those who did not.

That linkage in the control arm prompted a question from an ASCO attendee about why an effect of irAEs, commonly associated with immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy, would be evident in analyses of patients who did not receive those agents.

In his response, Dr. Socinski characterized the finding as “a surprise” and said the finding may either reflect how adverse events are characterized or how chemotherapy impacts the immune system.

“I don’t know that our definition of irAEs is perfect,” he said, “and maybe we don’t understand what impact chemotherapy may have on the immune system, and may actually engender what historically we’ve always seen as an adverse event, but didn’t necessarily classify as an immune-related adverse event.”

More work is needed to better understand the connection between irAES and outcomes, and whether anything can be done as a result of that improved understanding, said discussant Mary Weber Redman, PhD.

“The question is, ‘what is actionable?’” added Dr. Redman, a biostatistician at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle.

A firmer understanding of the relationship between irAEs and outcomes could change how clinicians monitor patients for irAEs, lead to better prediction of which patients may experience higher grade irAEs, and ultimately impact treatment selection potentially to avoid those higher grade events, Dr. Redman said in her remarks.

“Doing these types of analyses are quite important, because we have to look at the breadth of information that we have to be able to interpret that and think about what are future questions,” she said in the question-and-answer session accompanying Dr. Socinski’s presentation.

“I think the key is that we shouldn’t use these analyses to be definitive, but we should use them as to be hypothesis generating,” she added.
 

More evidence to link irAEs and outcomes

Immune-related AEs caused by off-target immune and inflammatory activity have been reported in up to 80% of patients receiving immune checkpoint inhibitors as monotherapy and up to 95% in combination regimens, Dr. Socinski said in his presentation.

“Increasing evidence suggests that the occurrence of immune-related adverse events with PD-L1 or PD-1 inhibitor therapy may be predictive of improved outcomes in cancers such as NSCLC, “ he added.

In their exploratory pooled analyses, Dr. Socinski and co-investigators looked at data from the phase 3 IMpower130 and IMpower132 trials, which evaluated first-line atezolizumab and chemotherapy for NSCLC, and the phase 3 IMpower150 trial, which evaluated atezolizumab plus chemotherapy with or without bevacizumab.

In all, they analyzed data for 1,557 atezolizumab-treated patients, and 900 patients who had been in the control arms of the studies.

Forty-eight percent of atezolizumab-treated patients experienced irAEs of any grade, while 11% experienced irAEs of grade 3-5, according to the presented data. In the control arm, 32% experienced irAEs of any grade and 5% experienced grade 3-5 irAEs.

The most common irAEs of any grade were rash, hepatitis, and hypothyroidism, occurring in 28%, 15%, and 12% of atezolizumab-treated patients, respectively.

Median OS in the atezolizumab arm was 25.7 months for patients with irAEs and 13.0 for patients with no irAEs, with a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.69 using a time-dependent Cox model.

Median OS in the control arm was 20.2 months for patients with irAEs and 12.8 months for patients with no irAEs, with an HR of 0.82.

The overall response rate (ORR) in the atezolizumab arm was 61.1% for patients with irAEs and 37.2% for those without irAEs; in the control arm, ORR was 42.2% for patients with irAEs and 34.0% for those with no irAEs.

Atezolizumab-treated patients who experienced grade 3-5 irAEs had the shortest OS, according to Dr. Socinski. The HRs for OS at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months in atezolizumab-treated patients with grade 3-5 irAEs (compared with those without irAEs) ranged from 1.25 to 0.87. By contrast, HRs at those time points for patients with grade 1-2 irAEs ranged from 0.78 to 0.72, Dr. Socinski said.

Dr. Socinski reported disclosures related to AstraZeneca/MedImmune, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Genentech, Guardant Health, Janssen, Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Roche/Genentech, and Spectrum Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Redman reported a consulting or advisory role with AstraZeneca.

Experiencing an immune-related adverse event during checkpoint inhibitor treatment may predict outcomes in patients with non-small cell lung cancer, exploratory analyses of phase 3 trials suggest.

Immune-related adverse events (irAEs) were tied to longer overall survival (OS) in exploratory pooled analyses of three phase 3 clinical trials evaluating atezolizumab-based regimens, according to investigator Mark A. Socinski, MD, of AdventHealth Cancer Institute, Orlando, Fla.

Median OS approached 26 months for patients who received first-line atezolizumab and experienced an irAE, compared with just 13 months for those who did not experience an irAE, according to results reported at the American Society of Clinical Oncology Annual Meeting (Abstract 9002).

Atezolizumab-treated patients with grade 3 or greater irAEs had the shortest OS, shorter than those atezolizumab-treated patients who experienced grade 1-2 irAEs or no irAEs at all. That short OS may be due to treatment interruptions or discontinuations, said Dr. Socinski.

“Data from these analyses suggest an association between irAEs and efficacy in patients with [non-small cell cancer] NSCLC,” he stated in his presentation of the results.
 

A lot more to learn about irAEs

Similar linkages between irAEs and outcomes were observed in pooled analyses of patients enrolled in the control arms of the phase 3 trials, with a median OS of about 20 months for control patients experiencing an irAE, versus about 13 months for those who did not.

That linkage in the control arm prompted a question from an ASCO attendee about why an effect of irAEs, commonly associated with immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy, would be evident in analyses of patients who did not receive those agents.

In his response, Dr. Socinski characterized the finding as “a surprise” and said the finding may either reflect how adverse events are characterized or how chemotherapy impacts the immune system.

“I don’t know that our definition of irAEs is perfect,” he said, “and maybe we don’t understand what impact chemotherapy may have on the immune system, and may actually engender what historically we’ve always seen as an adverse event, but didn’t necessarily classify as an immune-related adverse event.”

More work is needed to better understand the connection between irAES and outcomes, and whether anything can be done as a result of that improved understanding, said discussant Mary Weber Redman, PhD.

“The question is, ‘what is actionable?’” added Dr. Redman, a biostatistician at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle.

A firmer understanding of the relationship between irAEs and outcomes could change how clinicians monitor patients for irAEs, lead to better prediction of which patients may experience higher grade irAEs, and ultimately impact treatment selection potentially to avoid those higher grade events, Dr. Redman said in her remarks.

“Doing these types of analyses are quite important, because we have to look at the breadth of information that we have to be able to interpret that and think about what are future questions,” she said in the question-and-answer session accompanying Dr. Socinski’s presentation.

“I think the key is that we shouldn’t use these analyses to be definitive, but we should use them as to be hypothesis generating,” she added.
 

More evidence to link irAEs and outcomes

Immune-related AEs caused by off-target immune and inflammatory activity have been reported in up to 80% of patients receiving immune checkpoint inhibitors as monotherapy and up to 95% in combination regimens, Dr. Socinski said in his presentation.

“Increasing evidence suggests that the occurrence of immune-related adverse events with PD-L1 or PD-1 inhibitor therapy may be predictive of improved outcomes in cancers such as NSCLC, “ he added.

In their exploratory pooled analyses, Dr. Socinski and co-investigators looked at data from the phase 3 IMpower130 and IMpower132 trials, which evaluated first-line atezolizumab and chemotherapy for NSCLC, and the phase 3 IMpower150 trial, which evaluated atezolizumab plus chemotherapy with or without bevacizumab.

In all, they analyzed data for 1,557 atezolizumab-treated patients, and 900 patients who had been in the control arms of the studies.

Forty-eight percent of atezolizumab-treated patients experienced irAEs of any grade, while 11% experienced irAEs of grade 3-5, according to the presented data. In the control arm, 32% experienced irAEs of any grade and 5% experienced grade 3-5 irAEs.

The most common irAEs of any grade were rash, hepatitis, and hypothyroidism, occurring in 28%, 15%, and 12% of atezolizumab-treated patients, respectively.

Median OS in the atezolizumab arm was 25.7 months for patients with irAEs and 13.0 for patients with no irAEs, with a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.69 using a time-dependent Cox model.

Median OS in the control arm was 20.2 months for patients with irAEs and 12.8 months for patients with no irAEs, with an HR of 0.82.

The overall response rate (ORR) in the atezolizumab arm was 61.1% for patients with irAEs and 37.2% for those without irAEs; in the control arm, ORR was 42.2% for patients with irAEs and 34.0% for those with no irAEs.

Atezolizumab-treated patients who experienced grade 3-5 irAEs had the shortest OS, according to Dr. Socinski. The HRs for OS at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months in atezolizumab-treated patients with grade 3-5 irAEs (compared with those without irAEs) ranged from 1.25 to 0.87. By contrast, HRs at those time points for patients with grade 1-2 irAEs ranged from 0.78 to 0.72, Dr. Socinski said.

Dr. Socinski reported disclosures related to AstraZeneca/MedImmune, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Genentech, Guardant Health, Janssen, Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Roche/Genentech, and Spectrum Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Redman reported a consulting or advisory role with AstraZeneca.

Experiencing an immune-related adverse event during checkpoint inhibitor treatment may predict outcomes in patients with non-small cell lung cancer, exploratory analyses of phase 3 trials suggest.

Immune-related adverse events (irAEs) were tied to longer overall survival (OS) in exploratory pooled analyses of three phase 3 clinical trials evaluating atezolizumab-based regimens, according to investigator Mark A. Socinski, MD, of AdventHealth Cancer Institute, Orlando, Fla.

Median OS approached 26 months for patients who received first-line atezolizumab and experienced an irAE, compared with just 13 months for those who did not experience an irAE, according to results reported at the American Society of Clinical Oncology Annual Meeting (Abstract 9002).

Atezolizumab-treated patients with grade 3 or greater irAEs had the shortest OS, shorter than those atezolizumab-treated patients who experienced grade 1-2 irAEs or no irAEs at all. That short OS may be due to treatment interruptions or discontinuations, said Dr. Socinski.

“Data from these analyses suggest an association between irAEs and efficacy in patients with [non-small cell cancer] NSCLC,” he stated in his presentation of the results.
 

A lot more to learn about irAEs

Similar linkages between irAEs and outcomes were observed in pooled analyses of patients enrolled in the control arms of the phase 3 trials, with a median OS of about 20 months for control patients experiencing an irAE, versus about 13 months for those who did not.

That linkage in the control arm prompted a question from an ASCO attendee about why an effect of irAEs, commonly associated with immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy, would be evident in analyses of patients who did not receive those agents.

In his response, Dr. Socinski characterized the finding as “a surprise” and said the finding may either reflect how adverse events are characterized or how chemotherapy impacts the immune system.

“I don’t know that our definition of irAEs is perfect,” he said, “and maybe we don’t understand what impact chemotherapy may have on the immune system, and may actually engender what historically we’ve always seen as an adverse event, but didn’t necessarily classify as an immune-related adverse event.”

More work is needed to better understand the connection between irAES and outcomes, and whether anything can be done as a result of that improved understanding, said discussant Mary Weber Redman, PhD.

“The question is, ‘what is actionable?’” added Dr. Redman, a biostatistician at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle.

A firmer understanding of the relationship between irAEs and outcomes could change how clinicians monitor patients for irAEs, lead to better prediction of which patients may experience higher grade irAEs, and ultimately impact treatment selection potentially to avoid those higher grade events, Dr. Redman said in her remarks.

“Doing these types of analyses are quite important, because we have to look at the breadth of information that we have to be able to interpret that and think about what are future questions,” she said in the question-and-answer session accompanying Dr. Socinski’s presentation.

“I think the key is that we shouldn’t use these analyses to be definitive, but we should use them as to be hypothesis generating,” she added.
 

More evidence to link irAEs and outcomes

Immune-related AEs caused by off-target immune and inflammatory activity have been reported in up to 80% of patients receiving immune checkpoint inhibitors as monotherapy and up to 95% in combination regimens, Dr. Socinski said in his presentation.

“Increasing evidence suggests that the occurrence of immune-related adverse events with PD-L1 or PD-1 inhibitor therapy may be predictive of improved outcomes in cancers such as NSCLC, “ he added.

In their exploratory pooled analyses, Dr. Socinski and co-investigators looked at data from the phase 3 IMpower130 and IMpower132 trials, which evaluated first-line atezolizumab and chemotherapy for NSCLC, and the phase 3 IMpower150 trial, which evaluated atezolizumab plus chemotherapy with or without bevacizumab.

In all, they analyzed data for 1,557 atezolizumab-treated patients, and 900 patients who had been in the control arms of the studies.

Forty-eight percent of atezolizumab-treated patients experienced irAEs of any grade, while 11% experienced irAEs of grade 3-5, according to the presented data. In the control arm, 32% experienced irAEs of any grade and 5% experienced grade 3-5 irAEs.

The most common irAEs of any grade were rash, hepatitis, and hypothyroidism, occurring in 28%, 15%, and 12% of atezolizumab-treated patients, respectively.

Median OS in the atezolizumab arm was 25.7 months for patients with irAEs and 13.0 for patients with no irAEs, with a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.69 using a time-dependent Cox model.

Median OS in the control arm was 20.2 months for patients with irAEs and 12.8 months for patients with no irAEs, with an HR of 0.82.

The overall response rate (ORR) in the atezolizumab arm was 61.1% for patients with irAEs and 37.2% for those without irAEs; in the control arm, ORR was 42.2% for patients with irAEs and 34.0% for those with no irAEs.

Atezolizumab-treated patients who experienced grade 3-5 irAEs had the shortest OS, according to Dr. Socinski. The HRs for OS at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months in atezolizumab-treated patients with grade 3-5 irAEs (compared with those without irAEs) ranged from 1.25 to 0.87. By contrast, HRs at those time points for patients with grade 1-2 irAEs ranged from 0.78 to 0.72, Dr. Socinski said.

Dr. Socinski reported disclosures related to AstraZeneca/MedImmune, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Genentech, Guardant Health, Janssen, Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Roche/Genentech, and Spectrum Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Redman reported a consulting or advisory role with AstraZeneca.

The higher the HER2 expression, the more benefit patients get from the antibody-drug conjugate trastuzumab deruxtecan (Enhertu) for HER2-positive metastatic colorectal cancer in the salvage setting, according to a phase 2 report.

Among the 53 patients with the highest expression in the study – defined as 3+ expression on immune histochemical staining or 2+ with positive in situ hybridization – median progression median progression-free survival (mPFS) was 6.9 months after failure of a median of four prior regimens.

With standard drugs, mPFS would be expected to be about 2 months or less, said investigator Kanwal Pratap Singh Raghav, MD, an associate professor of GI medical oncology at MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.

Many of the 86 study participants were enrolled at MD Anderson, and “they all derived some benefit from the conjugate. “It’s fairly well tolerated,” and “our experience has been pretty good; I think it’s actually a pretty good drug,” Dr. Raghav said shortly before presenting the findings at the American Society of Clinical Oncology Annual Meeting.

HER2 is over-expressed in about 5% of colorectal cancer patients. The conjugate is a kind of “smart bomb” for them that combines the anti-HER2 antibody trastuzumab (Herceptin) with a potent topoisomerase I inhibitor. The trastuzumab portion of the combination zeros in on cancer cells expressing HER2, delivering the cytotoxic agent directly to them.

“The amount of [cytotoxic] drug delivered by the antibody inside the cell is far in excess” to the standard approach of delivering chemotherapy agents individually, Dr. Raghav said.

“Single-agent treatments targeting HER2 only have modest activity. Seeing a response rate of [almost] 50% in colorectal cancer tumors that have high expression of HER2 is very exciting,” Muhammad Beg, MD, a GI oncologist and associate professor at UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, said when asked for comment.

Trastuzumab deruxtecan already is approved for metastatic HER2-positive breast cancer after at least two anti-HER2-based regimens and locally advanced or metastatic HER2-positive gastric or gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma after a prior trastuzumab-based regime.

The phase 2 study, dubbed DESTINY-CRC01, divided patients by HER2 expression. In addition to the 53 “high-expressors,” there were 15 medium-expressors – defined as 2+ on immunohistochemical staining and no in situ hybridization – and 18 low-expressors with 1+ HER2 expression.

The patients had run out of other options, having experienced progression on 2 to 11 previous regimens. All participants had been on the topoisomerase I inhibitor irinotecan before, and almost a third of the high-expressors had been on anti-HER2 regimen.

They were treated with 6.4 mg/kg trastuzumab deruxtecan every 3 weeks for a median of 3 months. There was no control group.

The overall response rate was 45.3% among high-expressors. In addition to the mPFS of 6.9 months, median overall survival was 15.5 months. Among those on prior anti-HER2 therapy, the overall response rate was 43.8%.

Benefit was minimal in the lower-expression groups, with a mPFS of 2.1 months and overall survival of 7.3 months in medium-expressors and a mPFS of 1.4 months and overall survival of 7.7 months in low-expressors.

Sixty-five percent of patients (56) had treatment-emergent grade 3 or worse adverse events, most commonly hematologic and gastrointestinal; 13 subjects (15.1%) discontinued due to adverse events.

Eight patients (9.3%) developed interstitial lung disease, a particular concern with trastuzumab deruxtecan; it was fatal for three. “We need to study the lung toxicity. It will become a bigger factor as we think about using this drug for earlier lines of treatment,” Dr. Beg noted.

The median age in the study was 58.5 years, just over half the subjects were men, and more than 90% had left-sided colon or rectum cancer.

The next step in development is a randomized trial in unresectable/metastatic HER2-positive colorectal cancer dubbed DESTINY-CRC02, comparing the 6.4 mg dose with 5.4 mg. It’s already started recruiting.

The work was funded by trastuzumab deruxtecan maker Daiichi Sankyo. Dr. Raghav is an advisor and researcher for the company; Dr. Beg had no relationships with it.

[email protected]

The higher the HER2 expression, the more benefit patients get from the antibody-drug conjugate trastuzumab deruxtecan (Enhertu) for HER2-positive metastatic colorectal cancer in the salvage setting, according to a phase 2 report.

Among the 53 patients with the highest expression in the study – defined as 3+ expression on immune histochemical staining or 2+ with positive in situ hybridization – median progression median progression-free survival (mPFS) was 6.9 months after failure of a median of four prior regimens.

With standard drugs, mPFS would be expected to be about 2 months or less, said investigator Kanwal Pratap Singh Raghav, MD, an associate professor of GI medical oncology at MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.

Many of the 86 study participants were enrolled at MD Anderson, and “they all derived some benefit from the conjugate. “It’s fairly well tolerated,” and “our experience has been pretty good; I think it’s actually a pretty good drug,” Dr. Raghav said shortly before presenting the findings at the American Society of Clinical Oncology Annual Meeting.

HER2 is over-expressed in about 5% of colorectal cancer patients. The conjugate is a kind of “smart bomb” for them that combines the anti-HER2 antibody trastuzumab (Herceptin) with a potent topoisomerase I inhibitor. The trastuzumab portion of the combination zeros in on cancer cells expressing HER2, delivering the cytotoxic agent directly to them.

“The amount of [cytotoxic] drug delivered by the antibody inside the cell is far in excess” to the standard approach of delivering chemotherapy agents individually, Dr. Raghav said.

“Single-agent treatments targeting HER2 only have modest activity. Seeing a response rate of [almost] 50% in colorectal cancer tumors that have high expression of HER2 is very exciting,” Muhammad Beg, MD, a GI oncologist and associate professor at UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, said when asked for comment.

Trastuzumab deruxtecan already is approved for metastatic HER2-positive breast cancer after at least two anti-HER2-based regimens and locally advanced or metastatic HER2-positive gastric or gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma after a prior trastuzumab-based regime.

The phase 2 study, dubbed DESTINY-CRC01, divided patients by HER2 expression. In addition to the 53 “high-expressors,” there were 15 medium-expressors – defined as 2+ on immunohistochemical staining and no in situ hybridization – and 18 low-expressors with 1+ HER2 expression.

The patients had run out of other options, having experienced progression on 2 to 11 previous regimens. All participants had been on the topoisomerase I inhibitor irinotecan before, and almost a third of the high-expressors had been on anti-HER2 regimen.

They were treated with 6.4 mg/kg trastuzumab deruxtecan every 3 weeks for a median of 3 months. There was no control group.

The overall response rate was 45.3% among high-expressors. In addition to the mPFS of 6.9 months, median overall survival was 15.5 months. Among those on prior anti-HER2 therapy, the overall response rate was 43.8%.

Benefit was minimal in the lower-expression groups, with a mPFS of 2.1 months and overall survival of 7.3 months in medium-expressors and a mPFS of 1.4 months and overall survival of 7.7 months in low-expressors.

Sixty-five percent of patients (56) had treatment-emergent grade 3 or worse adverse events, most commonly hematologic and gastrointestinal; 13 subjects (15.1%) discontinued due to adverse events.

Eight patients (9.3%) developed interstitial lung disease, a particular concern with trastuzumab deruxtecan; it was fatal for three. “We need to study the lung toxicity. It will become a bigger factor as we think about using this drug for earlier lines of treatment,” Dr. Beg noted.

The median age in the study was 58.5 years, just over half the subjects were men, and more than 90% had left-sided colon or rectum cancer.

The next step in development is a randomized trial in unresectable/metastatic HER2-positive colorectal cancer dubbed DESTINY-CRC02, comparing the 6.4 mg dose with 5.4 mg. It’s already started recruiting.

The work was funded by trastuzumab deruxtecan maker Daiichi Sankyo. Dr. Raghav is an advisor and researcher for the company; Dr. Beg had no relationships with it.

[email protected]

The higher the HER2 expression, the more benefit patients get from the antibody-drug conjugate trastuzumab deruxtecan (Enhertu) for HER2-positive metastatic colorectal cancer in the salvage setting, according to a phase 2 report.

Among the 53 patients with the highest expression in the study – defined as 3+ expression on immune histochemical staining or 2+ with positive in situ hybridization – median progression median progression-free survival (mPFS) was 6.9 months after failure of a median of four prior regimens.

With standard drugs, mPFS would be expected to be about 2 months or less, said investigator Kanwal Pratap Singh Raghav, MD, an associate professor of GI medical oncology at MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.

Many of the 86 study participants were enrolled at MD Anderson, and “they all derived some benefit from the conjugate. “It’s fairly well tolerated,” and “our experience has been pretty good; I think it’s actually a pretty good drug,” Dr. Raghav said shortly before presenting the findings at the American Society of Clinical Oncology Annual Meeting.

HER2 is over-expressed in about 5% of colorectal cancer patients. The conjugate is a kind of “smart bomb” for them that combines the anti-HER2 antibody trastuzumab (Herceptin) with a potent topoisomerase I inhibitor. The trastuzumab portion of the combination zeros in on cancer cells expressing HER2, delivering the cytotoxic agent directly to them.

“The amount of [cytotoxic] drug delivered by the antibody inside the cell is far in excess” to the standard approach of delivering chemotherapy agents individually, Dr. Raghav said.

“Single-agent treatments targeting HER2 only have modest activity. Seeing a response rate of [almost] 50% in colorectal cancer tumors that have high expression of HER2 is very exciting,” Muhammad Beg, MD, a GI oncologist and associate professor at UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, said when asked for comment.

Trastuzumab deruxtecan already is approved for metastatic HER2-positive breast cancer after at least two anti-HER2-based regimens and locally advanced or metastatic HER2-positive gastric or gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma after a prior trastuzumab-based regime.

The phase 2 study, dubbed DESTINY-CRC01, divided patients by HER2 expression. In addition to the 53 “high-expressors,” there were 15 medium-expressors – defined as 2+ on immunohistochemical staining and no in situ hybridization – and 18 low-expressors with 1+ HER2 expression.

The patients had run out of other options, having experienced progression on 2 to 11 previous regimens. All participants had been on the topoisomerase I inhibitor irinotecan before, and almost a third of the high-expressors had been on anti-HER2 regimen.

They were treated with 6.4 mg/kg trastuzumab deruxtecan every 3 weeks for a median of 3 months. There was no control group.

The overall response rate was 45.3% among high-expressors. In addition to the mPFS of 6.9 months, median overall survival was 15.5 months. Among those on prior anti-HER2 therapy, the overall response rate was 43.8%.

Benefit was minimal in the lower-expression groups, with a mPFS of 2.1 months and overall survival of 7.3 months in medium-expressors and a mPFS of 1.4 months and overall survival of 7.7 months in low-expressors.

Sixty-five percent of patients (56) had treatment-emergent grade 3 or worse adverse events, most commonly hematologic and gastrointestinal; 13 subjects (15.1%) discontinued due to adverse events.

Eight patients (9.3%) developed interstitial lung disease, a particular concern with trastuzumab deruxtecan; it was fatal for three. “We need to study the lung toxicity. It will become a bigger factor as we think about using this drug for earlier lines of treatment,” Dr. Beg noted.

The median age in the study was 58.5 years, just over half the subjects were men, and more than 90% had left-sided colon or rectum cancer.

The next step in development is a randomized trial in unresectable/metastatic HER2-positive colorectal cancer dubbed DESTINY-CRC02, comparing the 6.4 mg dose with 5.4 mg. It’s already started recruiting.

The work was funded by trastuzumab deruxtecan maker Daiichi Sankyo. Dr. Raghav is an advisor and researcher for the company; Dr. Beg had no relationships with it.

[email protected]

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved a 2.4 mg/week subcutaneous dose of the glucagonlike peptide–1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist semaglutide (Wegovy, Novo Nordisk) for weight loss.

Specifically, this drug format and dosage are approved as an adjunct to a reduced-calorie diet and increased physical activity to treat adults who have obesity (body mass index [BMI] ≥ 30 kg/m²) or are overweight (BMI ≥ 27 kg/m²) with at least one weight-related comorbidity.

Semaglutide “induces weight loss by reducing hunger, increasing feelings of fullness, and thereby helping people eat less and reduce their calorie intake,” according to a company statement.

Novo Nordisk plans to launch Wegovy later this month in the United States. The prescribing information can be found here.

This weight-loss drug is currently under review by the European Medicines Agency.

Several experts told Medscape that they believe the approval of this drug – as long as it is reimbursed – has the potential to change the paradigm of care when it comes to weight loss.


 

‘Game changer’ drug tested in STEP clinical trial program

The favorable FDA ruling is based on results from the Semaglutide Treatment Effect in People With Obesity (STEP) program of four phase 3 clinical trials that tested the drug’s safety and efficacy in more than 4,500 adults with overweight or obesity obesity who were randomized to receive a reduced a calorie meal plan and increased physical activity (placebo) or this lifestyle intervention plus semaglutide.

The four 68-week trials of subcutaneous semaglutide 2.4 mg/week versus placebo were published in February and March 2021.

As previously reported by this news organization, all trials were in adults with overweight or obesity:

•  was in 1,961 adults (N Engl J Med. 2021 March 18;384:989-1002).
•  was in 1,210 adults who also had diabetes (Lancet. 2021 Mar 13;397;971-84).
•  was in 611 adults, where those in the treatment group also underwent an intensive lifestyle intervention (JAMA. 2021 Feb 24;325:1403-13.
•  was in 803 adults who had reached a target dose of 2.4 mg semaglutide after a 20-week run-in (and the trial examined further weight loss in the subsequent 48 weeks) (JAMA 2021 Mar 23;325:1414-25).

In the STEP 1, 2, and 4 trials of individuals with overweight and obesity, those in the semaglutide groups attained a 15%-18% weight loss over 68 weeks.

The dosage was well-tolerated. The most common side effects were gastrointestinal, and they were transient and mild or moderate in severity.

The side effects, contraindications, and a black box warning about thyroid C-cell tumors are spelled out in the prescribing information.

A coauthor of the STEP 1 trial, Rachel Batterham, MBBS, PhD, of the Centre for Obesity Research at University College London, said at the time of publication: “The findings of this study represent a major breakthrough for improving the health of people with obesity.”

“No other drug has come close to producing this level of weight loss – this really is a gamechanger. For the first time, people can achieve through drugs what was only possible through weight-loss surgery,” she added.
 

Welcome Addition, But Will Insurance Coverage, Price Thwart Access?

Thomas A. Wadden, PhD, from the Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and lead author of STEP 3, commented in an email to this news organization that “semaglutide 2.4 mg appears to be the breakthrough in weight management that healthcare providers and their patients with obesity have been waiting for.”

The mean 15% weight loss at 68 weeks is nearly twice what is seen with other FDA-approved anti-obesity medications, he noted, and moreover, 70% of patients taking semaglutide lost at least 10% of their initial weight, which is associated with clinically meaningful improvements in obesity-related type 2 diabetes, hypertension, obstructive sleep apnea, and impaired quality of life.

And “nearly one-third of users are likely to lose 20% or more of their starting weight, an outcome which eludes traditional diet and exercise interventions and which approaches weight losses produced by the most widely performed bariatric surgery, sleeve gastrectomy (with mean losses of 25% of initial weight at 1 year).” Dr. Wadden stressed.

Thus “the efficacy of semaglutide 2.4 mg, combined with its favorable safety profile, makes this medication a potential game changer,” he summarized, echoing Dr. Batterham.

However, insurance coverage and price could block uptake.

“I hope that the millions of people – in the U.S. and worldwide – who could benefit from this medication eventually will have access to it,” said Dr. Wadden. “In the U.S., the coverage of anti-obesity medications by insurers and employers will need to improve to ensure this happens, and the medication must be reasonably priced. These changes are critical to making this medication the game changer it could be.”

“This approval is an important development,” Scott Kahan, MD, director of the National Center for Weight and Wellness, Washington, who was not involved in the clinical trials of this drug, similarly wrote in an email.

“In a field with relatively few medication options, the availability of additional obesity pharmacotherapy agents is welcome,” he said. “In particular, semaglutide has shown impressive efficacy and safety data; as such it should be a valuable clinical option for many patients.”

However, it is concerning that “access to obesity treatments has traditionally been a challenge,” Dr. Kahan warned. “Novo Nordisk’s other obesity medication, Saxenda, has been a valuable tool, but one that exceedingly few patients are able to utilize due to minimal insurance reimbursement and very high cost.”

“It remains to be seen how accessible semaglutide will be for patients,” according to Dr. Kahan, “Still, if the challenge of limited coverage and high cost can be mitigated, this medication has a chance to significantly change the current paradigm of care, which until till now has included minimal use of pharmacotherapy outside specialty clinics,” he maintains.

 

 

Lower-dose injectable and pill already approved for diabetes

Subcutaneous semaglutide at doses up to 1 mg/week (Ozempic, Novo Nordisk), which comes as prefilled pens at doses of 0.5 mg or 1.0 mg, is already approved for the treatment of type 2 diabetes.

The company is also applying for approval for a higher dose of semaglutide, 2 mg/week, for use in type 2 diabetes, and has just resubmitted its label expansion application to the FDA, after the agency issued a refusal to file letter in March.

And in September 2019, the FDA approved oral semaglutide (Rybelsus, Novo Nordisk), in doses of 7 and 14 mg/day, to improve glycemic control in type 2 diabetes, making it the first GLP-1 receptor agonist available in tablet form.
 

CVOT and oral format trials for obesity on the horizon

The ongoing Semaglutide Effects on Heart Disease and Stroke in Patients With Overweight or Obesity (SELECT) trial will shed light on cardiovascular outcomes after 2.5-5 years in patients with cardiovascular disease and overweight or obesity but without type 2 diabetes. Participants will receive semaglutide in doses up to a maximum of 2.4 mg/week, or placebo, as an adjunct to lifestyle recommendations focused on cardiovascular risk reduction. The study is expected to complete in 2023.

And Novo Nordisk plans to initiate a global 68-week phase 3 trial in the second half of 2021 on the efficacy and safety of oral semaglutide 50 mg compared with placebo in 1000 people with obesity or overweight and comorbidities.

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

This article was updated 6/7/21.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved a 2.4 mg/week subcutaneous dose of the glucagonlike peptide–1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist semaglutide (Wegovy, Novo Nordisk) for weight loss.

Specifically, this drug format and dosage are approved as an adjunct to a reduced-calorie diet and increased physical activity to treat adults who have obesity (body mass index [BMI] ≥ 30 kg/m²) or are overweight (BMI ≥ 27 kg/m²) with at least one weight-related comorbidity.

Semaglutide “induces weight loss by reducing hunger, increasing feelings of fullness, and thereby helping people eat less and reduce their calorie intake,” according to a company statement.

Novo Nordisk plans to launch Wegovy later this month in the United States. The prescribing information can be found here.

This weight-loss drug is currently under review by the European Medicines Agency.

Several experts told Medscape that they believe the approval of this drug – as long as it is reimbursed – has the potential to change the paradigm of care when it comes to weight loss.


 

‘Game changer’ drug tested in STEP clinical trial program

The favorable FDA ruling is based on results from the Semaglutide Treatment Effect in People With Obesity (STEP) program of four phase 3 clinical trials that tested the drug’s safety and efficacy in more than 4,500 adults with overweight or obesity obesity who were randomized to receive a reduced a calorie meal plan and increased physical activity (placebo) or this lifestyle intervention plus semaglutide.

The four 68-week trials of subcutaneous semaglutide 2.4 mg/week versus placebo were published in February and March 2021.

As previously reported by this news organization, all trials were in adults with overweight or obesity:

•  was in 1,961 adults (N Engl J Med. 2021 March 18;384:989-1002).
•  was in 1,210 adults who also had diabetes (Lancet. 2021 Mar 13;397;971-84).
•  was in 611 adults, where those in the treatment group also underwent an intensive lifestyle intervention (JAMA. 2021 Feb 24;325:1403-13.
•  was in 803 adults who had reached a target dose of 2.4 mg semaglutide after a 20-week run-in (and the trial examined further weight loss in the subsequent 48 weeks) (JAMA 2021 Mar 23;325:1414-25).

In the STEP 1, 2, and 4 trials of individuals with overweight and obesity, those in the semaglutide groups attained a 15%-18% weight loss over 68 weeks.

The dosage was well-tolerated. The most common side effects were gastrointestinal, and they were transient and mild or moderate in severity.

The side effects, contraindications, and a black box warning about thyroid C-cell tumors are spelled out in the prescribing information.

A coauthor of the STEP 1 trial, Rachel Batterham, MBBS, PhD, of the Centre for Obesity Research at University College London, said at the time of publication: “The findings of this study represent a major breakthrough for improving the health of people with obesity.”

“No other drug has come close to producing this level of weight loss – this really is a gamechanger. For the first time, people can achieve through drugs what was only possible through weight-loss surgery,” she added.
 

Welcome Addition, But Will Insurance Coverage, Price Thwart Access?

Thomas A. Wadden, PhD, from the Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and lead author of STEP 3, commented in an email to this news organization that “semaglutide 2.4 mg appears to be the breakthrough in weight management that healthcare providers and their patients with obesity have been waiting for.”

The mean 15% weight loss at 68 weeks is nearly twice what is seen with other FDA-approved anti-obesity medications, he noted, and moreover, 70% of patients taking semaglutide lost at least 10% of their initial weight, which is associated with clinically meaningful improvements in obesity-related type 2 diabetes, hypertension, obstructive sleep apnea, and impaired quality of life.

And “nearly one-third of users are likely to lose 20% or more of their starting weight, an outcome which eludes traditional diet and exercise interventions and which approaches weight losses produced by the most widely performed bariatric surgery, sleeve gastrectomy (with mean losses of 25% of initial weight at 1 year).” Dr. Wadden stressed.

Thus “the efficacy of semaglutide 2.4 mg, combined with its favorable safety profile, makes this medication a potential game changer,” he summarized, echoing Dr. Batterham.

However, insurance coverage and price could block uptake.

“I hope that the millions of people – in the U.S. and worldwide – who could benefit from this medication eventually will have access to it,” said Dr. Wadden. “In the U.S., the coverage of anti-obesity medications by insurers and employers will need to improve to ensure this happens, and the medication must be reasonably priced. These changes are critical to making this medication the game changer it could be.”

“This approval is an important development,” Scott Kahan, MD, director of the National Center for Weight and Wellness, Washington, who was not involved in the clinical trials of this drug, similarly wrote in an email.

“In a field with relatively few medication options, the availability of additional obesity pharmacotherapy agents is welcome,” he said. “In particular, semaglutide has shown impressive efficacy and safety data; as such it should be a valuable clinical option for many patients.”

However, it is concerning that “access to obesity treatments has traditionally been a challenge,” Dr. Kahan warned. “Novo Nordisk’s other obesity medication, Saxenda, has been a valuable tool, but one that exceedingly few patients are able to utilize due to minimal insurance reimbursement and very high cost.”

“It remains to be seen how accessible semaglutide will be for patients,” according to Dr. Kahan, “Still, if the challenge of limited coverage and high cost can be mitigated, this medication has a chance to significantly change the current paradigm of care, which until till now has included minimal use of pharmacotherapy outside specialty clinics,” he maintains.

 

 

Lower-dose injectable and pill already approved for diabetes

Subcutaneous semaglutide at doses up to 1 mg/week (Ozempic, Novo Nordisk), which comes as prefilled pens at doses of 0.5 mg or 1.0 mg, is already approved for the treatment of type 2 diabetes.

The company is also applying for approval for a higher dose of semaglutide, 2 mg/week, for use in type 2 diabetes, and has just resubmitted its label expansion application to the FDA, after the agency issued a refusal to file letter in March.

And in September 2019, the FDA approved oral semaglutide (Rybelsus, Novo Nordisk), in doses of 7 and 14 mg/day, to improve glycemic control in type 2 diabetes, making it the first GLP-1 receptor agonist available in tablet form.
 

CVOT and oral format trials for obesity on the horizon

The ongoing Semaglutide Effects on Heart Disease and Stroke in Patients With Overweight or Obesity (SELECT) trial will shed light on cardiovascular outcomes after 2.5-5 years in patients with cardiovascular disease and overweight or obesity but without type 2 diabetes. Participants will receive semaglutide in doses up to a maximum of 2.4 mg/week, or placebo, as an adjunct to lifestyle recommendations focused on cardiovascular risk reduction. The study is expected to complete in 2023.

And Novo Nordisk plans to initiate a global 68-week phase 3 trial in the second half of 2021 on the efficacy and safety of oral semaglutide 50 mg compared with placebo in 1000 people with obesity or overweight and comorbidities.

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

This article was updated 6/7/21.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved a 2.4 mg/week subcutaneous dose of the glucagonlike peptide–1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist semaglutide (Wegovy, Novo Nordisk) for weight loss.

Specifically, this drug format and dosage are approved as an adjunct to a reduced-calorie diet and increased physical activity to treat adults who have obesity (body mass index [BMI] ≥ 30 kg/m²) or are overweight (BMI ≥ 27 kg/m²) with at least one weight-related comorbidity.

Semaglutide “induces weight loss by reducing hunger, increasing feelings of fullness, and thereby helping people eat less and reduce their calorie intake,” according to a company statement.

Novo Nordisk plans to launch Wegovy later this month in the United States. The prescribing information can be found here.

This weight-loss drug is currently under review by the European Medicines Agency.

Several experts told Medscape that they believe the approval of this drug – as long as it is reimbursed – has the potential to change the paradigm of care when it comes to weight loss.


 

‘Game changer’ drug tested in STEP clinical trial program

The favorable FDA ruling is based on results from the Semaglutide Treatment Effect in People With Obesity (STEP) program of four phase 3 clinical trials that tested the drug’s safety and efficacy in more than 4,500 adults with overweight or obesity obesity who were randomized to receive a reduced a calorie meal plan and increased physical activity (placebo) or this lifestyle intervention plus semaglutide.

The four 68-week trials of subcutaneous semaglutide 2.4 mg/week versus placebo were published in February and March 2021.

As previously reported by this news organization, all trials were in adults with overweight or obesity:

•  was in 1,961 adults (N Engl J Med. 2021 March 18;384:989-1002).
•  was in 1,210 adults who also had diabetes (Lancet. 2021 Mar 13;397;971-84).
•  was in 611 adults, where those in the treatment group also underwent an intensive lifestyle intervention (JAMA. 2021 Feb 24;325:1403-13.
•  was in 803 adults who had reached a target dose of 2.4 mg semaglutide after a 20-week run-in (and the trial examined further weight loss in the subsequent 48 weeks) (JAMA 2021 Mar 23;325:1414-25).

In the STEP 1, 2, and 4 trials of individuals with overweight and obesity, those in the semaglutide groups attained a 15%-18% weight loss over 68 weeks.

The dosage was well-tolerated. The most common side effects were gastrointestinal, and they were transient and mild or moderate in severity.

The side effects, contraindications, and a black box warning about thyroid C-cell tumors are spelled out in the prescribing information.

A coauthor of the STEP 1 trial, Rachel Batterham, MBBS, PhD, of the Centre for Obesity Research at University College London, said at the time of publication: “The findings of this study represent a major breakthrough for improving the health of people with obesity.”

“No other drug has come close to producing this level of weight loss – this really is a gamechanger. For the first time, people can achieve through drugs what was only possible through weight-loss surgery,” she added.
 

Welcome Addition, But Will Insurance Coverage, Price Thwart Access?

Thomas A. Wadden, PhD, from the Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and lead author of STEP 3, commented in an email to this news organization that “semaglutide 2.4 mg appears to be the breakthrough in weight management that healthcare providers and their patients with obesity have been waiting for.”

The mean 15% weight loss at 68 weeks is nearly twice what is seen with other FDA-approved anti-obesity medications, he noted, and moreover, 70% of patients taking semaglutide lost at least 10% of their initial weight, which is associated with clinically meaningful improvements in obesity-related type 2 diabetes, hypertension, obstructive sleep apnea, and impaired quality of life.

And “nearly one-third of users are likely to lose 20% or more of their starting weight, an outcome which eludes traditional diet and exercise interventions and which approaches weight losses produced by the most widely performed bariatric surgery, sleeve gastrectomy (with mean losses of 25% of initial weight at 1 year).” Dr. Wadden stressed.

Thus “the efficacy of semaglutide 2.4 mg, combined with its favorable safety profile, makes this medication a potential game changer,” he summarized, echoing Dr. Batterham.

However, insurance coverage and price could block uptake.

“I hope that the millions of people – in the U.S. and worldwide – who could benefit from this medication eventually will have access to it,” said Dr. Wadden. “In the U.S., the coverage of anti-obesity medications by insurers and employers will need to improve to ensure this happens, and the medication must be reasonably priced. These changes are critical to making this medication the game changer it could be.”

“This approval is an important development,” Scott Kahan, MD, director of the National Center for Weight and Wellness, Washington, who was not involved in the clinical trials of this drug, similarly wrote in an email.

“In a field with relatively few medication options, the availability of additional obesity pharmacotherapy agents is welcome,” he said. “In particular, semaglutide has shown impressive efficacy and safety data; as such it should be a valuable clinical option for many patients.”

However, it is concerning that “access to obesity treatments has traditionally been a challenge,” Dr. Kahan warned. “Novo Nordisk’s other obesity medication, Saxenda, has been a valuable tool, but one that exceedingly few patients are able to utilize due to minimal insurance reimbursement and very high cost.”

“It remains to be seen how accessible semaglutide will be for patients,” according to Dr. Kahan, “Still, if the challenge of limited coverage and high cost can be mitigated, this medication has a chance to significantly change the current paradigm of care, which until till now has included minimal use of pharmacotherapy outside specialty clinics,” he maintains.

 

 

Lower-dose injectable and pill already approved for diabetes

Subcutaneous semaglutide at doses up to 1 mg/week (Ozempic, Novo Nordisk), which comes as prefilled pens at doses of 0.5 mg or 1.0 mg, is already approved for the treatment of type 2 diabetes.

The company is also applying for approval for a higher dose of semaglutide, 2 mg/week, for use in type 2 diabetes, and has just resubmitted its label expansion application to the FDA, after the agency issued a refusal to file letter in March.

And in September 2019, the FDA approved oral semaglutide (Rybelsus, Novo Nordisk), in doses of 7 and 14 mg/day, to improve glycemic control in type 2 diabetes, making it the first GLP-1 receptor agonist available in tablet form.
 

CVOT and oral format trials for obesity on the horizon

The ongoing Semaglutide Effects on Heart Disease and Stroke in Patients With Overweight or Obesity (SELECT) trial will shed light on cardiovascular outcomes after 2.5-5 years in patients with cardiovascular disease and overweight or obesity but without type 2 diabetes. Participants will receive semaglutide in doses up to a maximum of 2.4 mg/week, or placebo, as an adjunct to lifestyle recommendations focused on cardiovascular risk reduction. The study is expected to complete in 2023.

And Novo Nordisk plans to initiate a global 68-week phase 3 trial in the second half of 2021 on the efficacy and safety of oral semaglutide 50 mg compared with placebo in 1000 people with obesity or overweight and comorbidities.

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

This article was updated 6/7/21.

A subcutaneous dose of the second-generation glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor RUC-4 achieved rapid dose-dependent platelet inhibition in patients with ST-segment elevation MI (STEMI) undergoing stenting in the CEL-02 study.

Platelet inhibition occurred within 15 minutes among the 27 patients, and wore off rapidly, with almost 50% of platelet function recovered within 122 minutes.

The drug was well tolerated, with no thrombocytopenia in the first 72 hours after administration, one injection-site reaction, and two major bleeds likely caused by catheter-based trauma to the proximal radial artery, reported Jurrien ten Berg, MD, PhD, St. Antonius Hospital, Nieuwegein, the Netherlands.

The results were reported during the annual meeting of the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions (EuroPCR 2021) and published simultaneously in EuroIntervention.

Dr. ten Berg noted that there is a need for drugs like RUC-4 in the early treatment of STEMI because oral P2Y12 inhibitors have a “seriously delayed” onset by about 2-4 hours. Prehospital use of the glycoprotein inhibitor (GPI) tirofiban was shown to improve reperfusion and late outcomes in the ON-TIME 2 trial, but GPIs require continuous intravenous administration and are associated with thrombocytopenia.

“Since RUC-4 is unique among small-molecule GPI in not inducing the receptor to undergo a major conformational change that has been implicated in the development of thrombocytopenia, it is possible that RUC-4 may be associated with fewer episodes of thrombocytopenia than current GPI,” the authors wrote.

RUC-4, also called zalunfiban, can be delivered with a single subcutaneous dose and, in a phase 1 study, demonstrated platelet inhibition within 15 minutes and was well tolerated up to a dose of 0.075 mg/kg among healthy volunteers and patients with stable coronary artery disease on aspirin.

In the CEL-02 study, 27 STEMI patients received a weight-adjusted subcutaneous injection of RUC-4 before primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in escalating doses of 0.075 mg/kg, 0.090 mg/kg, and 0.110 mg/kg. Patients were given standard treatment in the ambulance, which included aspirin (93%), ticagrelor (93%), and unfractionated heparin (96%). The activated clotting time was less than 200 seconds in 92% of patients who received additional heparin during cardiac catheterization.

The patients’ mean age was 62 years, 26% were women, and 96% were White. Pharmacodynamic data were available for 24 patients.

The average platelet inhibition 15 minutes after the injection was 77.5%, 87.5%, and 91.7%, respectively, for the three escalating doses (P = .002 for trend).

The primary endpoint of at least 77% inhibition of the iso-TRAP channel – which corresponds to 80% inhibition of light transmission aggregometry stimulated by 20 mcM adenosine diphosphate within 15 minutes – was achieved in three of eight patients at the lowest dose and in seven of eight patients at the middle and highest doses.

“Single-dose subcutaneous RUC-4 induces a fast, potent dose-dependent response of platelet inhibition in patients with STEMI presenting for primary PCI,” Dr. ten Berg concluded. “It is therefore promising for prehospital platelet inhibition in STEMI patients, and the results support further research on clinical benefit.”

The double-blind, randomized phase 2b CELEBRATE trial is underway, evaluating 1,668 STEMI patients treated with a 0.110 mg/kg or 0.130 mg/kg dose of RUC-4 or placebo in the ambulance. The coprimary outcomes are restoration of coronary artery blood flow and resolution of ST-segment deviation post-PCI/angiography. Primary completion is set for March 2023.

MDedge News

Marco Valgimigli, MD, who was not involved in the study, said in an interview that RUC-4 has “some theoretical advantages, compared with conventional IIb/IIIa inhibitors, namely the absence of thrombocytopenia which is, however, relatively rare, especially with tirofiban or eptifibatide.”

The subcutaneous approach may also offer an advantage. Yet, if the administration of RUC-4 is “to happen in the ambulance – a setting where an IV line is usually established – whether the subcutaneous versus IV administration of the treatment proves to be advantageous remains to be seen,” said Dr. Valgimigli, from Cardiocentro Ticino Institute, Ente Ospedaliero Cantonale, Lugano, Switzerland.

“We would need to see the results of large randomized trials embracing this treatment option before a clinical decision can be made, especially considering that IIb/IIa inhibitors in the ambulance have been tested in the past but ultimately abandoned,” he said.

Limitations of the study are its open-label design, the fact that iso-TRAP channel assay data were not reported by the VeryifyNow instrument and had to be calculated from the raw data, and the fact that the timing of the RUC-4 injection immediately before PCI does not fully resemble the expected use of RUC-4 in clinical practice, where RUC-4 would be administered at the same time as the aspirin, ticagrelor, and heparin, and about an hour before PCI, ten Berg and colleagues wrote.

CeleCor Therapeutics sponsored the study and provided study materials. Dr. ten Berg reported receiving lecture or consultancy fees from AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Daiichi Sankyo, The Medicines Company, AccuMetrics, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pfizer, Bayer, Ferrer, and Idorsia, and institutional research grants from ZonMw and AstraZeneca. Coauthor Barry S. Coller is an inventor of RUC-4 and a founder, equity holder, and consultant to CeleCor. He also receives royalties from Centocor/Janssen and the VerifyNow assays. Dr. Valgimigli has received grants from Abbott, Terumo, Medicure, and AstraZeneca, and personal fees from Abbott, Chiesi, Bayer, Daiichi Sankyo, Amgen, Terumo, Alvimedica, AstraZeneca, Biosensors, and Idorsia.

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

A subcutaneous dose of the second-generation glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor RUC-4 achieved rapid dose-dependent platelet inhibition in patients with ST-segment elevation MI (STEMI) undergoing stenting in the CEL-02 study.

Platelet inhibition occurred within 15 minutes among the 27 patients, and wore off rapidly, with almost 50% of platelet function recovered within 122 minutes.

The drug was well tolerated, with no thrombocytopenia in the first 72 hours after administration, one injection-site reaction, and two major bleeds likely caused by catheter-based trauma to the proximal radial artery, reported Jurrien ten Berg, MD, PhD, St. Antonius Hospital, Nieuwegein, the Netherlands.

The results were reported during the annual meeting of the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions (EuroPCR 2021) and published simultaneously in EuroIntervention.

Dr. ten Berg noted that there is a need for drugs like RUC-4 in the early treatment of STEMI because oral P2Y12 inhibitors have a “seriously delayed” onset by about 2-4 hours. Prehospital use of the glycoprotein inhibitor (GPI) tirofiban was shown to improve reperfusion and late outcomes in the ON-TIME 2 trial, but GPIs require continuous intravenous administration and are associated with thrombocytopenia.

“Since RUC-4 is unique among small-molecule GPI in not inducing the receptor to undergo a major conformational change that has been implicated in the development of thrombocytopenia, it is possible that RUC-4 may be associated with fewer episodes of thrombocytopenia than current GPI,” the authors wrote.

RUC-4, also called zalunfiban, can be delivered with a single subcutaneous dose and, in a phase 1 study, demonstrated platelet inhibition within 15 minutes and was well tolerated up to a dose of 0.075 mg/kg among healthy volunteers and patients with stable coronary artery disease on aspirin.

In the CEL-02 study, 27 STEMI patients received a weight-adjusted subcutaneous injection of RUC-4 before primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in escalating doses of 0.075 mg/kg, 0.090 mg/kg, and 0.110 mg/kg. Patients were given standard treatment in the ambulance, which included aspirin (93%), ticagrelor (93%), and unfractionated heparin (96%). The activated clotting time was less than 200 seconds in 92% of patients who received additional heparin during cardiac catheterization.

The patients’ mean age was 62 years, 26% were women, and 96% were White. Pharmacodynamic data were available for 24 patients.

The average platelet inhibition 15 minutes after the injection was 77.5%, 87.5%, and 91.7%, respectively, for the three escalating doses (P = .002 for trend).

The primary endpoint of at least 77% inhibition of the iso-TRAP channel – which corresponds to 80% inhibition of light transmission aggregometry stimulated by 20 mcM adenosine diphosphate within 15 minutes – was achieved in three of eight patients at the lowest dose and in seven of eight patients at the middle and highest doses.

“Single-dose subcutaneous RUC-4 induces a fast, potent dose-dependent response of platelet inhibition in patients with STEMI presenting for primary PCI,” Dr. ten Berg concluded. “It is therefore promising for prehospital platelet inhibition in STEMI patients, and the results support further research on clinical benefit.”

The double-blind, randomized phase 2b CELEBRATE trial is underway, evaluating 1,668 STEMI patients treated with a 0.110 mg/kg or 0.130 mg/kg dose of RUC-4 or placebo in the ambulance. The coprimary outcomes are restoration of coronary artery blood flow and resolution of ST-segment deviation post-PCI/angiography. Primary completion is set for March 2023.

MDedge News

Marco Valgimigli, MD, who was not involved in the study, said in an interview that RUC-4 has “some theoretical advantages, compared with conventional IIb/IIIa inhibitors, namely the absence of thrombocytopenia which is, however, relatively rare, especially with tirofiban or eptifibatide.”

The subcutaneous approach may also offer an advantage. Yet, if the administration of RUC-4 is “to happen in the ambulance – a setting where an IV line is usually established – whether the subcutaneous versus IV administration of the treatment proves to be advantageous remains to be seen,” said Dr. Valgimigli, from Cardiocentro Ticino Institute, Ente Ospedaliero Cantonale, Lugano, Switzerland.

“We would need to see the results of large randomized trials embracing this treatment option before a clinical decision can be made, especially considering that IIb/IIa inhibitors in the ambulance have been tested in the past but ultimately abandoned,” he said.

Limitations of the study are its open-label design, the fact that iso-TRAP channel assay data were not reported by the VeryifyNow instrument and had to be calculated from the raw data, and the fact that the timing of the RUC-4 injection immediately before PCI does not fully resemble the expected use of RUC-4 in clinical practice, where RUC-4 would be administered at the same time as the aspirin, ticagrelor, and heparin, and about an hour before PCI, ten Berg and colleagues wrote.

CeleCor Therapeutics sponsored the study and provided study materials. Dr. ten Berg reported receiving lecture or consultancy fees from AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Daiichi Sankyo, The Medicines Company, AccuMetrics, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pfizer, Bayer, Ferrer, and Idorsia, and institutional research grants from ZonMw and AstraZeneca. Coauthor Barry S. Coller is an inventor of RUC-4 and a founder, equity holder, and consultant to CeleCor. He also receives royalties from Centocor/Janssen and the VerifyNow assays. Dr. Valgimigli has received grants from Abbott, Terumo, Medicure, and AstraZeneca, and personal fees from Abbott, Chiesi, Bayer, Daiichi Sankyo, Amgen, Terumo, Alvimedica, AstraZeneca, Biosensors, and Idorsia.

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

A subcutaneous dose of the second-generation glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor RUC-4 achieved rapid dose-dependent platelet inhibition in patients with ST-segment elevation MI (STEMI) undergoing stenting in the CEL-02 study.

Platelet inhibition occurred within 15 minutes among the 27 patients, and wore off rapidly, with almost 50% of platelet function recovered within 122 minutes.

The drug was well tolerated, with no thrombocytopenia in the first 72 hours after administration, one injection-site reaction, and two major bleeds likely caused by catheter-based trauma to the proximal radial artery, reported Jurrien ten Berg, MD, PhD, St. Antonius Hospital, Nieuwegein, the Netherlands.

The results were reported during the annual meeting of the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions (EuroPCR 2021) and published simultaneously in EuroIntervention.

Dr. ten Berg noted that there is a need for drugs like RUC-4 in the early treatment of STEMI because oral P2Y12 inhibitors have a “seriously delayed” onset by about 2-4 hours. Prehospital use of the glycoprotein inhibitor (GPI) tirofiban was shown to improve reperfusion and late outcomes in the ON-TIME 2 trial, but GPIs require continuous intravenous administration and are associated with thrombocytopenia.

“Since RUC-4 is unique among small-molecule GPI in not inducing the receptor to undergo a major conformational change that has been implicated in the development of thrombocytopenia, it is possible that RUC-4 may be associated with fewer episodes of thrombocytopenia than current GPI,” the authors wrote.

RUC-4, also called zalunfiban, can be delivered with a single subcutaneous dose and, in a phase 1 study, demonstrated platelet inhibition within 15 minutes and was well tolerated up to a dose of 0.075 mg/kg among healthy volunteers and patients with stable coronary artery disease on aspirin.

In the CEL-02 study, 27 STEMI patients received a weight-adjusted subcutaneous injection of RUC-4 before primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in escalating doses of 0.075 mg/kg, 0.090 mg/kg, and 0.110 mg/kg. Patients were given standard treatment in the ambulance, which included aspirin (93%), ticagrelor (93%), and unfractionated heparin (96%). The activated clotting time was less than 200 seconds in 92% of patients who received additional heparin during cardiac catheterization.

The patients’ mean age was 62 years, 26% were women, and 96% were White. Pharmacodynamic data were available for 24 patients.

The average platelet inhibition 15 minutes after the injection was 77.5%, 87.5%, and 91.7%, respectively, for the three escalating doses (P = .002 for trend).

The primary endpoint of at least 77% inhibition of the iso-TRAP channel – which corresponds to 80% inhibition of light transmission aggregometry stimulated by 20 mcM adenosine diphosphate within 15 minutes – was achieved in three of eight patients at the lowest dose and in seven of eight patients at the middle and highest doses.

“Single-dose subcutaneous RUC-4 induces a fast, potent dose-dependent response of platelet inhibition in patients with STEMI presenting for primary PCI,” Dr. ten Berg concluded. “It is therefore promising for prehospital platelet inhibition in STEMI patients, and the results support further research on clinical benefit.”

The double-blind, randomized phase 2b CELEBRATE trial is underway, evaluating 1,668 STEMI patients treated with a 0.110 mg/kg or 0.130 mg/kg dose of RUC-4 or placebo in the ambulance. The coprimary outcomes are restoration of coronary artery blood flow and resolution of ST-segment deviation post-PCI/angiography. Primary completion is set for March 2023.

MDedge News

Marco Valgimigli, MD, who was not involved in the study, said in an interview that RUC-4 has “some theoretical advantages, compared with conventional IIb/IIIa inhibitors, namely the absence of thrombocytopenia which is, however, relatively rare, especially with tirofiban or eptifibatide.”

The subcutaneous approach may also offer an advantage. Yet, if the administration of RUC-4 is “to happen in the ambulance – a setting where an IV line is usually established – whether the subcutaneous versus IV administration of the treatment proves to be advantageous remains to be seen,” said Dr. Valgimigli, from Cardiocentro Ticino Institute, Ente Ospedaliero Cantonale, Lugano, Switzerland.

“We would need to see the results of large randomized trials embracing this treatment option before a clinical decision can be made, especially considering that IIb/IIa inhibitors in the ambulance have been tested in the past but ultimately abandoned,” he said.

Limitations of the study are its open-label design, the fact that iso-TRAP channel assay data were not reported by the VeryifyNow instrument and had to be calculated from the raw data, and the fact that the timing of the RUC-4 injection immediately before PCI does not fully resemble the expected use of RUC-4 in clinical practice, where RUC-4 would be administered at the same time as the aspirin, ticagrelor, and heparin, and about an hour before PCI, ten Berg and colleagues wrote.

CeleCor Therapeutics sponsored the study and provided study materials. Dr. ten Berg reported receiving lecture or consultancy fees from AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Daiichi Sankyo, The Medicines Company, AccuMetrics, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pfizer, Bayer, Ferrer, and Idorsia, and institutional research grants from ZonMw and AstraZeneca. Coauthor Barry S. Coller is an inventor of RUC-4 and a founder, equity holder, and consultant to CeleCor. He also receives royalties from Centocor/Janssen and the VerifyNow assays. Dr. Valgimigli has received grants from Abbott, Terumo, Medicure, and AstraZeneca, and personal fees from Abbott, Chiesi, Bayer, Daiichi Sankyo, Amgen, Terumo, Alvimedica, AstraZeneca, Biosensors, and Idorsia.

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved a once-daily oral medication, which is a combination of olanzapine and samidorphan (Lybalvi, Alkermes), for the treatment of schizophrenia and bipolar I disorder.

The drug is approved for the treatment of adults with schizophrenia and for adults with bipolar I disorder as a maintenance monotherapy or to treat acute manic or mixed episodes, as either monotherapy or an adjunct to lithium or valproate.

An atypical antipsychotic, the drug is a combination of olanzapine, an established antipsychotic medication, and samidorphan, a new chemical entity.

“Schizophrenia and bipolar I disorder are complex, chronic diseases, and there remains a persistent need for new medications with proven efficacy and safety. Olanzapine, a highly efficacious atypical antipsychotic, is associated with significant side effects, including weight gain that may impact patients’ treatment experiences and limit its use. With the efficacy of olanzapine and evidence of less weight gain in patients with schizophrenia, Lybalvi brings a welcome new addition to our medication arsenal,” René S. Kahn, MD, PhD, Esther and Joseph Klingenstein professor & chair, department of psychiatry and Behavioral Health System at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, said in a company press release.

In a clinical development program, the drug demonstrated antipsychotic efficacy, safety, and tolerability, including significantly less weight gain than olanzapine in patients with schizophrenia in the ENLIGHTEN-2 study.

The FDA approved Lybalvi under the 505(b)(2) regulatory pathway based on data from 27 clinical studies, including 18 studies evaluating Lybalvi and nine studies evaluating samidorphan alone and the FDA’s findings of the safety and effectiveness of olanzapine in the treatment of bipolar I disorder and schizophrenia. Data suggest that olanzapine-associated weight gain is disease independent, the company reports.

“People living with schizophrenia or bipolar I disorder must evaluate both efficacy and tolerability when making treatment decisions,” Paul Gionfriddo, president and CEO of Mental Health America, said in the same company press release. “We are grateful that companies like Alkermes are driven to continue developing new treatment options in psychiatry that seek to address unmet needs of our community, and we applaud the FDA for considering the experiences of individuals living with these conditions.” 

Alkermes expects to make Lybalvi available for patients in the fourth quarter of 2021.

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved a once-daily oral medication, which is a combination of olanzapine and samidorphan (Lybalvi, Alkermes), for the treatment of schizophrenia and bipolar I disorder.

The drug is approved for the treatment of adults with schizophrenia and for adults with bipolar I disorder as a maintenance monotherapy or to treat acute manic or mixed episodes, as either monotherapy or an adjunct to lithium or valproate.

An atypical antipsychotic, the drug is a combination of olanzapine, an established antipsychotic medication, and samidorphan, a new chemical entity.

“Schizophrenia and bipolar I disorder are complex, chronic diseases, and there remains a persistent need for new medications with proven efficacy and safety. Olanzapine, a highly efficacious atypical antipsychotic, is associated with significant side effects, including weight gain that may impact patients’ treatment experiences and limit its use. With the efficacy of olanzapine and evidence of less weight gain in patients with schizophrenia, Lybalvi brings a welcome new addition to our medication arsenal,” René S. Kahn, MD, PhD, Esther and Joseph Klingenstein professor & chair, department of psychiatry and Behavioral Health System at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, said in a company press release.

In a clinical development program, the drug demonstrated antipsychotic efficacy, safety, and tolerability, including significantly less weight gain than olanzapine in patients with schizophrenia in the ENLIGHTEN-2 study.

The FDA approved Lybalvi under the 505(b)(2) regulatory pathway based on data from 27 clinical studies, including 18 studies evaluating Lybalvi and nine studies evaluating samidorphan alone and the FDA’s findings of the safety and effectiveness of olanzapine in the treatment of bipolar I disorder and schizophrenia. Data suggest that olanzapine-associated weight gain is disease independent, the company reports.

“People living with schizophrenia or bipolar I disorder must evaluate both efficacy and tolerability when making treatment decisions,” Paul Gionfriddo, president and CEO of Mental Health America, said in the same company press release. “We are grateful that companies like Alkermes are driven to continue developing new treatment options in psychiatry that seek to address unmet needs of our community, and we applaud the FDA for considering the experiences of individuals living with these conditions.” 

Alkermes expects to make Lybalvi available for patients in the fourth quarter of 2021.

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved a once-daily oral medication, which is a combination of olanzapine and samidorphan (Lybalvi, Alkermes), for the treatment of schizophrenia and bipolar I disorder.

The drug is approved for the treatment of adults with schizophrenia and for adults with bipolar I disorder as a maintenance monotherapy or to treat acute manic or mixed episodes, as either monotherapy or an adjunct to lithium or valproate.

An atypical antipsychotic, the drug is a combination of olanzapine, an established antipsychotic medication, and samidorphan, a new chemical entity.

“Schizophrenia and bipolar I disorder are complex, chronic diseases, and there remains a persistent need for new medications with proven efficacy and safety. Olanzapine, a highly efficacious atypical antipsychotic, is associated with significant side effects, including weight gain that may impact patients’ treatment experiences and limit its use. With the efficacy of olanzapine and evidence of less weight gain in patients with schizophrenia, Lybalvi brings a welcome new addition to our medication arsenal,” René S. Kahn, MD, PhD, Esther and Joseph Klingenstein professor & chair, department of psychiatry and Behavioral Health System at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, said in a company press release.

In a clinical development program, the drug demonstrated antipsychotic efficacy, safety, and tolerability, including significantly less weight gain than olanzapine in patients with schizophrenia in the ENLIGHTEN-2 study.

The FDA approved Lybalvi under the 505(b)(2) regulatory pathway based on data from 27 clinical studies, including 18 studies evaluating Lybalvi and nine studies evaluating samidorphan alone and the FDA’s findings of the safety and effectiveness of olanzapine in the treatment of bipolar I disorder and schizophrenia. Data suggest that olanzapine-associated weight gain is disease independent, the company reports.

“People living with schizophrenia or bipolar I disorder must evaluate both efficacy and tolerability when making treatment decisions,” Paul Gionfriddo, president and CEO of Mental Health America, said in the same company press release. “We are grateful that companies like Alkermes are driven to continue developing new treatment options in psychiatry that seek to address unmet needs of our community, and we applaud the FDA for considering the experiences of individuals living with these conditions.” 

Alkermes expects to make Lybalvi available for patients in the fourth quarter of 2021.

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