Pharmacology

After patients with peripheral artery disease undergo lower-extremity revascularization, they are at high risk for major adverse limb events, and new findings from a prespecified analysis of data from the VOYAGER-PAD trial show that treatment with the direct-acting oral anticoagulant rivaroxaban along with aspirin significantly cut the rate of total major adverse limb events in these patients.

courtesy American College of Cardiology

These findings confirm the drop in first major adverse limb events linked to rivaroxaban treatment that was VOYAGER-PAD’s primary result, reported just over a year ago.

The new total-event analysis also provides important insight into the huge magnitude of total major adverse limb events that patients with PAD can develop following lower-extremity revascularization (LER).

The 6,564 patients who all received aspirin and were randomized to either rivaroxaban (Xarelto) or placebo had 4,714 total events during a median follow-up of 2.5 years following their revascularization procedure. This included 1,092 first primary events (a composite of acute limb ischemia, major amputation for vascular causes, MI, ischemic stroke, or cardiovascular death), 522 primary events that occurred as second or subsequent events among patients after a first primary event (a nearly 50% increase from first events only), and 3,100 additional vascular events that did not fit into the primary-event category, most often a peripheral revascularization procedure, Rupert M. Bauersachs, MD, said at the annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology.

“We were all astonished by this high event rate,” Dr. Bauersachs said during his report.

The total-event analysis that he reported showed that treatment with rivaroxaban resulted in a significant 14% relative reduction, compared with placebo in the incidence of total primary events, which closely tracks the significant 15% relative reduction in first primary events reported from the VOYAGER-PAD trial in 2020. Treatment with rivaroxaban also significantly linked with a 14% cut in total vascular events, compared with placebo, including the many events not included in the primary endpoint, said Dr. Bauersachs, who until his retirement in May 2021 was director of the Clinic for Vascular Medicine at the Darmstadt (Germany) Clinic. Concurrently with the report, the results appeared online.

“If one focuses only on first events, you miss the totality of disease burden. There is even greater benefit by reducing total events,” Dr. Bauersachs said during a press briefing. Adding rivaroxaban prevented roughly 2.6 first primary events for every 100 patients treated, but it also prevented 4.4 total primary events and 12.5 total vascular events for every 100 treated patients.

An ‘incredibly high’ event rate

“I don’t think any of us imagined the level of morbidity in this population. The event rate is incredibly high,” commented Joshua A. Beckman, MD, professor and director of vascular medicine at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn.

Because treatment with rivaroxaban showed clear efficacy for also preventing subsequent events it should not be considered to have failed in patients who have a vascular event while on rivaroxaban treatment, he added as designated discussant for the report. Treatment with rivaroxaban “should be continued indefinitely,” he concluded.

“It’s quite astonishing to see the magnitude of [total] events in these patients,” commented Sahil A. Parikh, MD, a cardiologist and director of endovascular services at Columbia University Medical Center in New York. “We’ve always known that these are high-risk patients, but exactly how high their risk is was not well understood until these data came to light.”

Dr. Parikh also noted that, despite the clear evidence reported from VOYAGER-PAD more than a year ago proving the efficacy and safety of adding rivaroxaban to aspirin for long-term treatment of patients with PAD following LER, this regimen has not yet become standard U.S. practice.
 

Rivaroxaban use falls short of the expected level

“This paradigm shift has not seen the level of adoption that we would expect based on the data,” he said. “There have been numerous editorials and discussions of this at every major medical meeting” during the past year, but those expert opinions have not translated into changed practice. “Perhaps the pandemic has muted enthusiasm for adoption of a new therapeutic paradigm,” suggested Dr. Parikh, and “on top of that guidelines have yet to be updated,” although he noted that updated guidelines from the ACC and American Heart Association for PAD that include the types of patients enrolled in VOYAGER-PAD are now under review and should be released by the first half of 2022.

“I think the additional data [reported by Dr. Bauersachs] will encourage us to use rivaroxaban in patients with claudication,” Dr. Parikh said. “Perhaps we should use rivaroxaban and aspirin in a broader swath of patients, but it will take time to convince some constituencies.”

VOYAGER-PAD randomized patients with PAD who underwent successful LER within 10 days prior to enrollment at 542 sites in 34 countries during 2015-2018. In addition to every patient receiving 100 mg aspirin daily and either 2.5 mg rivaroxaban twice daily or placebo once daily, patients who received an intra-arterial device such as a stent could also receive the antiplatelet agent clopidogrel for a planned maximum of 30 days after revascularization at the discretion of their physician, and the trial protocol allowed for extending clopidogrel treatment to as many as 60 days.

In addition to the efficacy outcomes, the safety results showed that adding rivaroxaban to aspirin appeared to increase bleeding episodes, but at rates that generally did not reach significance and that were dwarfed by the efficacy benefit. The study’s primary safety outcome was the incidence of Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) major bleeding episodes, which occurred in 2.65% of patients who received rivaroxaban and in 1.87% on those on placebo, a 43% relative increase that fell short of significance (P = .07). The analyses overall indicated that 10,000 similar patients treated for 1 year with rivaroxaban would have 181 fewer primary events, compared with placebo-treated patients at the cost of also having 29 additional TIMI major bleeding events compared with patient on placebo.

Adding clopidogrel adds little except bleeding

Further analysis showed that just over half of enrolled patients also received clopidogrel for a median of 29 days following their LER procedure. This added agent produced no significant added benefit during 3-year follow-up, but did boost bleeding risk, especially in patients who received clopidogrel for more than 30 days. This led the study investigators to suggest that, while rivaroxaban plus aspirin is indicated for long-term treatment, addition of clopidogrel on top of this should be limited to 30 days or fewer to minimize bleeding risk.

“I’m sure there is a bleeding hazard associated with rivaroxaban plus aspirin, but this is attenuated by using dual therapy and not using triple therapy” by also adding clopidogrel, noted Dr. Parikh.

The new VOYAGER-PAD results also showed that the ongoing risk faced by patients with PAD following LER applies globally to their peripheral arteries. Of the 3,034 total peripheral revascularizations performed in the cohort during follow-up, 64% occurred in the index limb and 36% in the contralateral limb. Another striking finding was that the need for ipsilateral repeat revascularization was more common after an index endovascular procedure, 2,329 repeat revascularizations in 4,379 of these patients (53%), compared with 2,185 patients who had surgical revascularization for their index procedure and subsequently 705 of these patients (32%) needed repeat revascularization.

But rivaroxaban treatment appeared to provide little benefit for the much less frequent incidence of first and subsequent events in the coronary and cerebral circulation. During follow-up, the rates of major adverse cardiovascular events – cardiovascular death, nonfatal MI, and nonfatal stroke – were virtually identical in the rivaroxaban and placebo groups.

“This study makes it clear that we are learning about differences in presentation between the vascular beds, and the benefits of specific treatments in each vascular bed,” Dr. Beckman said.

VOYAGER-PAD was sponsored by Bayer and Janssen, the companies that market rivaroxaban (Xarelto). Dr. Bauersachs has received personal fees from Bayer, as well as from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Daiichi Sankyo, and Pfizer, and has received grant support from Aspen Pharma. Dr. Beckman been a consultant to and received honoraria from Janssen, as well as from Amgen, JanOne, Novartis, and Sanofi, and he has served on a data and safety monitoring board for Bayer. Dr. Parikh has been a consultant to and received honoraria from Janssen, as well as from Abbott, Boston Scientific, Cordis, Medtronic, Penumbra, Philips, and Terumo, he has been a speaker on behalf of Inari, and he has received grant support from Abbott, Shockwave Medical, Surmodics, and TriReme Medical.

[email protected]

After patients with peripheral artery disease undergo lower-extremity revascularization, they are at high risk for major adverse limb events, and new findings from a prespecified analysis of data from the VOYAGER-PAD trial show that treatment with the direct-acting oral anticoagulant rivaroxaban along with aspirin significantly cut the rate of total major adverse limb events in these patients.

courtesy American College of Cardiology

These findings confirm the drop in first major adverse limb events linked to rivaroxaban treatment that was VOYAGER-PAD’s primary result, reported just over a year ago.

The new total-event analysis also provides important insight into the huge magnitude of total major adverse limb events that patients with PAD can develop following lower-extremity revascularization (LER).

The 6,564 patients who all received aspirin and were randomized to either rivaroxaban (Xarelto) or placebo had 4,714 total events during a median follow-up of 2.5 years following their revascularization procedure. This included 1,092 first primary events (a composite of acute limb ischemia, major amputation for vascular causes, MI, ischemic stroke, or cardiovascular death), 522 primary events that occurred as second or subsequent events among patients after a first primary event (a nearly 50% increase from first events only), and 3,100 additional vascular events that did not fit into the primary-event category, most often a peripheral revascularization procedure, Rupert M. Bauersachs, MD, said at the annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology.

“We were all astonished by this high event rate,” Dr. Bauersachs said during his report.

The total-event analysis that he reported showed that treatment with rivaroxaban resulted in a significant 14% relative reduction, compared with placebo in the incidence of total primary events, which closely tracks the significant 15% relative reduction in first primary events reported from the VOYAGER-PAD trial in 2020. Treatment with rivaroxaban also significantly linked with a 14% cut in total vascular events, compared with placebo, including the many events not included in the primary endpoint, said Dr. Bauersachs, who until his retirement in May 2021 was director of the Clinic for Vascular Medicine at the Darmstadt (Germany) Clinic. Concurrently with the report, the results appeared online.

“If one focuses only on first events, you miss the totality of disease burden. There is even greater benefit by reducing total events,” Dr. Bauersachs said during a press briefing. Adding rivaroxaban prevented roughly 2.6 first primary events for every 100 patients treated, but it also prevented 4.4 total primary events and 12.5 total vascular events for every 100 treated patients.

An ‘incredibly high’ event rate

“I don’t think any of us imagined the level of morbidity in this population. The event rate is incredibly high,” commented Joshua A. Beckman, MD, professor and director of vascular medicine at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn.

Because treatment with rivaroxaban showed clear efficacy for also preventing subsequent events it should not be considered to have failed in patients who have a vascular event while on rivaroxaban treatment, he added as designated discussant for the report. Treatment with rivaroxaban “should be continued indefinitely,” he concluded.

“It’s quite astonishing to see the magnitude of [total] events in these patients,” commented Sahil A. Parikh, MD, a cardiologist and director of endovascular services at Columbia University Medical Center in New York. “We’ve always known that these are high-risk patients, but exactly how high their risk is was not well understood until these data came to light.”

Dr. Parikh also noted that, despite the clear evidence reported from VOYAGER-PAD more than a year ago proving the efficacy and safety of adding rivaroxaban to aspirin for long-term treatment of patients with PAD following LER, this regimen has not yet become standard U.S. practice.
 

Rivaroxaban use falls short of the expected level

“This paradigm shift has not seen the level of adoption that we would expect based on the data,” he said. “There have been numerous editorials and discussions of this at every major medical meeting” during the past year, but those expert opinions have not translated into changed practice. “Perhaps the pandemic has muted enthusiasm for adoption of a new therapeutic paradigm,” suggested Dr. Parikh, and “on top of that guidelines have yet to be updated,” although he noted that updated guidelines from the ACC and American Heart Association for PAD that include the types of patients enrolled in VOYAGER-PAD are now under review and should be released by the first half of 2022.

“I think the additional data [reported by Dr. Bauersachs] will encourage us to use rivaroxaban in patients with claudication,” Dr. Parikh said. “Perhaps we should use rivaroxaban and aspirin in a broader swath of patients, but it will take time to convince some constituencies.”

VOYAGER-PAD randomized patients with PAD who underwent successful LER within 10 days prior to enrollment at 542 sites in 34 countries during 2015-2018. In addition to every patient receiving 100 mg aspirin daily and either 2.5 mg rivaroxaban twice daily or placebo once daily, patients who received an intra-arterial device such as a stent could also receive the antiplatelet agent clopidogrel for a planned maximum of 30 days after revascularization at the discretion of their physician, and the trial protocol allowed for extending clopidogrel treatment to as many as 60 days.

In addition to the efficacy outcomes, the safety results showed that adding rivaroxaban to aspirin appeared to increase bleeding episodes, but at rates that generally did not reach significance and that were dwarfed by the efficacy benefit. The study’s primary safety outcome was the incidence of Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) major bleeding episodes, which occurred in 2.65% of patients who received rivaroxaban and in 1.87% on those on placebo, a 43% relative increase that fell short of significance (P = .07). The analyses overall indicated that 10,000 similar patients treated for 1 year with rivaroxaban would have 181 fewer primary events, compared with placebo-treated patients at the cost of also having 29 additional TIMI major bleeding events compared with patient on placebo.

Adding clopidogrel adds little except bleeding

Further analysis showed that just over half of enrolled patients also received clopidogrel for a median of 29 days following their LER procedure. This added agent produced no significant added benefit during 3-year follow-up, but did boost bleeding risk, especially in patients who received clopidogrel for more than 30 days. This led the study investigators to suggest that, while rivaroxaban plus aspirin is indicated for long-term treatment, addition of clopidogrel on top of this should be limited to 30 days or fewer to minimize bleeding risk.

“I’m sure there is a bleeding hazard associated with rivaroxaban plus aspirin, but this is attenuated by using dual therapy and not using triple therapy” by also adding clopidogrel, noted Dr. Parikh.

The new VOYAGER-PAD results also showed that the ongoing risk faced by patients with PAD following LER applies globally to their peripheral arteries. Of the 3,034 total peripheral revascularizations performed in the cohort during follow-up, 64% occurred in the index limb and 36% in the contralateral limb. Another striking finding was that the need for ipsilateral repeat revascularization was more common after an index endovascular procedure, 2,329 repeat revascularizations in 4,379 of these patients (53%), compared with 2,185 patients who had surgical revascularization for their index procedure and subsequently 705 of these patients (32%) needed repeat revascularization.

But rivaroxaban treatment appeared to provide little benefit for the much less frequent incidence of first and subsequent events in the coronary and cerebral circulation. During follow-up, the rates of major adverse cardiovascular events – cardiovascular death, nonfatal MI, and nonfatal stroke – were virtually identical in the rivaroxaban and placebo groups.

“This study makes it clear that we are learning about differences in presentation between the vascular beds, and the benefits of specific treatments in each vascular bed,” Dr. Beckman said.

VOYAGER-PAD was sponsored by Bayer and Janssen, the companies that market rivaroxaban (Xarelto). Dr. Bauersachs has received personal fees from Bayer, as well as from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Daiichi Sankyo, and Pfizer, and has received grant support from Aspen Pharma. Dr. Beckman been a consultant to and received honoraria from Janssen, as well as from Amgen, JanOne, Novartis, and Sanofi, and he has served on a data and safety monitoring board for Bayer. Dr. Parikh has been a consultant to and received honoraria from Janssen, as well as from Abbott, Boston Scientific, Cordis, Medtronic, Penumbra, Philips, and Terumo, he has been a speaker on behalf of Inari, and he has received grant support from Abbott, Shockwave Medical, Surmodics, and TriReme Medical.

[email protected]

After patients with peripheral artery disease undergo lower-extremity revascularization, they are at high risk for major adverse limb events, and new findings from a prespecified analysis of data from the VOYAGER-PAD trial show that treatment with the direct-acting oral anticoagulant rivaroxaban along with aspirin significantly cut the rate of total major adverse limb events in these patients.

courtesy American College of Cardiology

These findings confirm the drop in first major adverse limb events linked to rivaroxaban treatment that was VOYAGER-PAD’s primary result, reported just over a year ago.

The new total-event analysis also provides important insight into the huge magnitude of total major adverse limb events that patients with PAD can develop following lower-extremity revascularization (LER).

The 6,564 patients who all received aspirin and were randomized to either rivaroxaban (Xarelto) or placebo had 4,714 total events during a median follow-up of 2.5 years following their revascularization procedure. This included 1,092 first primary events (a composite of acute limb ischemia, major amputation for vascular causes, MI, ischemic stroke, or cardiovascular death), 522 primary events that occurred as second or subsequent events among patients after a first primary event (a nearly 50% increase from first events only), and 3,100 additional vascular events that did not fit into the primary-event category, most often a peripheral revascularization procedure, Rupert M. Bauersachs, MD, said at the annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology.

“We were all astonished by this high event rate,” Dr. Bauersachs said during his report.

The total-event analysis that he reported showed that treatment with rivaroxaban resulted in a significant 14% relative reduction, compared with placebo in the incidence of total primary events, which closely tracks the significant 15% relative reduction in first primary events reported from the VOYAGER-PAD trial in 2020. Treatment with rivaroxaban also significantly linked with a 14% cut in total vascular events, compared with placebo, including the many events not included in the primary endpoint, said Dr. Bauersachs, who until his retirement in May 2021 was director of the Clinic for Vascular Medicine at the Darmstadt (Germany) Clinic. Concurrently with the report, the results appeared online.

“If one focuses only on first events, you miss the totality of disease burden. There is even greater benefit by reducing total events,” Dr. Bauersachs said during a press briefing. Adding rivaroxaban prevented roughly 2.6 first primary events for every 100 patients treated, but it also prevented 4.4 total primary events and 12.5 total vascular events for every 100 treated patients.

An ‘incredibly high’ event rate

“I don’t think any of us imagined the level of morbidity in this population. The event rate is incredibly high,” commented Joshua A. Beckman, MD, professor and director of vascular medicine at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn.

Because treatment with rivaroxaban showed clear efficacy for also preventing subsequent events it should not be considered to have failed in patients who have a vascular event while on rivaroxaban treatment, he added as designated discussant for the report. Treatment with rivaroxaban “should be continued indefinitely,” he concluded.

“It’s quite astonishing to see the magnitude of [total] events in these patients,” commented Sahil A. Parikh, MD, a cardiologist and director of endovascular services at Columbia University Medical Center in New York. “We’ve always known that these are high-risk patients, but exactly how high their risk is was not well understood until these data came to light.”

Dr. Parikh also noted that, despite the clear evidence reported from VOYAGER-PAD more than a year ago proving the efficacy and safety of adding rivaroxaban to aspirin for long-term treatment of patients with PAD following LER, this regimen has not yet become standard U.S. practice.
 

Rivaroxaban use falls short of the expected level

“This paradigm shift has not seen the level of adoption that we would expect based on the data,” he said. “There have been numerous editorials and discussions of this at every major medical meeting” during the past year, but those expert opinions have not translated into changed practice. “Perhaps the pandemic has muted enthusiasm for adoption of a new therapeutic paradigm,” suggested Dr. Parikh, and “on top of that guidelines have yet to be updated,” although he noted that updated guidelines from the ACC and American Heart Association for PAD that include the types of patients enrolled in VOYAGER-PAD are now under review and should be released by the first half of 2022.

“I think the additional data [reported by Dr. Bauersachs] will encourage us to use rivaroxaban in patients with claudication,” Dr. Parikh said. “Perhaps we should use rivaroxaban and aspirin in a broader swath of patients, but it will take time to convince some constituencies.”

VOYAGER-PAD randomized patients with PAD who underwent successful LER within 10 days prior to enrollment at 542 sites in 34 countries during 2015-2018. In addition to every patient receiving 100 mg aspirin daily and either 2.5 mg rivaroxaban twice daily or placebo once daily, patients who received an intra-arterial device such as a stent could also receive the antiplatelet agent clopidogrel for a planned maximum of 30 days after revascularization at the discretion of their physician, and the trial protocol allowed for extending clopidogrel treatment to as many as 60 days.

In addition to the efficacy outcomes, the safety results showed that adding rivaroxaban to aspirin appeared to increase bleeding episodes, but at rates that generally did not reach significance and that were dwarfed by the efficacy benefit. The study’s primary safety outcome was the incidence of Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) major bleeding episodes, which occurred in 2.65% of patients who received rivaroxaban and in 1.87% on those on placebo, a 43% relative increase that fell short of significance (P = .07). The analyses overall indicated that 10,000 similar patients treated for 1 year with rivaroxaban would have 181 fewer primary events, compared with placebo-treated patients at the cost of also having 29 additional TIMI major bleeding events compared with patient on placebo.

Adding clopidogrel adds little except bleeding

Further analysis showed that just over half of enrolled patients also received clopidogrel for a median of 29 days following their LER procedure. This added agent produced no significant added benefit during 3-year follow-up, but did boost bleeding risk, especially in patients who received clopidogrel for more than 30 days. This led the study investigators to suggest that, while rivaroxaban plus aspirin is indicated for long-term treatment, addition of clopidogrel on top of this should be limited to 30 days or fewer to minimize bleeding risk.

“I’m sure there is a bleeding hazard associated with rivaroxaban plus aspirin, but this is attenuated by using dual therapy and not using triple therapy” by also adding clopidogrel, noted Dr. Parikh.

The new VOYAGER-PAD results also showed that the ongoing risk faced by patients with PAD following LER applies globally to their peripheral arteries. Of the 3,034 total peripheral revascularizations performed in the cohort during follow-up, 64% occurred in the index limb and 36% in the contralateral limb. Another striking finding was that the need for ipsilateral repeat revascularization was more common after an index endovascular procedure, 2,329 repeat revascularizations in 4,379 of these patients (53%), compared with 2,185 patients who had surgical revascularization for their index procedure and subsequently 705 of these patients (32%) needed repeat revascularization.

But rivaroxaban treatment appeared to provide little benefit for the much less frequent incidence of first and subsequent events in the coronary and cerebral circulation. During follow-up, the rates of major adverse cardiovascular events – cardiovascular death, nonfatal MI, and nonfatal stroke – were virtually identical in the rivaroxaban and placebo groups.

“This study makes it clear that we are learning about differences in presentation between the vascular beds, and the benefits of specific treatments in each vascular bed,” Dr. Beckman said.

VOYAGER-PAD was sponsored by Bayer and Janssen, the companies that market rivaroxaban (Xarelto). Dr. Bauersachs has received personal fees from Bayer, as well as from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Daiichi Sankyo, and Pfizer, and has received grant support from Aspen Pharma. Dr. Beckman been a consultant to and received honoraria from Janssen, as well as from Amgen, JanOne, Novartis, and Sanofi, and he has served on a data and safety monitoring board for Bayer. Dr. Parikh has been a consultant to and received honoraria from Janssen, as well as from Abbott, Boston Scientific, Cordis, Medtronic, Penumbra, Philips, and Terumo, he has been a speaker on behalf of Inari, and he has received grant support from Abbott, Shockwave Medical, Surmodics, and TriReme Medical.

[email protected]

Results from the NAVIGATOR study of tezepelumab showed that treatment of adults and adolescents with severe, uncontrolled asthma with the new biologic led to a large reduction in exacerbations requiring hospital stays and ED visits.

Tezepelumab, codeveloped by Amgen and AstraZeneca, has a novel mechanism of action. It blocks thymic stromal lymphopoietin (TSLP), which is a cytokine produced by epithelial cells. TSLP levels correlate with airway obstruction, severity of disease, and glucocorticoid resistance. TSLP is involved in T2 inflammation within the airway, but also plays a role in the interactions between airway cells and immune cells, which doesn’t rely only solely on T2 inflammation. That broad mechanism of action distinguishes tezepelumab from most other biologics for the treatment of asthma, which are more targeted.

“By working at the top of the cascade, tezepelumab helps stop inflammation at a key source. Clinical trials with tezepelumab showed a clinical benefit in patients irrespective of their baseline biomarker level, including patients with low eosinophil levels at baseline,” said Jean-Pierre Llanos-Ackert, MD, who is executive medical director and global medical affairs lead for tezepelumab at Amgen.

The primary endpoint data look robust, according to Praveen Akuthota, MD, who is an associate professor of medicine at the University of California, San Diego, and comoderated the session at the American Thoracic Society’s virtual international conference, where the research was presented. The study was also published on May 13, 2021, in the New England Journal of Medicine. The conference session included updated results.

The drug holds promise, but more study is needed. “The question really will be, how is this drug different from the existing biologics? How much better is this drug in patients who have borderline T2 biomarkers, or even low T2. The study does show some efficacy in patients whose T2 signals may not be as robust. We’ll have to see with ongoing longitudinal data, how this drug positions, compared to the other agents. It’s obviously exciting, though, to have another option, given that we know what our current armamentarium of agents there are still nonresponders,” said Dr. Akuthota in an interview.

The other comoderator in the session, Laura Crotty Alexander, MD, commented: “It seems like it might work possibly even better than some that are directly covering one pathway only. Hopefully, this agent will be efficacious in a broader population than some of the more targeted biologics.” Dr. Alexander is an associate professor of medicine at the University of California, San Diego, and section chief of pulmonary critical care at the Veterans Affairs San Diego Healthcare System.

She pointed out that physicians often think of asthma patients in broad brush terms, as high or low T2, or T2 high and Th1 or neutrophilic or obese, but many patients present a more complicated picture. “There is some overlap across those phenotypes, such that an agent that works really well for one group doesn’t mean that it won’t have an impact, especially clinically, on some of these other phenotypes,” said Dr. Alexander.

Dr. Akuthota agreed. “Having options for patients whose biomarkers are not maybe as clear is, I think, important.”
 

Promising results

The study included 1,059 patients aged 12-80 who received 210 mg tezepelumab or placebo. Over 52 weeks, the treatment group had a 79% reduction in exacerbations requiring hospitalization or an ED visit, compared with placebo (rate ratio, 0.21; 95% confidence interval, 0.12-0.37), and an 85% reduction in exacerbations requiring hospitalization (RR, 0.15; 95% CI, 0.07-0.33). The drug increased the time to first exacerbation requiring hospitalization that required hospitalization or an ED visit, reducing risk by 65% (hazard ratio, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.22-0.56).

Fewer patients in the treatment group than placebo used asthma-related health care resources, including: ED visits (32 vs. 94), unscheduled visit to a specialist (285 vs. 406), telephone calls to a health care provider (234 vs. 599), ambulance transport (5 vs. 22), and home visits from a health care provider (18 vs. 22). Fewer patients in the tezepelumab group had hospital stays (3.2% vs. 7.0%), and they had a lower total number of hospital days (108 vs. 497) and days in the ICU (0 vs. 31).

The study was funded by Amgen and AstraZeneca. Dr. Llanos-Ackert is an employee of Amgen. Dr. Alexander has no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Akuthota has consulted for AstraZeneca and participated in their clinical trials.

Results from the NAVIGATOR study of tezepelumab showed that treatment of adults and adolescents with severe, uncontrolled asthma with the new biologic led to a large reduction in exacerbations requiring hospital stays and ED visits.

Tezepelumab, codeveloped by Amgen and AstraZeneca, has a novel mechanism of action. It blocks thymic stromal lymphopoietin (TSLP), which is a cytokine produced by epithelial cells. TSLP levels correlate with airway obstruction, severity of disease, and glucocorticoid resistance. TSLP is involved in T2 inflammation within the airway, but also plays a role in the interactions between airway cells and immune cells, which doesn’t rely only solely on T2 inflammation. That broad mechanism of action distinguishes tezepelumab from most other biologics for the treatment of asthma, which are more targeted.

“By working at the top of the cascade, tezepelumab helps stop inflammation at a key source. Clinical trials with tezepelumab showed a clinical benefit in patients irrespective of their baseline biomarker level, including patients with low eosinophil levels at baseline,” said Jean-Pierre Llanos-Ackert, MD, who is executive medical director and global medical affairs lead for tezepelumab at Amgen.

The primary endpoint data look robust, according to Praveen Akuthota, MD, who is an associate professor of medicine at the University of California, San Diego, and comoderated the session at the American Thoracic Society’s virtual international conference, where the research was presented. The study was also published on May 13, 2021, in the New England Journal of Medicine. The conference session included updated results.

The drug holds promise, but more study is needed. “The question really will be, how is this drug different from the existing biologics? How much better is this drug in patients who have borderline T2 biomarkers, or even low T2. The study does show some efficacy in patients whose T2 signals may not be as robust. We’ll have to see with ongoing longitudinal data, how this drug positions, compared to the other agents. It’s obviously exciting, though, to have another option, given that we know what our current armamentarium of agents there are still nonresponders,” said Dr. Akuthota in an interview.

The other comoderator in the session, Laura Crotty Alexander, MD, commented: “It seems like it might work possibly even better than some that are directly covering one pathway only. Hopefully, this agent will be efficacious in a broader population than some of the more targeted biologics.” Dr. Alexander is an associate professor of medicine at the University of California, San Diego, and section chief of pulmonary critical care at the Veterans Affairs San Diego Healthcare System.

She pointed out that physicians often think of asthma patients in broad brush terms, as high or low T2, or T2 high and Th1 or neutrophilic or obese, but many patients present a more complicated picture. “There is some overlap across those phenotypes, such that an agent that works really well for one group doesn’t mean that it won’t have an impact, especially clinically, on some of these other phenotypes,” said Dr. Alexander.

Dr. Akuthota agreed. “Having options for patients whose biomarkers are not maybe as clear is, I think, important.”
 

Promising results

The study included 1,059 patients aged 12-80 who received 210 mg tezepelumab or placebo. Over 52 weeks, the treatment group had a 79% reduction in exacerbations requiring hospitalization or an ED visit, compared with placebo (rate ratio, 0.21; 95% confidence interval, 0.12-0.37), and an 85% reduction in exacerbations requiring hospitalization (RR, 0.15; 95% CI, 0.07-0.33). The drug increased the time to first exacerbation requiring hospitalization that required hospitalization or an ED visit, reducing risk by 65% (hazard ratio, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.22-0.56).

Fewer patients in the treatment group than placebo used asthma-related health care resources, including: ED visits (32 vs. 94), unscheduled visit to a specialist (285 vs. 406), telephone calls to a health care provider (234 vs. 599), ambulance transport (5 vs. 22), and home visits from a health care provider (18 vs. 22). Fewer patients in the tezepelumab group had hospital stays (3.2% vs. 7.0%), and they had a lower total number of hospital days (108 vs. 497) and days in the ICU (0 vs. 31).

The study was funded by Amgen and AstraZeneca. Dr. Llanos-Ackert is an employee of Amgen. Dr. Alexander has no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Akuthota has consulted for AstraZeneca and participated in their clinical trials.

Results from the NAVIGATOR study of tezepelumab showed that treatment of adults and adolescents with severe, uncontrolled asthma with the new biologic led to a large reduction in exacerbations requiring hospital stays and ED visits.

Tezepelumab, codeveloped by Amgen and AstraZeneca, has a novel mechanism of action. It blocks thymic stromal lymphopoietin (TSLP), which is a cytokine produced by epithelial cells. TSLP levels correlate with airway obstruction, severity of disease, and glucocorticoid resistance. TSLP is involved in T2 inflammation within the airway, but also plays a role in the interactions between airway cells and immune cells, which doesn’t rely only solely on T2 inflammation. That broad mechanism of action distinguishes tezepelumab from most other biologics for the treatment of asthma, which are more targeted.

“By working at the top of the cascade, tezepelumab helps stop inflammation at a key source. Clinical trials with tezepelumab showed a clinical benefit in patients irrespective of their baseline biomarker level, including patients with low eosinophil levels at baseline,” said Jean-Pierre Llanos-Ackert, MD, who is executive medical director and global medical affairs lead for tezepelumab at Amgen.

The primary endpoint data look robust, according to Praveen Akuthota, MD, who is an associate professor of medicine at the University of California, San Diego, and comoderated the session at the American Thoracic Society’s virtual international conference, where the research was presented. The study was also published on May 13, 2021, in the New England Journal of Medicine. The conference session included updated results.

The drug holds promise, but more study is needed. “The question really will be, how is this drug different from the existing biologics? How much better is this drug in patients who have borderline T2 biomarkers, or even low T2. The study does show some efficacy in patients whose T2 signals may not be as robust. We’ll have to see with ongoing longitudinal data, how this drug positions, compared to the other agents. It’s obviously exciting, though, to have another option, given that we know what our current armamentarium of agents there are still nonresponders,” said Dr. Akuthota in an interview.

The other comoderator in the session, Laura Crotty Alexander, MD, commented: “It seems like it might work possibly even better than some that are directly covering one pathway only. Hopefully, this agent will be efficacious in a broader population than some of the more targeted biologics.” Dr. Alexander is an associate professor of medicine at the University of California, San Diego, and section chief of pulmonary critical care at the Veterans Affairs San Diego Healthcare System.

She pointed out that physicians often think of asthma patients in broad brush terms, as high or low T2, or T2 high and Th1 or neutrophilic or obese, but many patients present a more complicated picture. “There is some overlap across those phenotypes, such that an agent that works really well for one group doesn’t mean that it won’t have an impact, especially clinically, on some of these other phenotypes,” said Dr. Alexander.

Dr. Akuthota agreed. “Having options for patients whose biomarkers are not maybe as clear is, I think, important.”
 

Promising results

The study included 1,059 patients aged 12-80 who received 210 mg tezepelumab or placebo. Over 52 weeks, the treatment group had a 79% reduction in exacerbations requiring hospitalization or an ED visit, compared with placebo (rate ratio, 0.21; 95% confidence interval, 0.12-0.37), and an 85% reduction in exacerbations requiring hospitalization (RR, 0.15; 95% CI, 0.07-0.33). The drug increased the time to first exacerbation requiring hospitalization that required hospitalization or an ED visit, reducing risk by 65% (hazard ratio, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.22-0.56).

Fewer patients in the treatment group than placebo used asthma-related health care resources, including: ED visits (32 vs. 94), unscheduled visit to a specialist (285 vs. 406), telephone calls to a health care provider (234 vs. 599), ambulance transport (5 vs. 22), and home visits from a health care provider (18 vs. 22). Fewer patients in the tezepelumab group had hospital stays (3.2% vs. 7.0%), and they had a lower total number of hospital days (108 vs. 497) and days in the ICU (0 vs. 31).

The study was funded by Amgen and AstraZeneca. Dr. Llanos-Ackert is an employee of Amgen. Dr. Alexander has no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Akuthota has consulted for AstraZeneca and participated in their clinical trials.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved the adjuvant use of nivolumab (Opdivo) in patients with resected esophageal or gastroesophageal junction (GEJ) cancer who have received neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and have residual pathological disease following surgery.

The approval addresses an unmet need among these patients, who have a high risk of recurrence but for whom surveillance is the only current management option after the above-described standard treatment, according to experts.

The FDA’s approval is based on results from the CheckMate 577 study, which showed a significant improvement in disease-free survival compared with placebo.

This was described as “a practice-changing trial in the treatment of esophageal cancer” by David H. Ilson, MD, PhD, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, in an editorial in The New England Journal of Medicine that accompanied the published study results.

“The trial shows the first true advance in the adjuvant therapy of esophageal cancer in recent years,” wrote Dr. Ilson.

In the randomized, double-blind, phase 3 trial, patients with resected stage II or III esophageal or GEJ cancer were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to receive nivolumab (at a dose of 240 mg every 2 weeks for 16 weeks, followed by a dose of 480 mg every 4 weeks) or placebo. The maximum duration of the intervention period was 1 year.

All of these patients had received neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and had residual pathological disease, as noted in the new indication. Patients were enrolled regardless of programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression.

For the primary endpoint of disease-free survival, the median was 22.4 months for the nivolumab group (n = 532) versus 11.0 months for the placebo group (n = 262; hazard ratio [HR] for disease recurrence or death, 0.69; 96.4% confidence interval [CI], 0.56-0.86; P < .001).

The median follow-up was 24.4 months.

Disease-free survival favored nivolumab across multiple preplanned subgroups.

However, as Dr. Ilson noted in the editorial, the efficacy of nivolumab varied, with more benefit seen for patients with squamous cell cancer (HR, 0.61) than for those with adenocarcinoma (HR, 0.75). Patients with esophageal tumors also had greater benefit (HR, 0.61) than did those with GEJ tumors (HR, 0.87).

There was benefit in patients with node-negative disease (HR, 0.74) and node-positive disease (HR, 0.67) and benefit in patients with tumors that were PD-L1–negative (HR, 0.73) and PD-L1–positive (HR, 0.75).

There were fewer distant recurrences in the nivolumab group than in the placebo group (29% vs. 39%) and fewer locoregional recurrences (12% vs. 17%).

No new safety signals were observed, and 9% of the nivolumab patients discontinued the drug because of treatment-related adverse events versus 3% of placebo patients. In addition, a 1-year course of adjuvant nivolumab did not negatively impact patient-reported quality of life, the trialists reported.

Grade 3 or 4 adverse events of any cause were more frequent in the nivolumab group versus the placebo group (34% vs. 32%) as were those related to the intervention (13% vs. 6%).

Although overall survival data are not mature, “the doubling of median disease-free survival will almost certainly translate into an overall survival benefit,” Dr. Ilson wrote.

Notably, the trial’s original co-primary endpoint was overall survival, but was dropped to a secondary endpoint after enrollment “challenges.”

When the now-published data were first presented at the 2020 annual meeting of the European Society for Medical Oncology, the invited discussant, Andrés Cervantes, MD, PhD, University of Valencia, Spain, raised several issues with the trial.

Preoperative chemoradiation is not “universally accepted” as the standard of care in this setting, said Dr. Cervantes, president-elect of ESMO.

Dr. Ilson acknowledged as much. “A debate is ongoing about whether chemotherapy alone or combined chemoradiotherapy is the preferred treatment for esophageal cancer before surgery,” he wrote.

In addition, Dr. Cervantes noted that disease-free survival is not currently validated as a major endpoint in gastroesophageal cancers, and the median follow-up was short.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved the adjuvant use of nivolumab (Opdivo) in patients with resected esophageal or gastroesophageal junction (GEJ) cancer who have received neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and have residual pathological disease following surgery.

The approval addresses an unmet need among these patients, who have a high risk of recurrence but for whom surveillance is the only current management option after the above-described standard treatment, according to experts.

The FDA’s approval is based on results from the CheckMate 577 study, which showed a significant improvement in disease-free survival compared with placebo.

This was described as “a practice-changing trial in the treatment of esophageal cancer” by David H. Ilson, MD, PhD, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, in an editorial in The New England Journal of Medicine that accompanied the published study results.

“The trial shows the first true advance in the adjuvant therapy of esophageal cancer in recent years,” wrote Dr. Ilson.

In the randomized, double-blind, phase 3 trial, patients with resected stage II or III esophageal or GEJ cancer were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to receive nivolumab (at a dose of 240 mg every 2 weeks for 16 weeks, followed by a dose of 480 mg every 4 weeks) or placebo. The maximum duration of the intervention period was 1 year.

All of these patients had received neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and had residual pathological disease, as noted in the new indication. Patients were enrolled regardless of programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression.

For the primary endpoint of disease-free survival, the median was 22.4 months for the nivolumab group (n = 532) versus 11.0 months for the placebo group (n = 262; hazard ratio [HR] for disease recurrence or death, 0.69; 96.4% confidence interval [CI], 0.56-0.86; P < .001).

The median follow-up was 24.4 months.

Disease-free survival favored nivolumab across multiple preplanned subgroups.

However, as Dr. Ilson noted in the editorial, the efficacy of nivolumab varied, with more benefit seen for patients with squamous cell cancer (HR, 0.61) than for those with adenocarcinoma (HR, 0.75). Patients with esophageal tumors also had greater benefit (HR, 0.61) than did those with GEJ tumors (HR, 0.87).

There was benefit in patients with node-negative disease (HR, 0.74) and node-positive disease (HR, 0.67) and benefit in patients with tumors that were PD-L1–negative (HR, 0.73) and PD-L1–positive (HR, 0.75).

There were fewer distant recurrences in the nivolumab group than in the placebo group (29% vs. 39%) and fewer locoregional recurrences (12% vs. 17%).

No new safety signals were observed, and 9% of the nivolumab patients discontinued the drug because of treatment-related adverse events versus 3% of placebo patients. In addition, a 1-year course of adjuvant nivolumab did not negatively impact patient-reported quality of life, the trialists reported.

Grade 3 or 4 adverse events of any cause were more frequent in the nivolumab group versus the placebo group (34% vs. 32%) as were those related to the intervention (13% vs. 6%).

Although overall survival data are not mature, “the doubling of median disease-free survival will almost certainly translate into an overall survival benefit,” Dr. Ilson wrote.

Notably, the trial’s original co-primary endpoint was overall survival, but was dropped to a secondary endpoint after enrollment “challenges.”

When the now-published data were first presented at the 2020 annual meeting of the European Society for Medical Oncology, the invited discussant, Andrés Cervantes, MD, PhD, University of Valencia, Spain, raised several issues with the trial.

Preoperative chemoradiation is not “universally accepted” as the standard of care in this setting, said Dr. Cervantes, president-elect of ESMO.

Dr. Ilson acknowledged as much. “A debate is ongoing about whether chemotherapy alone or combined chemoradiotherapy is the preferred treatment for esophageal cancer before surgery,” he wrote.

In addition, Dr. Cervantes noted that disease-free survival is not currently validated as a major endpoint in gastroesophageal cancers, and the median follow-up was short.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved the adjuvant use of nivolumab (Opdivo) in patients with resected esophageal or gastroesophageal junction (GEJ) cancer who have received neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and have residual pathological disease following surgery.

The approval addresses an unmet need among these patients, who have a high risk of recurrence but for whom surveillance is the only current management option after the above-described standard treatment, according to experts.

The FDA’s approval is based on results from the CheckMate 577 study, which showed a significant improvement in disease-free survival compared with placebo.

This was described as “a practice-changing trial in the treatment of esophageal cancer” by David H. Ilson, MD, PhD, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, in an editorial in The New England Journal of Medicine that accompanied the published study results.

“The trial shows the first true advance in the adjuvant therapy of esophageal cancer in recent years,” wrote Dr. Ilson.

In the randomized, double-blind, phase 3 trial, patients with resected stage II or III esophageal or GEJ cancer were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to receive nivolumab (at a dose of 240 mg every 2 weeks for 16 weeks, followed by a dose of 480 mg every 4 weeks) or placebo. The maximum duration of the intervention period was 1 year.

All of these patients had received neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and had residual pathological disease, as noted in the new indication. Patients were enrolled regardless of programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression.

For the primary endpoint of disease-free survival, the median was 22.4 months for the nivolumab group (n = 532) versus 11.0 months for the placebo group (n = 262; hazard ratio [HR] for disease recurrence or death, 0.69; 96.4% confidence interval [CI], 0.56-0.86; P < .001).

The median follow-up was 24.4 months.

Disease-free survival favored nivolumab across multiple preplanned subgroups.

However, as Dr. Ilson noted in the editorial, the efficacy of nivolumab varied, with more benefit seen for patients with squamous cell cancer (HR, 0.61) than for those with adenocarcinoma (HR, 0.75). Patients with esophageal tumors also had greater benefit (HR, 0.61) than did those with GEJ tumors (HR, 0.87).

There was benefit in patients with node-negative disease (HR, 0.74) and node-positive disease (HR, 0.67) and benefit in patients with tumors that were PD-L1–negative (HR, 0.73) and PD-L1–positive (HR, 0.75).

There were fewer distant recurrences in the nivolumab group than in the placebo group (29% vs. 39%) and fewer locoregional recurrences (12% vs. 17%).

No new safety signals were observed, and 9% of the nivolumab patients discontinued the drug because of treatment-related adverse events versus 3% of placebo patients. In addition, a 1-year course of adjuvant nivolumab did not negatively impact patient-reported quality of life, the trialists reported.

Grade 3 or 4 adverse events of any cause were more frequent in the nivolumab group versus the placebo group (34% vs. 32%) as were those related to the intervention (13% vs. 6%).

Although overall survival data are not mature, “the doubling of median disease-free survival will almost certainly translate into an overall survival benefit,” Dr. Ilson wrote.

Notably, the trial’s original co-primary endpoint was overall survival, but was dropped to a secondary endpoint after enrollment “challenges.”

When the now-published data were first presented at the 2020 annual meeting of the European Society for Medical Oncology, the invited discussant, Andrés Cervantes, MD, PhD, University of Valencia, Spain, raised several issues with the trial.

Preoperative chemoradiation is not “universally accepted” as the standard of care in this setting, said Dr. Cervantes, president-elect of ESMO.

Dr. Ilson acknowledged as much. “A debate is ongoing about whether chemotherapy alone or combined chemoradiotherapy is the preferred treatment for esophageal cancer before surgery,” he wrote.

In addition, Dr. Cervantes noted that disease-free survival is not currently validated as a major endpoint in gastroesophageal cancers, and the median follow-up was short.

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

The greatest relative benefit from omecamtiv mecarbil, a member of the novel myotropic drug class that improves cardiac performance, is produced in heart failure patients with the lowest left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), a new analysis of the recently published phase 3 GALACTIC-HF trial has found.

The findings reinforce the potential for this drug to be helpful in the management of the most advanced stages of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), reported John R. Teerlink, MD, director of heart failure at San Francisco Veterans Affairs Medical Center, at the annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology.

The phase 3 multinational GALACTIC-HF trial, published earlier this year, linked omecamtiv mecarbil with an 8% reduction in the risk of a heart failure–related events or cardiovascular death, relative to placebo, which was the primary outcome. For entry, HFrEF patients were required to have a LVEF of 35% or less.

Drilling down on ejection fraction

The new analysis divided participants into quartiles of baseline LVEF and then compared relative outcomes and safety.

In the lowest quartile, defined by a LVEF of 22% or lower, the reduction in risk of events reached 17% (hazard ratio, 0.83; 95% confidence interval, 0.73-0.95) for omecamtiv mecarbil relative to placebo. In the highest, defined by a LVEF of 33% or greater, the benefit fell short of significance (HR 0.99; 95% CI, 0.84-1.16). Across quartiles, LVEF was the “strongest modifier of the treatment effect,” emerging in this analysis as a statistically significant (P = .004) continuous variable.

The comparison by LVEF quartiles also provided an opportunity to show that omecamtiv mecarbil was as safe and well tolerated in those with the most advanced disease as in those less sick. At the lowest levels of LVEF, like the higher levels, omecamtiv mecarbil did not produce any adverse effects on blood pressure, heart rate, potassium homeostasis, or renal function.

In GALACTIC-HF, 8,256 HFrEF patients with LVEF 35% or less were randomized to omecamtiv mecarbil or placebo. The primary composite outcome of hospitalization or urgent visit for heart failure or death from cardiovascular causes was evaluated after a median of 21.8 months on therapy.

When incidence rate per 100 patient years was graphed against the range of LVEF, the relative advantage of omecamtiv mecarbil became visible just below an LVEF of 30%, climbing steadily even to the lowest LVEF, which reached 10%.

Perhaps relevant to the reduction in events, there were also greater relative reductions in NT-proBNP (NT-proB-type natriuretic peptide) for omecamtiv mecarbil at lower relative to higher LVEF. Although omecamtiv mecarbil is not associated with any direct vascular, electrophysiologic, or neurohormonal effects, according to Dr. Teerlink, the indirect effects of selective binding to cardiac myosin has been associated with lower NT-proBNP and other biomarkers of cardiac remodeling in prior clinical studies.

Although Dr. Teerlink acknowledged that relatively few patients in GALACTIC-HF received an angiotensin-receptor neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) or a sodium glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitor, he said there is “every reason to believe that omecamtiv mecarbil would be complementary to these therapies.” He said the mechanism of action of omecamtiv mecarbil, which improves systolic function, has no overlap with these drugs.

Importantly, there is a particular need for new treatment options in patients with advanced LVEF, according to Dr. Teerlink, who cited evidence, for example, that “the beneficial effect of [the ARNI] sacubitril valsartan, while still significant, decreases in patients with LVEF less than 35%.”

Overall, based on these results, “we believe that omecamtiv mecarbil represents a novel therapy that holds the promise of improving clinical outcomes in patients with severely reduced ejection fraction, which are the very patients that are most challenging for us to treat,” Dr. Teerlink said.
 

Omecamtiv mecarbil may ‘buy you some time’

Ileana Piña, MD, clinical professor of medicine, Central Michigan University, Mount Pleasant, Mich., agreed. She said that omecamtiv mecarbil, if approved, will be an option for the type of HFrEF patients who are being considered for heart transplant or mechanical-assist devices.

“We are very loath to use inotropes in this population, because we know that ultimately the inotrope is not going to do well,” said Dr. Piña, calling these therapies a “Band-Aid.” Based on the evidence from GALACTIC-HF, she thinks that omecamtiv mecarbil will be more versatile.

“This drug does not increase myocardial oxygen demand as do the inotropes, and it can be given in the outpatient setting if need be, so I see this as a real advance,” Dr. Piña said. Although Dr. Piña acknowledged that omecamtiv mecarbil did not reduce mortality in the GALACTIC-HF trial, “at least it will buy you some time.”

Dr. Teerlink has financial relationships with multiple pharmaceutical companies, including Amgen, Cytogenetics, and Servier, which provided funding for the GALACTIC-HF trial. Dr. Piña reports no potential conflicts of interest.

The greatest relative benefit from omecamtiv mecarbil, a member of the novel myotropic drug class that improves cardiac performance, is produced in heart failure patients with the lowest left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), a new analysis of the recently published phase 3 GALACTIC-HF trial has found.

The findings reinforce the potential for this drug to be helpful in the management of the most advanced stages of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), reported John R. Teerlink, MD, director of heart failure at San Francisco Veterans Affairs Medical Center, at the annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology.

The phase 3 multinational GALACTIC-HF trial, published earlier this year, linked omecamtiv mecarbil with an 8% reduction in the risk of a heart failure–related events or cardiovascular death, relative to placebo, which was the primary outcome. For entry, HFrEF patients were required to have a LVEF of 35% or less.

Drilling down on ejection fraction

The new analysis divided participants into quartiles of baseline LVEF and then compared relative outcomes and safety.

In the lowest quartile, defined by a LVEF of 22% or lower, the reduction in risk of events reached 17% (hazard ratio, 0.83; 95% confidence interval, 0.73-0.95) for omecamtiv mecarbil relative to placebo. In the highest, defined by a LVEF of 33% or greater, the benefit fell short of significance (HR 0.99; 95% CI, 0.84-1.16). Across quartiles, LVEF was the “strongest modifier of the treatment effect,” emerging in this analysis as a statistically significant (P = .004) continuous variable.

The comparison by LVEF quartiles also provided an opportunity to show that omecamtiv mecarbil was as safe and well tolerated in those with the most advanced disease as in those less sick. At the lowest levels of LVEF, like the higher levels, omecamtiv mecarbil did not produce any adverse effects on blood pressure, heart rate, potassium homeostasis, or renal function.

In GALACTIC-HF, 8,256 HFrEF patients with LVEF 35% or less were randomized to omecamtiv mecarbil or placebo. The primary composite outcome of hospitalization or urgent visit for heart failure or death from cardiovascular causes was evaluated after a median of 21.8 months on therapy.

When incidence rate per 100 patient years was graphed against the range of LVEF, the relative advantage of omecamtiv mecarbil became visible just below an LVEF of 30%, climbing steadily even to the lowest LVEF, which reached 10%.

Perhaps relevant to the reduction in events, there were also greater relative reductions in NT-proBNP (NT-proB-type natriuretic peptide) for omecamtiv mecarbil at lower relative to higher LVEF. Although omecamtiv mecarbil is not associated with any direct vascular, electrophysiologic, or neurohormonal effects, according to Dr. Teerlink, the indirect effects of selective binding to cardiac myosin has been associated with lower NT-proBNP and other biomarkers of cardiac remodeling in prior clinical studies.

Although Dr. Teerlink acknowledged that relatively few patients in GALACTIC-HF received an angiotensin-receptor neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) or a sodium glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitor, he said there is “every reason to believe that omecamtiv mecarbil would be complementary to these therapies.” He said the mechanism of action of omecamtiv mecarbil, which improves systolic function, has no overlap with these drugs.

Importantly, there is a particular need for new treatment options in patients with advanced LVEF, according to Dr. Teerlink, who cited evidence, for example, that “the beneficial effect of [the ARNI] sacubitril valsartan, while still significant, decreases in patients with LVEF less than 35%.”

Overall, based on these results, “we believe that omecamtiv mecarbil represents a novel therapy that holds the promise of improving clinical outcomes in patients with severely reduced ejection fraction, which are the very patients that are most challenging for us to treat,” Dr. Teerlink said.
 

Omecamtiv mecarbil may ‘buy you some time’

Ileana Piña, MD, clinical professor of medicine, Central Michigan University, Mount Pleasant, Mich., agreed. She said that omecamtiv mecarbil, if approved, will be an option for the type of HFrEF patients who are being considered for heart transplant or mechanical-assist devices.

“We are very loath to use inotropes in this population, because we know that ultimately the inotrope is not going to do well,” said Dr. Piña, calling these therapies a “Band-Aid.” Based on the evidence from GALACTIC-HF, she thinks that omecamtiv mecarbil will be more versatile.

“This drug does not increase myocardial oxygen demand as do the inotropes, and it can be given in the outpatient setting if need be, so I see this as a real advance,” Dr. Piña said. Although Dr. Piña acknowledged that omecamtiv mecarbil did not reduce mortality in the GALACTIC-HF trial, “at least it will buy you some time.”

Dr. Teerlink has financial relationships with multiple pharmaceutical companies, including Amgen, Cytogenetics, and Servier, which provided funding for the GALACTIC-HF trial. Dr. Piña reports no potential conflicts of interest.

The greatest relative benefit from omecamtiv mecarbil, a member of the novel myotropic drug class that improves cardiac performance, is produced in heart failure patients with the lowest left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), a new analysis of the recently published phase 3 GALACTIC-HF trial has found.

The findings reinforce the potential for this drug to be helpful in the management of the most advanced stages of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), reported John R. Teerlink, MD, director of heart failure at San Francisco Veterans Affairs Medical Center, at the annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology.

The phase 3 multinational GALACTIC-HF trial, published earlier this year, linked omecamtiv mecarbil with an 8% reduction in the risk of a heart failure–related events or cardiovascular death, relative to placebo, which was the primary outcome. For entry, HFrEF patients were required to have a LVEF of 35% or less.

Drilling down on ejection fraction

The new analysis divided participants into quartiles of baseline LVEF and then compared relative outcomes and safety.

In the lowest quartile, defined by a LVEF of 22% or lower, the reduction in risk of events reached 17% (hazard ratio, 0.83; 95% confidence interval, 0.73-0.95) for omecamtiv mecarbil relative to placebo. In the highest, defined by a LVEF of 33% or greater, the benefit fell short of significance (HR 0.99; 95% CI, 0.84-1.16). Across quartiles, LVEF was the “strongest modifier of the treatment effect,” emerging in this analysis as a statistically significant (P = .004) continuous variable.

The comparison by LVEF quartiles also provided an opportunity to show that omecamtiv mecarbil was as safe and well tolerated in those with the most advanced disease as in those less sick. At the lowest levels of LVEF, like the higher levels, omecamtiv mecarbil did not produce any adverse effects on blood pressure, heart rate, potassium homeostasis, or renal function.

In GALACTIC-HF, 8,256 HFrEF patients with LVEF 35% or less were randomized to omecamtiv mecarbil or placebo. The primary composite outcome of hospitalization or urgent visit for heart failure or death from cardiovascular causes was evaluated after a median of 21.8 months on therapy.

When incidence rate per 100 patient years was graphed against the range of LVEF, the relative advantage of omecamtiv mecarbil became visible just below an LVEF of 30%, climbing steadily even to the lowest LVEF, which reached 10%.

Perhaps relevant to the reduction in events, there were also greater relative reductions in NT-proBNP (NT-proB-type natriuretic peptide) for omecamtiv mecarbil at lower relative to higher LVEF. Although omecamtiv mecarbil is not associated with any direct vascular, electrophysiologic, or neurohormonal effects, according to Dr. Teerlink, the indirect effects of selective binding to cardiac myosin has been associated with lower NT-proBNP and other biomarkers of cardiac remodeling in prior clinical studies.

Although Dr. Teerlink acknowledged that relatively few patients in GALACTIC-HF received an angiotensin-receptor neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) or a sodium glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitor, he said there is “every reason to believe that omecamtiv mecarbil would be complementary to these therapies.” He said the mechanism of action of omecamtiv mecarbil, which improves systolic function, has no overlap with these drugs.

Importantly, there is a particular need for new treatment options in patients with advanced LVEF, according to Dr. Teerlink, who cited evidence, for example, that “the beneficial effect of [the ARNI] sacubitril valsartan, while still significant, decreases in patients with LVEF less than 35%.”

Overall, based on these results, “we believe that omecamtiv mecarbil represents a novel therapy that holds the promise of improving clinical outcomes in patients with severely reduced ejection fraction, which are the very patients that are most challenging for us to treat,” Dr. Teerlink said.
 

Omecamtiv mecarbil may ‘buy you some time’

Ileana Piña, MD, clinical professor of medicine, Central Michigan University, Mount Pleasant, Mich., agreed. She said that omecamtiv mecarbil, if approved, will be an option for the type of HFrEF patients who are being considered for heart transplant or mechanical-assist devices.

“We are very loath to use inotropes in this population, because we know that ultimately the inotrope is not going to do well,” said Dr. Piña, calling these therapies a “Band-Aid.” Based on the evidence from GALACTIC-HF, she thinks that omecamtiv mecarbil will be more versatile.

“This drug does not increase myocardial oxygen demand as do the inotropes, and it can be given in the outpatient setting if need be, so I see this as a real advance,” Dr. Piña said. Although Dr. Piña acknowledged that omecamtiv mecarbil did not reduce mortality in the GALACTIC-HF trial, “at least it will buy you some time.”

Dr. Teerlink has financial relationships with multiple pharmaceutical companies, including Amgen, Cytogenetics, and Servier, which provided funding for the GALACTIC-HF trial. Dr. Piña reports no potential conflicts of interest.

It’s now official: The investigational sodium-glucose cotransporter (SGLT) 1/2 inhibitor sotagliflozin is the first agent clearly shown in a prespecified analysis of randomized trials to improve clinical outcomes in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFpEF).

Researchers who ran the SCORED and SOLOIST-WHF pivotal trials for sotagliflozin first made that claim in November 2020 when reporting top-line results from a prespecified meta-analysis of the two trials during the American Heart Association annual scientific sessions. A follow-up report during the annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology fleshed out the evidence and firmed up their landmark conclusion.

The meta-analysis (Abstract 410-08) included 4,500 patients with type 2 diabetes and diagnosed heart failure at entry; its primary endpoint, which was the same in both trials, was the combined incidence of cardiovascular death and the total number of either hospitalization for heart failure or urgent outpatient visits for heart failure.

Compared with placebo, treatment with sotagliflozin for a median of about 15 months dropped this composite endpoint by a relative 33% among the 1,931 who began the study with a left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) of at least 50% (HFpEF), by a relative 22% in the 1,758 patients who entered with an LVEF of less than 40% (patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction), and by a relative 43% among the 811 patients who began with an LVEF of 40%-49% (patients with heart failure with mid-range ejection fraction). The relative risk reductions were significant for all three subgroups, Deepak L. Bhatt, MD, reported at the meeting.
 

Equally effective ‘across the full range of LVEFs.’

Perhaps as notable and unprecedented was the further finding that the clinical benefits seen with treatment of patients with type 2 diabetes with sotagliflozin was consistent regardless of the ejection fraction they had at entry. Enrolled patients with baseline LVEFs in the range of 25% received a relative benefit from sotagliflozin treatment that was statistically no different from the benefit seen in patients who entered with an LVEF in the neighborhood of 45%, 65%, or at any other level across the LVEF spectrum, a finding that Dr. Bhatt called “remarkable” during a press briefing. “The results show the benefit of sotagliflozin across the full range of LVEFs.”

“We are very excited in the heart failure world by the SGLT2 inhibitors; we’ve been impressed by their reduction in heart failure hospitalizations, but we wonder about the patients with HFpEF, where we haven’t had a blockbuster drug to give,” said Ileana L. Piña, MD, a heart failure specialist and medical officer with the Food and Drug Administration.

The new findings “look like they could pose a regulatory indication [for sotagliflozin] for patients with type 2 diabetes and heart failure across the entire spectrum of heart failure,” said Christopher M. O’Connor, MD, a heart failure specialist and president of the Inova Heart & Vascular institute in Falls Church, Va., and designated discussant for Dr. Bhatt’s report.

A significant on-treatment reduction in CV death

Other new, notable findings from the meta-analysis included the observation that while treatment with sotagliflozin failed to produce a significant reduction in cardiovascular death, compared with placebo, in the intent-to-treat analysis of all patients and of those with heart failure at baseline (it produced nonsignificant point-estimate reductions of 11% compared with placebo for all patients, and of 23% for patients who began the study with heart failure), it did result in a significant 23% relative risk reduction when the researchers focused on patients while they remained adherent to their sotagliflozin regimen (the on-treatment analysis). This 23% relative reduction appeared among all enrolled patients, as well as in the subgroup that started with diagnosed heart failure.

“Given the totality of data from the SGLT2 inhibitors, I think this is a real finding,” Dr. Bhatt said.

Additional analyses also showed that, among women, treatment with sotagliflozin was linked with significant relative reductions in the primary endpoint of roughly 30% compared with placebo among all patients, and also among those with heart failure at baseline. “HFpEF is a problem particularly in older women, and we showed that the benefit was consistent in men and women,” Dr. Bhatt said.

He acknowledged that results are expected soon from two pivotal trials that are examining two different SGLT2 inhibitors, dapagliflozin and empagliflozin, in patients with HFpEF. “I think there will be a class effect for both SGLT2 inhibitors and sotagliflozin for reducing heart failure events in patients with HFpEF, and I predict that the dapagliflozin and empagliflozin trials will have positive results,” Dr. Bhatt said.

Sotagliflozin differs from the SGLT2 inhibitors by also inhibiting SGLT1, an enzyme found in the gastrointestinal system that, when inhibited, results in increased glucose excretion from the gut and a cut in bloodstream levels of postprandial glucose levels. The Food and Drug Administration accepted data from SCORED and SOLOIST-WHF as part of the evidence the agency is now considering for granting a new drug approval to sotagliflozin.

SCORED and SOLOIST-WHF were initially sponsored by Sanofi, and later by Lexicon Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Bhatt’s institution, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, has received funding from Sanofi and Lexicon Pharmaceuticals. He has been a consultant to and received honoraria from K₂P, Level Ex, and MJH Life Sciences; he has been an adviser to Cardax, Cereno Scientific, Myokardia, Novo Nordisk, Phase Bio, and PLx Pharma; and he has received research funding from numerous companies. Dr. Piña has no relevant disclosures. Dr. O’Connor has been a consultant to Arena, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck, and Windtree, and he has an ownership interest in Biscardia.

[email protected]

It’s now official: The investigational sodium-glucose cotransporter (SGLT) 1/2 inhibitor sotagliflozin is the first agent clearly shown in a prespecified analysis of randomized trials to improve clinical outcomes in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFpEF).

Researchers who ran the SCORED and SOLOIST-WHF pivotal trials for sotagliflozin first made that claim in November 2020 when reporting top-line results from a prespecified meta-analysis of the two trials during the American Heart Association annual scientific sessions. A follow-up report during the annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology fleshed out the evidence and firmed up their landmark conclusion.

The meta-analysis (Abstract 410-08) included 4,500 patients with type 2 diabetes and diagnosed heart failure at entry; its primary endpoint, which was the same in both trials, was the combined incidence of cardiovascular death and the total number of either hospitalization for heart failure or urgent outpatient visits for heart failure.

Compared with placebo, treatment with sotagliflozin for a median of about 15 months dropped this composite endpoint by a relative 33% among the 1,931 who began the study with a left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) of at least 50% (HFpEF), by a relative 22% in the 1,758 patients who entered with an LVEF of less than 40% (patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction), and by a relative 43% among the 811 patients who began with an LVEF of 40%-49% (patients with heart failure with mid-range ejection fraction). The relative risk reductions were significant for all three subgroups, Deepak L. Bhatt, MD, reported at the meeting.
 

Equally effective ‘across the full range of LVEFs.’

Perhaps as notable and unprecedented was the further finding that the clinical benefits seen with treatment of patients with type 2 diabetes with sotagliflozin was consistent regardless of the ejection fraction they had at entry. Enrolled patients with baseline LVEFs in the range of 25% received a relative benefit from sotagliflozin treatment that was statistically no different from the benefit seen in patients who entered with an LVEF in the neighborhood of 45%, 65%, or at any other level across the LVEF spectrum, a finding that Dr. Bhatt called “remarkable” during a press briefing. “The results show the benefit of sotagliflozin across the full range of LVEFs.”

“We are very excited in the heart failure world by the SGLT2 inhibitors; we’ve been impressed by their reduction in heart failure hospitalizations, but we wonder about the patients with HFpEF, where we haven’t had a blockbuster drug to give,” said Ileana L. Piña, MD, a heart failure specialist and medical officer with the Food and Drug Administration.

The new findings “look like they could pose a regulatory indication [for sotagliflozin] for patients with type 2 diabetes and heart failure across the entire spectrum of heart failure,” said Christopher M. O’Connor, MD, a heart failure specialist and president of the Inova Heart & Vascular institute in Falls Church, Va., and designated discussant for Dr. Bhatt’s report.

A significant on-treatment reduction in CV death

Other new, notable findings from the meta-analysis included the observation that while treatment with sotagliflozin failed to produce a significant reduction in cardiovascular death, compared with placebo, in the intent-to-treat analysis of all patients and of those with heart failure at baseline (it produced nonsignificant point-estimate reductions of 11% compared with placebo for all patients, and of 23% for patients who began the study with heart failure), it did result in a significant 23% relative risk reduction when the researchers focused on patients while they remained adherent to their sotagliflozin regimen (the on-treatment analysis). This 23% relative reduction appeared among all enrolled patients, as well as in the subgroup that started with diagnosed heart failure.

“Given the totality of data from the SGLT2 inhibitors, I think this is a real finding,” Dr. Bhatt said.

Additional analyses also showed that, among women, treatment with sotagliflozin was linked with significant relative reductions in the primary endpoint of roughly 30% compared with placebo among all patients, and also among those with heart failure at baseline. “HFpEF is a problem particularly in older women, and we showed that the benefit was consistent in men and women,” Dr. Bhatt said.

He acknowledged that results are expected soon from two pivotal trials that are examining two different SGLT2 inhibitors, dapagliflozin and empagliflozin, in patients with HFpEF. “I think there will be a class effect for both SGLT2 inhibitors and sotagliflozin for reducing heart failure events in patients with HFpEF, and I predict that the dapagliflozin and empagliflozin trials will have positive results,” Dr. Bhatt said.

Sotagliflozin differs from the SGLT2 inhibitors by also inhibiting SGLT1, an enzyme found in the gastrointestinal system that, when inhibited, results in increased glucose excretion from the gut and a cut in bloodstream levels of postprandial glucose levels. The Food and Drug Administration accepted data from SCORED and SOLOIST-WHF as part of the evidence the agency is now considering for granting a new drug approval to sotagliflozin.

SCORED and SOLOIST-WHF were initially sponsored by Sanofi, and later by Lexicon Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Bhatt’s institution, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, has received funding from Sanofi and Lexicon Pharmaceuticals. He has been a consultant to and received honoraria from K₂P, Level Ex, and MJH Life Sciences; he has been an adviser to Cardax, Cereno Scientific, Myokardia, Novo Nordisk, Phase Bio, and PLx Pharma; and he has received research funding from numerous companies. Dr. Piña has no relevant disclosures. Dr. O’Connor has been a consultant to Arena, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck, and Windtree, and he has an ownership interest in Biscardia.

[email protected]

It’s now official: The investigational sodium-glucose cotransporter (SGLT) 1/2 inhibitor sotagliflozin is the first agent clearly shown in a prespecified analysis of randomized trials to improve clinical outcomes in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFpEF).

Researchers who ran the SCORED and SOLOIST-WHF pivotal trials for sotagliflozin first made that claim in November 2020 when reporting top-line results from a prespecified meta-analysis of the two trials during the American Heart Association annual scientific sessions. A follow-up report during the annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology fleshed out the evidence and firmed up their landmark conclusion.

The meta-analysis (Abstract 410-08) included 4,500 patients with type 2 diabetes and diagnosed heart failure at entry; its primary endpoint, which was the same in both trials, was the combined incidence of cardiovascular death and the total number of either hospitalization for heart failure or urgent outpatient visits for heart failure.

Compared with placebo, treatment with sotagliflozin for a median of about 15 months dropped this composite endpoint by a relative 33% among the 1,931 who began the study with a left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) of at least 50% (HFpEF), by a relative 22% in the 1,758 patients who entered with an LVEF of less than 40% (patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction), and by a relative 43% among the 811 patients who began with an LVEF of 40%-49% (patients with heart failure with mid-range ejection fraction). The relative risk reductions were significant for all three subgroups, Deepak L. Bhatt, MD, reported at the meeting.
 

Equally effective ‘across the full range of LVEFs.’

Perhaps as notable and unprecedented was the further finding that the clinical benefits seen with treatment of patients with type 2 diabetes with sotagliflozin was consistent regardless of the ejection fraction they had at entry. Enrolled patients with baseline LVEFs in the range of 25% received a relative benefit from sotagliflozin treatment that was statistically no different from the benefit seen in patients who entered with an LVEF in the neighborhood of 45%, 65%, or at any other level across the LVEF spectrum, a finding that Dr. Bhatt called “remarkable” during a press briefing. “The results show the benefit of sotagliflozin across the full range of LVEFs.”

“We are very excited in the heart failure world by the SGLT2 inhibitors; we’ve been impressed by their reduction in heart failure hospitalizations, but we wonder about the patients with HFpEF, where we haven’t had a blockbuster drug to give,” said Ileana L. Piña, MD, a heart failure specialist and medical officer with the Food and Drug Administration.

The new findings “look like they could pose a regulatory indication [for sotagliflozin] for patients with type 2 diabetes and heart failure across the entire spectrum of heart failure,” said Christopher M. O’Connor, MD, a heart failure specialist and president of the Inova Heart & Vascular institute in Falls Church, Va., and designated discussant for Dr. Bhatt’s report.

A significant on-treatment reduction in CV death

Other new, notable findings from the meta-analysis included the observation that while treatment with sotagliflozin failed to produce a significant reduction in cardiovascular death, compared with placebo, in the intent-to-treat analysis of all patients and of those with heart failure at baseline (it produced nonsignificant point-estimate reductions of 11% compared with placebo for all patients, and of 23% for patients who began the study with heart failure), it did result in a significant 23% relative risk reduction when the researchers focused on patients while they remained adherent to their sotagliflozin regimen (the on-treatment analysis). This 23% relative reduction appeared among all enrolled patients, as well as in the subgroup that started with diagnosed heart failure.

“Given the totality of data from the SGLT2 inhibitors, I think this is a real finding,” Dr. Bhatt said.

Additional analyses also showed that, among women, treatment with sotagliflozin was linked with significant relative reductions in the primary endpoint of roughly 30% compared with placebo among all patients, and also among those with heart failure at baseline. “HFpEF is a problem particularly in older women, and we showed that the benefit was consistent in men and women,” Dr. Bhatt said.

He acknowledged that results are expected soon from two pivotal trials that are examining two different SGLT2 inhibitors, dapagliflozin and empagliflozin, in patients with HFpEF. “I think there will be a class effect for both SGLT2 inhibitors and sotagliflozin for reducing heart failure events in patients with HFpEF, and I predict that the dapagliflozin and empagliflozin trials will have positive results,” Dr. Bhatt said.

Sotagliflozin differs from the SGLT2 inhibitors by also inhibiting SGLT1, an enzyme found in the gastrointestinal system that, when inhibited, results in increased glucose excretion from the gut and a cut in bloodstream levels of postprandial glucose levels. The Food and Drug Administration accepted data from SCORED and SOLOIST-WHF as part of the evidence the agency is now considering for granting a new drug approval to sotagliflozin.

SCORED and SOLOIST-WHF were initially sponsored by Sanofi, and later by Lexicon Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Bhatt’s institution, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, has received funding from Sanofi and Lexicon Pharmaceuticals. He has been a consultant to and received honoraria from K₂P, Level Ex, and MJH Life Sciences; he has been an adviser to Cardax, Cereno Scientific, Myokardia, Novo Nordisk, Phase Bio, and PLx Pharma; and he has received research funding from numerous companies. Dr. Piña has no relevant disclosures. Dr. O’Connor has been a consultant to Arena, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck, and Windtree, and he has an ownership interest in Biscardia.

[email protected]

Although use of some herbal and dietary supplements show statistically greater weight loss compared with placebo, it is not sufficient to benefit health, according to the joint findings of two systematic reviews, which are the first to comprehensively include all available herbal and dietary supplements for weight loss for over 15 years.

Sally Kubetin/MDedge News

“There is currently insufficient evidence to recommend any of the supplements we included in our reviews for weight loss,” stressed lead author Erica Bessell, a PhD candidate from the University of Sydney.

She added that some products with promising results warrant further investigation in well-conducted randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to determine their efficacy and safety.

But, overall, she would like to see a reduction in the number of products on the market without evidence to support their efficacy, “because, as we found, many of the products currently marketed for weight loss just do not work.

“Herbal and dietary supplements might seem like a quick-fix solution to weight problems, but people need to be aware of how little we actually know about them,” she said in an interview. “We would recommend that people trying to lose weight should save their money and seek out evidence-based care instead,” she emphasized.

The research was presented as two posters at this year’s online European Congress on Obesity (ECO). The meeting was presented by the European Association for the Study of Obesity.
 

Herbal and dietary supplement industry booming

Supplements for weight loss are growing in popularity, sustaining a rapidly expanding business sector globally. In the United States, the herbal and dietary supplements industry was estimated to be worth USD $41 billion in 2020, with 15% of Americans having tried a weight loss supplement in their efforts to shed pounds.

In light of this, Ms. Bessell said it is increasingly important to ensure supplements are efficacious and safe: “The popularity of these products underscores the urgency of conducting larger, more rigorous studies to have reasonable assurance of their safety and effectiveness for weight loss.”

Commenting on the study and the wider issues related to the surge in uptake of herbal and dietary supplements, Susan Arentz, PhD, said the evidence is similar to that for other complex interventions that people attempt for weight loss, including for example exercise, in that it is heterogeneous and low quality.

“One outstanding limitation for herbal medicine was the failure of trialists to validate the contents of interventions. Given the chemical variability of plants grown and harvested in different conditions, and the presence of pharmaceuticals and heavy metals found in some supplements ... future investigations of standardized herbal supplements and RCTs of higher methodological quality are needed,” remarked Dr. Arentz, a board member of the Australasian Integrative Medicine Association and researcher at Western Sydney University.

“Also, further RCTs are warranted due to the consumer preferences for natural treatments, especially in health settings with predominant use of traditional medicines and practices,” said Dr. Arentz.   
 

One review for herbal supplements, one for organic compounds

To accommodate the large number of trials investigating supplements for weight loss, the researchers conducted two systematic reviews, together representing 121 randomized placebo-controlled trials. One of the reviews investigated herbal supplements, and the other examined supplements with isolated organic compounds for example, specific fibers or lipids.  

Many of the included trials had been published in the last decade and had not been previously included in an up-to-date systematic review.

Ms. Bessell added that many studies often had a small sample size or were poorly designed, with insufficient information on the composition of supplements, and often featured little data on long-term effectiveness.

The two reviews primarily analyzed efficacy, not safety, because many of the studies did not report adverse effects.

The first review, published last year in Diabetes, Obesity and Metabolism, looked at 54 placebo-controlled randomized trials up to August 2018 on the effect of herbal supplements on weight loss . The study included 4,331 individuals aged 16 years or older who were overweight or obese. To be clinically meaningful, a weight loss of at least 2.5 kg was required over a period of, most often, 12 weeks or less.

Herbal supplements included in the analysis included green tea, Garcinia cambogia and mangosteen (tropical fruits), white kidney bean, ephedra (a stimulant that increases metabolism), African mango, yerba mate (herbal tea made from the leaves and twigs of the Ilex paraguariensis plant), veld grape (commonly used in Indian traditional medicine), licorice root, and East Indian Globe Thistle (used in Ayurvedic medicine).

The second review analyzed 67 randomized trials up to December 2019 that compared the effect of dietary supplements containing naturally occurring isolated organic compounds to placebo for weight loss in 5,194 individuals aged 16 years or older who were overweight or obese.

Meta-analyses were conducted for chitosan, glucomannan, conjugated linoleic acid, and fructans comparing the mean weight difference post intervention between participants receiving the dietary supplement and those on placebo.
 

No clinically significant results

Commenting on the overall results, Ms. Bessell said: “Though most supplements were safe for use in the short term, very few were found to produce clinically meaningful weight loss. Those that were found to result in clinically meaningful weight loss had only been investigated in one or two trials, so we need more research.”

The first review on herbal supplements found that only Phaseolus vulgaris (white kidney bean) resulted in significant weight loss compared with placebo, with an average weight difference of 1.61 kg (3.5 pounds). The result was not clinically meaningful, however.

For isolated organic compounds, significant weight differences compared with placebo were seen for chitosan, with a mean difference of 1.84 kg (4 pounds), glucomannan at 1.27 kg (2.8 pounds), and conjugated linoleic acid at 1.08 kg (2.4 pounds).

Again, none of these findings met the criteria for clinical significance (weight loss of 2.5 kg [5.5 pounds] or more).

In addition, some combination preparations containing African mango, veld grape, East Indian Globe Thistle, and mangosteen showed promising results with a mean weight difference of 1.85 kg (4 pounds), but were investigated in three or fewer trials, often with poor research methodology or reporting, and the findings should be interpreted with caution, the researchers noted.

Other dietary supplements, including modified cellulose – a plant fiber that expands in the stomach to induce a feeling of fullness – and blood orange juice extract, also showed encouraging results but were investigated in one trial and need more evidence before they can be recommended for weight loss, Ms. Bessell added.

She pointed out that some supplements are banned in some countries, such as ephedra (an extract from the plant Ephedra sinica). “This supplement is already banned in many countries because of the risk of serious adverse effects. The possibility of drug interactions may also be present with some other supplements, so health professionals and consumers should be aware of this.”

The isolated organic compounds supplements review was published in the International Journal of Obesity to coincide with the ECO 2021 conference.

Ms. Bessell has declared no relevant conflicts of interests. Dr. Arentz reviewed the systematic review of RCTs of herbal medicine supplements for weight loss published in Diabetes, Obesity and Metabolism.
 

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

Although use of some herbal and dietary supplements show statistically greater weight loss compared with placebo, it is not sufficient to benefit health, according to the joint findings of two systematic reviews, which are the first to comprehensively include all available herbal and dietary supplements for weight loss for over 15 years.

Sally Kubetin/MDedge News

“There is currently insufficient evidence to recommend any of the supplements we included in our reviews for weight loss,” stressed lead author Erica Bessell, a PhD candidate from the University of Sydney.

She added that some products with promising results warrant further investigation in well-conducted randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to determine their efficacy and safety.

But, overall, she would like to see a reduction in the number of products on the market without evidence to support their efficacy, “because, as we found, many of the products currently marketed for weight loss just do not work.

“Herbal and dietary supplements might seem like a quick-fix solution to weight problems, but people need to be aware of how little we actually know about them,” she said in an interview. “We would recommend that people trying to lose weight should save their money and seek out evidence-based care instead,” she emphasized.

The research was presented as two posters at this year’s online European Congress on Obesity (ECO). The meeting was presented by the European Association for the Study of Obesity.
 

Herbal and dietary supplement industry booming

Supplements for weight loss are growing in popularity, sustaining a rapidly expanding business sector globally. In the United States, the herbal and dietary supplements industry was estimated to be worth USD $41 billion in 2020, with 15% of Americans having tried a weight loss supplement in their efforts to shed pounds.

In light of this, Ms. Bessell said it is increasingly important to ensure supplements are efficacious and safe: “The popularity of these products underscores the urgency of conducting larger, more rigorous studies to have reasonable assurance of their safety and effectiveness for weight loss.”

Commenting on the study and the wider issues related to the surge in uptake of herbal and dietary supplements, Susan Arentz, PhD, said the evidence is similar to that for other complex interventions that people attempt for weight loss, including for example exercise, in that it is heterogeneous and low quality.

“One outstanding limitation for herbal medicine was the failure of trialists to validate the contents of interventions. Given the chemical variability of plants grown and harvested in different conditions, and the presence of pharmaceuticals and heavy metals found in some supplements ... future investigations of standardized herbal supplements and RCTs of higher methodological quality are needed,” remarked Dr. Arentz, a board member of the Australasian Integrative Medicine Association and researcher at Western Sydney University.

“Also, further RCTs are warranted due to the consumer preferences for natural treatments, especially in health settings with predominant use of traditional medicines and practices,” said Dr. Arentz.   
 

One review for herbal supplements, one for organic compounds

To accommodate the large number of trials investigating supplements for weight loss, the researchers conducted two systematic reviews, together representing 121 randomized placebo-controlled trials. One of the reviews investigated herbal supplements, and the other examined supplements with isolated organic compounds for example, specific fibers or lipids.  

Many of the included trials had been published in the last decade and had not been previously included in an up-to-date systematic review.

Ms. Bessell added that many studies often had a small sample size or were poorly designed, with insufficient information on the composition of supplements, and often featured little data on long-term effectiveness.

The two reviews primarily analyzed efficacy, not safety, because many of the studies did not report adverse effects.

The first review, published last year in Diabetes, Obesity and Metabolism, looked at 54 placebo-controlled randomized trials up to August 2018 on the effect of herbal supplements on weight loss . The study included 4,331 individuals aged 16 years or older who were overweight or obese. To be clinically meaningful, a weight loss of at least 2.5 kg was required over a period of, most often, 12 weeks or less.

Herbal supplements included in the analysis included green tea, Garcinia cambogia and mangosteen (tropical fruits), white kidney bean, ephedra (a stimulant that increases metabolism), African mango, yerba mate (herbal tea made from the leaves and twigs of the Ilex paraguariensis plant), veld grape (commonly used in Indian traditional medicine), licorice root, and East Indian Globe Thistle (used in Ayurvedic medicine).

The second review analyzed 67 randomized trials up to December 2019 that compared the effect of dietary supplements containing naturally occurring isolated organic compounds to placebo for weight loss in 5,194 individuals aged 16 years or older who were overweight or obese.

Meta-analyses were conducted for chitosan, glucomannan, conjugated linoleic acid, and fructans comparing the mean weight difference post intervention between participants receiving the dietary supplement and those on placebo.
 

No clinically significant results

Commenting on the overall results, Ms. Bessell said: “Though most supplements were safe for use in the short term, very few were found to produce clinically meaningful weight loss. Those that were found to result in clinically meaningful weight loss had only been investigated in one or two trials, so we need more research.”

The first review on herbal supplements found that only Phaseolus vulgaris (white kidney bean) resulted in significant weight loss compared with placebo, with an average weight difference of 1.61 kg (3.5 pounds). The result was not clinically meaningful, however.

For isolated organic compounds, significant weight differences compared with placebo were seen for chitosan, with a mean difference of 1.84 kg (4 pounds), glucomannan at 1.27 kg (2.8 pounds), and conjugated linoleic acid at 1.08 kg (2.4 pounds).

Again, none of these findings met the criteria for clinical significance (weight loss of 2.5 kg [5.5 pounds] or more).

In addition, some combination preparations containing African mango, veld grape, East Indian Globe Thistle, and mangosteen showed promising results with a mean weight difference of 1.85 kg (4 pounds), but were investigated in three or fewer trials, often with poor research methodology or reporting, and the findings should be interpreted with caution, the researchers noted.

Other dietary supplements, including modified cellulose – a plant fiber that expands in the stomach to induce a feeling of fullness – and blood orange juice extract, also showed encouraging results but were investigated in one trial and need more evidence before they can be recommended for weight loss, Ms. Bessell added.

She pointed out that some supplements are banned in some countries, such as ephedra (an extract from the plant Ephedra sinica). “This supplement is already banned in many countries because of the risk of serious adverse effects. The possibility of drug interactions may also be present with some other supplements, so health professionals and consumers should be aware of this.”

The isolated organic compounds supplements review was published in the International Journal of Obesity to coincide with the ECO 2021 conference.

Ms. Bessell has declared no relevant conflicts of interests. Dr. Arentz reviewed the systematic review of RCTs of herbal medicine supplements for weight loss published in Diabetes, Obesity and Metabolism.
 

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

Although use of some herbal and dietary supplements show statistically greater weight loss compared with placebo, it is not sufficient to benefit health, according to the joint findings of two systematic reviews, which are the first to comprehensively include all available herbal and dietary supplements for weight loss for over 15 years.

Sally Kubetin/MDedge News

“There is currently insufficient evidence to recommend any of the supplements we included in our reviews for weight loss,” stressed lead author Erica Bessell, a PhD candidate from the University of Sydney.

She added that some products with promising results warrant further investigation in well-conducted randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to determine their efficacy and safety.

But, overall, she would like to see a reduction in the number of products on the market without evidence to support their efficacy, “because, as we found, many of the products currently marketed for weight loss just do not work.

“Herbal and dietary supplements might seem like a quick-fix solution to weight problems, but people need to be aware of how little we actually know about them,” she said in an interview. “We would recommend that people trying to lose weight should save their money and seek out evidence-based care instead,” she emphasized.

The research was presented as two posters at this year’s online European Congress on Obesity (ECO). The meeting was presented by the European Association for the Study of Obesity.
 

Herbal and dietary supplement industry booming

Supplements for weight loss are growing in popularity, sustaining a rapidly expanding business sector globally. In the United States, the herbal and dietary supplements industry was estimated to be worth USD $41 billion in 2020, with 15% of Americans having tried a weight loss supplement in their efforts to shed pounds.

In light of this, Ms. Bessell said it is increasingly important to ensure supplements are efficacious and safe: “The popularity of these products underscores the urgency of conducting larger, more rigorous studies to have reasonable assurance of their safety and effectiveness for weight loss.”

Commenting on the study and the wider issues related to the surge in uptake of herbal and dietary supplements, Susan Arentz, PhD, said the evidence is similar to that for other complex interventions that people attempt for weight loss, including for example exercise, in that it is heterogeneous and low quality.

“One outstanding limitation for herbal medicine was the failure of trialists to validate the contents of interventions. Given the chemical variability of plants grown and harvested in different conditions, and the presence of pharmaceuticals and heavy metals found in some supplements ... future investigations of standardized herbal supplements and RCTs of higher methodological quality are needed,” remarked Dr. Arentz, a board member of the Australasian Integrative Medicine Association and researcher at Western Sydney University.

“Also, further RCTs are warranted due to the consumer preferences for natural treatments, especially in health settings with predominant use of traditional medicines and practices,” said Dr. Arentz.   
 

One review for herbal supplements, one for organic compounds

To accommodate the large number of trials investigating supplements for weight loss, the researchers conducted two systematic reviews, together representing 121 randomized placebo-controlled trials. One of the reviews investigated herbal supplements, and the other examined supplements with isolated organic compounds for example, specific fibers or lipids.  

Many of the included trials had been published in the last decade and had not been previously included in an up-to-date systematic review.

Ms. Bessell added that many studies often had a small sample size or were poorly designed, with insufficient information on the composition of supplements, and often featured little data on long-term effectiveness.

The two reviews primarily analyzed efficacy, not safety, because many of the studies did not report adverse effects.

The first review, published last year in Diabetes, Obesity and Metabolism, looked at 54 placebo-controlled randomized trials up to August 2018 on the effect of herbal supplements on weight loss . The study included 4,331 individuals aged 16 years or older who were overweight or obese. To be clinically meaningful, a weight loss of at least 2.5 kg was required over a period of, most often, 12 weeks or less.

Herbal supplements included in the analysis included green tea, Garcinia cambogia and mangosteen (tropical fruits), white kidney bean, ephedra (a stimulant that increases metabolism), African mango, yerba mate (herbal tea made from the leaves and twigs of the Ilex paraguariensis plant), veld grape (commonly used in Indian traditional medicine), licorice root, and East Indian Globe Thistle (used in Ayurvedic medicine).

The second review analyzed 67 randomized trials up to December 2019 that compared the effect of dietary supplements containing naturally occurring isolated organic compounds to placebo for weight loss in 5,194 individuals aged 16 years or older who were overweight or obese.

Meta-analyses were conducted for chitosan, glucomannan, conjugated linoleic acid, and fructans comparing the mean weight difference post intervention between participants receiving the dietary supplement and those on placebo.
 

No clinically significant results

Commenting on the overall results, Ms. Bessell said: “Though most supplements were safe for use in the short term, very few were found to produce clinically meaningful weight loss. Those that were found to result in clinically meaningful weight loss had only been investigated in one or two trials, so we need more research.”

The first review on herbal supplements found that only Phaseolus vulgaris (white kidney bean) resulted in significant weight loss compared with placebo, with an average weight difference of 1.61 kg (3.5 pounds). The result was not clinically meaningful, however.

For isolated organic compounds, significant weight differences compared with placebo were seen for chitosan, with a mean difference of 1.84 kg (4 pounds), glucomannan at 1.27 kg (2.8 pounds), and conjugated linoleic acid at 1.08 kg (2.4 pounds).

Again, none of these findings met the criteria for clinical significance (weight loss of 2.5 kg [5.5 pounds] or more).

In addition, some combination preparations containing African mango, veld grape, East Indian Globe Thistle, and mangosteen showed promising results with a mean weight difference of 1.85 kg (4 pounds), but were investigated in three or fewer trials, often with poor research methodology or reporting, and the findings should be interpreted with caution, the researchers noted.

Other dietary supplements, including modified cellulose – a plant fiber that expands in the stomach to induce a feeling of fullness – and blood orange juice extract, also showed encouraging results but were investigated in one trial and need more evidence before they can be recommended for weight loss, Ms. Bessell added.

She pointed out that some supplements are banned in some countries, such as ephedra (an extract from the plant Ephedra sinica). “This supplement is already banned in many countries because of the risk of serious adverse effects. The possibility of drug interactions may also be present with some other supplements, so health professionals and consumers should be aware of this.”

The isolated organic compounds supplements review was published in the International Journal of Obesity to coincide with the ECO 2021 conference.

Ms. Bessell has declared no relevant conflicts of interests. Dr. Arentz reviewed the systematic review of RCTs of herbal medicine supplements for weight loss published in Diabetes, Obesity and Metabolism.
 

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

Adults in treatment for opioid dependence report high satisfaction with buprenorphine injections, in new findings that researchers say could help improve treatment and management of patients with opioid dependence.

In the DEBUT trial, patients who received weekly or monthly depot buprenorphine had significantly higher overall treatment satisfaction, reduced treatment burden, and higher quality-of-life ratings than peers who received daily treatment with sublingual buprenorphine.

“The study’s focus on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) can help to better inform patients and clinicians when selecting treatment options than the clinical traditional outcomes of opioid dependence treatment studies,” lead investigator Fredrik Tiberg, PhD, president and CEO of Camurus, a pharmaceutical company in Lund, Sweden, said in an interview.

“The positive patient experiences with the depot buprenorphine injection reported in the DEBUT study indicate that long-acting treatments could contribute to advancing the quality of care and access to treatment for patients with opioid dependence/use disorder,” said Dr. Tiberg.

The study was published online May 10 in JAMA Network Open.
 

Novel study

The study was an open-label, parallel-group randomized controlled trial that included 119 patients from six outpatient clinics in Australia; 60 received weekly or monthly depot buprenorphine and 59 received sublingual buprenorphine for 24 weeks.

The primary outcome was global treatment satisfaction, as measured by the 14-question Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire for Medication (TSQM) at the end of the study at week 24.

The study met its primary endpoint with a significantly higher TSQM global satisfaction score among adults who received depot injections, compared with those who received sublingual buprenorphine (mean score 82.5 vs. 74.3; difference, 8.2; 95% confidence interval, 1.7-14.6; P = .01).

Improvement was also observed for several secondary outcomes, including decreased treatment burden and higher quality of life.

The safety profile was consistent with the known safety profile of buprenorphine, aside from transient, mild-to-moderate injection site reactions.

“To our knowledge, this is the first randomized study that has used a range of PROs to compare outcomes between a long-acting injection and daily dosing of buprenorphine in the treatment of opioid dependence,” the investigators note.

“The study highlights the application of PROs as alternate endpoints to traditional markers of substance use in addiction treatment outcome studies,” they conclude.
 

Giving patients a voice

In an invited commentary, Nora D. Volkow, MD, director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse, and Wilson M. Compton, MD, deputy director of NIDA, note that the “voice of the patient” has been missing from most of the work in medication development, including for opioid use disorder.

The current study addresses this very issue in a “well designed and executed” fashion and the results “consistently demonstrated” the superiority of injectable buprenorphine across many outcomes.

The study highlights the importance of considering PRO measures in clinical trials, Dr. Volkow and Dr. Compton say.

“Even if efficacy is no different for various formulations, PROs may provide an important reason to select a new formulation. Patient preferences and apparently improved function may prove to be useful secondary outcomes in medication trials, and the measures used in this new study deserve consideration,” they write.

In addition, the greater treatment satisfaction by patients receiving extended-release buprenorphine suggests that these formulations “might help to improve long-term retention and, as such, be a valuable tool to help combat the current opioid epidemic and reduce its associated mortality,” they conclude.

This study was supported by Camurus AB. Dr. Tiberg is president and CEO of Camurus AB. A complete list of author disclosures is with the original article. Dr. Volkow and Dr. Compton have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Adults in treatment for opioid dependence report high satisfaction with buprenorphine injections, in new findings that researchers say could help improve treatment and management of patients with opioid dependence.

In the DEBUT trial, patients who received weekly or monthly depot buprenorphine had significantly higher overall treatment satisfaction, reduced treatment burden, and higher quality-of-life ratings than peers who received daily treatment with sublingual buprenorphine.

“The study’s focus on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) can help to better inform patients and clinicians when selecting treatment options than the clinical traditional outcomes of opioid dependence treatment studies,” lead investigator Fredrik Tiberg, PhD, president and CEO of Camurus, a pharmaceutical company in Lund, Sweden, said in an interview.

“The positive patient experiences with the depot buprenorphine injection reported in the DEBUT study indicate that long-acting treatments could contribute to advancing the quality of care and access to treatment for patients with opioid dependence/use disorder,” said Dr. Tiberg.

The study was published online May 10 in JAMA Network Open.
 

Novel study

The study was an open-label, parallel-group randomized controlled trial that included 119 patients from six outpatient clinics in Australia; 60 received weekly or monthly depot buprenorphine and 59 received sublingual buprenorphine for 24 weeks.

The primary outcome was global treatment satisfaction, as measured by the 14-question Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire for Medication (TSQM) at the end of the study at week 24.

The study met its primary endpoint with a significantly higher TSQM global satisfaction score among adults who received depot injections, compared with those who received sublingual buprenorphine (mean score 82.5 vs. 74.3; difference, 8.2; 95% confidence interval, 1.7-14.6; P = .01).

Improvement was also observed for several secondary outcomes, including decreased treatment burden and higher quality of life.

The safety profile was consistent with the known safety profile of buprenorphine, aside from transient, mild-to-moderate injection site reactions.

“To our knowledge, this is the first randomized study that has used a range of PROs to compare outcomes between a long-acting injection and daily dosing of buprenorphine in the treatment of opioid dependence,” the investigators note.

“The study highlights the application of PROs as alternate endpoints to traditional markers of substance use in addiction treatment outcome studies,” they conclude.
 

Giving patients a voice

In an invited commentary, Nora D. Volkow, MD, director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse, and Wilson M. Compton, MD, deputy director of NIDA, note that the “voice of the patient” has been missing from most of the work in medication development, including for opioid use disorder.

The current study addresses this very issue in a “well designed and executed” fashion and the results “consistently demonstrated” the superiority of injectable buprenorphine across many outcomes.

The study highlights the importance of considering PRO measures in clinical trials, Dr. Volkow and Dr. Compton say.

“Even if efficacy is no different for various formulations, PROs may provide an important reason to select a new formulation. Patient preferences and apparently improved function may prove to be useful secondary outcomes in medication trials, and the measures used in this new study deserve consideration,” they write.

In addition, the greater treatment satisfaction by patients receiving extended-release buprenorphine suggests that these formulations “might help to improve long-term retention and, as such, be a valuable tool to help combat the current opioid epidemic and reduce its associated mortality,” they conclude.

This study was supported by Camurus AB. Dr. Tiberg is president and CEO of Camurus AB. A complete list of author disclosures is with the original article. Dr. Volkow and Dr. Compton have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Adults in treatment for opioid dependence report high satisfaction with buprenorphine injections, in new findings that researchers say could help improve treatment and management of patients with opioid dependence.

In the DEBUT trial, patients who received weekly or monthly depot buprenorphine had significantly higher overall treatment satisfaction, reduced treatment burden, and higher quality-of-life ratings than peers who received daily treatment with sublingual buprenorphine.

“The study’s focus on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) can help to better inform patients and clinicians when selecting treatment options than the clinical traditional outcomes of opioid dependence treatment studies,” lead investigator Fredrik Tiberg, PhD, president and CEO of Camurus, a pharmaceutical company in Lund, Sweden, said in an interview.

“The positive patient experiences with the depot buprenorphine injection reported in the DEBUT study indicate that long-acting treatments could contribute to advancing the quality of care and access to treatment for patients with opioid dependence/use disorder,” said Dr. Tiberg.

The study was published online May 10 in JAMA Network Open.
 

Novel study

The study was an open-label, parallel-group randomized controlled trial that included 119 patients from six outpatient clinics in Australia; 60 received weekly or monthly depot buprenorphine and 59 received sublingual buprenorphine for 24 weeks.

The primary outcome was global treatment satisfaction, as measured by the 14-question Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire for Medication (TSQM) at the end of the study at week 24.

The study met its primary endpoint with a significantly higher TSQM global satisfaction score among adults who received depot injections, compared with those who received sublingual buprenorphine (mean score 82.5 vs. 74.3; difference, 8.2; 95% confidence interval, 1.7-14.6; P = .01).

Improvement was also observed for several secondary outcomes, including decreased treatment burden and higher quality of life.

The safety profile was consistent with the known safety profile of buprenorphine, aside from transient, mild-to-moderate injection site reactions.

“To our knowledge, this is the first randomized study that has used a range of PROs to compare outcomes between a long-acting injection and daily dosing of buprenorphine in the treatment of opioid dependence,” the investigators note.

“The study highlights the application of PROs as alternate endpoints to traditional markers of substance use in addiction treatment outcome studies,” they conclude.
 

Giving patients a voice

In an invited commentary, Nora D. Volkow, MD, director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse, and Wilson M. Compton, MD, deputy director of NIDA, note that the “voice of the patient” has been missing from most of the work in medication development, including for opioid use disorder.

The current study addresses this very issue in a “well designed and executed” fashion and the results “consistently demonstrated” the superiority of injectable buprenorphine across many outcomes.

The study highlights the importance of considering PRO measures in clinical trials, Dr. Volkow and Dr. Compton say.

“Even if efficacy is no different for various formulations, PROs may provide an important reason to select a new formulation. Patient preferences and apparently improved function may prove to be useful secondary outcomes in medication trials, and the measures used in this new study deserve consideration,” they write.

In addition, the greater treatment satisfaction by patients receiving extended-release buprenorphine suggests that these formulations “might help to improve long-term retention and, as such, be a valuable tool to help combat the current opioid epidemic and reduce its associated mortality,” they conclude.

This study was supported by Camurus AB. Dr. Tiberg is president and CEO of Camurus AB. A complete list of author disclosures is with the original article. Dr. Volkow and Dr. Compton have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Perimenopausal women are using prescription sleep medications for long periods of time despite no evidence of efficacy, a new study shows.

“While there are good data from [randomized, controlled trials] that these medications improve sleep disturbances in the short term,” few studies have examined whether they provide long-term benefits, stated the authors of the paper, which was published in BMJ Open.

“The current observational study does not support use of sleep medications over the long term, as there were no self-reported differences at 1 or 2 years of follow-up comparing sleep medication users with nonusers,” author Daniel H. Solomon, MD, MPH, from Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, and colleagues wrote.

Women included in the analysis were drawn from the Study of Women’s Health Across the Nation (SWAN), an ongoing multicenter, longitudinal study examining women during the menopausal transition. The average age of the women included in the cohort was 49.5 years and approximately half were White. All women reported a sleep disturbance on at least 3 nights per week during a 2-week interval. At follow up, women were asked to use a Likert scale to rate three aspects of sleep: difficulty initiating sleep, frequent awakening, and waking up early. On the scale, 1 represented having no difficulties on any nights, 3 represented having difficulties 1-2 nights per week, and 5 represented having difficulty 5-7 nights per week.

Women already using prescription sleep medication at their baseline visit were excluded from the study. Medications used included benzodiazepines, selective BZD receptor agonists, and other hypnotics.

Over the 21 years of follow-up in the SWAN study (1995-2016), Dr. Solomon and colleagues identified 238 women using sleep medication and these were compared with a cohort of 447 propensity score–matched non–sleep medication uses. Overall, the 685 women included were similar in characteristics to each other as well as to the other potentially eligible women not included in the analysis.
 

Sleep disturbance patterns compared

At baseline, sleep disturbance patterns were similar between the two groups. Among medication users, the mean score for difficulty initiating sleep was 2.7 (95% confidence interval, 2.5-2.9), waking frequently 3.8 (95% CI, 3.6-3.9), and waking early 2.9 (95% CI, 2.7-3.1). Among the nonusers, the baseline scores were 2.6 (95% CI, 2.5-2.7), 3.7 (95% CI, 3.6-3.8), and 2.7 (95% CI, 2.5-2.8), respectively. After 1 year, there was no statistically significant difference in scores between the two groups. The average ratings for medication users were 2.6 (95% CI, 2.3-2.8) for difficulty initiating sleep, 3.8 (95% CI, 3.6-4.0) for waking frequently, and 2.8 (95% CI, 2.6-3.0) for waking early.

Average ratings among nonusers were 2.3 (95% CI, 2.2-2.4), 3.5 (95% CI, 3.3-3.6), and 2.5 (95% CI, 2.3-2.6), respectively.

After 2 years, there were still no statistically significant reductions in sleep disturbances among those taking prescription sleep medications, compared with those not taking medication.

The researchers noted that approximately half of the women in this cohort were current or past tobacco users and that 20% were moderate to heavy alcohol users.
 

More work-up, not more medication, needed

The study authors acknowledged the limitations of an observational study and noted that, since participants only reported medication use and sleep disturbances at annual visits, they did not know whether patients’ medication use was intermittent or of any interim outcomes. Additionally, the authors pointed out that those classified as “nonusers” may have been using over-the-counter medication.

“Investigations should look at detailed-use patterns, on a daily or weekly basis, with frequent outcomes data,” Dr. Solomon said in an interview. “While our data shed new light on chronic use, we only had data collected on an annual basis; daily or weekly data would provide more granular information.”

Regarding clinician prescribing practices, Dr. Solomon said, “short-term, intermittent use can be helpful, but use these agents sparingly” and “educate patients that chronic regular use of medications for sleep is not associated with improvement in sleep disturbances.”

Commenting on the study, Andrea Matsumura, MD, a sleep specialist at the Oregon Clinic in Portland, echoed this sentiment: “When someone says they are having trouble sleeping this is the tip of the iceberg and it warrants an evaluation to determine if someone has a breathing disorder, a circadian disorder, a life situation, or a type of insomnia that is driving the sleeplessness.”

“I think this study supports what we all should know,” Dr. Matsumura concluded. “Sleep aids are not meant to be used long term” and should not be used for longer than 2 weeks without further work-up.

Funding for this study was provided through a grant from the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Solomon has received salary support from research grants to Brigham and Women’s Hospital for unrelated work from AbbVie, Amgen, Corrona, Genentech and Pfizer. The other authors and Dr. Matsumura have reported no relevant financial relationships.

Perimenopausal women are using prescription sleep medications for long periods of time despite no evidence of efficacy, a new study shows.

“While there are good data from [randomized, controlled trials] that these medications improve sleep disturbances in the short term,” few studies have examined whether they provide long-term benefits, stated the authors of the paper, which was published in BMJ Open.

“The current observational study does not support use of sleep medications over the long term, as there were no self-reported differences at 1 or 2 years of follow-up comparing sleep medication users with nonusers,” author Daniel H. Solomon, MD, MPH, from Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, and colleagues wrote.

Women included in the analysis were drawn from the Study of Women’s Health Across the Nation (SWAN), an ongoing multicenter, longitudinal study examining women during the menopausal transition. The average age of the women included in the cohort was 49.5 years and approximately half were White. All women reported a sleep disturbance on at least 3 nights per week during a 2-week interval. At follow up, women were asked to use a Likert scale to rate three aspects of sleep: difficulty initiating sleep, frequent awakening, and waking up early. On the scale, 1 represented having no difficulties on any nights, 3 represented having difficulties 1-2 nights per week, and 5 represented having difficulty 5-7 nights per week.

Women already using prescription sleep medication at their baseline visit were excluded from the study. Medications used included benzodiazepines, selective BZD receptor agonists, and other hypnotics.

Over the 21 years of follow-up in the SWAN study (1995-2016), Dr. Solomon and colleagues identified 238 women using sleep medication and these were compared with a cohort of 447 propensity score–matched non–sleep medication uses. Overall, the 685 women included were similar in characteristics to each other as well as to the other potentially eligible women not included in the analysis.
 

Sleep disturbance patterns compared

At baseline, sleep disturbance patterns were similar between the two groups. Among medication users, the mean score for difficulty initiating sleep was 2.7 (95% confidence interval, 2.5-2.9), waking frequently 3.8 (95% CI, 3.6-3.9), and waking early 2.9 (95% CI, 2.7-3.1). Among the nonusers, the baseline scores were 2.6 (95% CI, 2.5-2.7), 3.7 (95% CI, 3.6-3.8), and 2.7 (95% CI, 2.5-2.8), respectively. After 1 year, there was no statistically significant difference in scores between the two groups. The average ratings for medication users were 2.6 (95% CI, 2.3-2.8) for difficulty initiating sleep, 3.8 (95% CI, 3.6-4.0) for waking frequently, and 2.8 (95% CI, 2.6-3.0) for waking early.

Average ratings among nonusers were 2.3 (95% CI, 2.2-2.4), 3.5 (95% CI, 3.3-3.6), and 2.5 (95% CI, 2.3-2.6), respectively.

After 2 years, there were still no statistically significant reductions in sleep disturbances among those taking prescription sleep medications, compared with those not taking medication.

The researchers noted that approximately half of the women in this cohort were current or past tobacco users and that 20% were moderate to heavy alcohol users.
 

More work-up, not more medication, needed

The study authors acknowledged the limitations of an observational study and noted that, since participants only reported medication use and sleep disturbances at annual visits, they did not know whether patients’ medication use was intermittent or of any interim outcomes. Additionally, the authors pointed out that those classified as “nonusers” may have been using over-the-counter medication.

“Investigations should look at detailed-use patterns, on a daily or weekly basis, with frequent outcomes data,” Dr. Solomon said in an interview. “While our data shed new light on chronic use, we only had data collected on an annual basis; daily or weekly data would provide more granular information.”

Regarding clinician prescribing practices, Dr. Solomon said, “short-term, intermittent use can be helpful, but use these agents sparingly” and “educate patients that chronic regular use of medications for sleep is not associated with improvement in sleep disturbances.”

Commenting on the study, Andrea Matsumura, MD, a sleep specialist at the Oregon Clinic in Portland, echoed this sentiment: “When someone says they are having trouble sleeping this is the tip of the iceberg and it warrants an evaluation to determine if someone has a breathing disorder, a circadian disorder, a life situation, or a type of insomnia that is driving the sleeplessness.”

“I think this study supports what we all should know,” Dr. Matsumura concluded. “Sleep aids are not meant to be used long term” and should not be used for longer than 2 weeks without further work-up.

Funding for this study was provided through a grant from the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Solomon has received salary support from research grants to Brigham and Women’s Hospital for unrelated work from AbbVie, Amgen, Corrona, Genentech and Pfizer. The other authors and Dr. Matsumura have reported no relevant financial relationships.

Perimenopausal women are using prescription sleep medications for long periods of time despite no evidence of efficacy, a new study shows.

“While there are good data from [randomized, controlled trials] that these medications improve sleep disturbances in the short term,” few studies have examined whether they provide long-term benefits, stated the authors of the paper, which was published in BMJ Open.

“The current observational study does not support use of sleep medications over the long term, as there were no self-reported differences at 1 or 2 years of follow-up comparing sleep medication users with nonusers,” author Daniel H. Solomon, MD, MPH, from Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, and colleagues wrote.

Women included in the analysis were drawn from the Study of Women’s Health Across the Nation (SWAN), an ongoing multicenter, longitudinal study examining women during the menopausal transition. The average age of the women included in the cohort was 49.5 years and approximately half were White. All women reported a sleep disturbance on at least 3 nights per week during a 2-week interval. At follow up, women were asked to use a Likert scale to rate three aspects of sleep: difficulty initiating sleep, frequent awakening, and waking up early. On the scale, 1 represented having no difficulties on any nights, 3 represented having difficulties 1-2 nights per week, and 5 represented having difficulty 5-7 nights per week.

Women already using prescription sleep medication at their baseline visit were excluded from the study. Medications used included benzodiazepines, selective BZD receptor agonists, and other hypnotics.

Over the 21 years of follow-up in the SWAN study (1995-2016), Dr. Solomon and colleagues identified 238 women using sleep medication and these were compared with a cohort of 447 propensity score–matched non–sleep medication uses. Overall, the 685 women included were similar in characteristics to each other as well as to the other potentially eligible women not included in the analysis.
 

Sleep disturbance patterns compared

At baseline, sleep disturbance patterns were similar between the two groups. Among medication users, the mean score for difficulty initiating sleep was 2.7 (95% confidence interval, 2.5-2.9), waking frequently 3.8 (95% CI, 3.6-3.9), and waking early 2.9 (95% CI, 2.7-3.1). Among the nonusers, the baseline scores were 2.6 (95% CI, 2.5-2.7), 3.7 (95% CI, 3.6-3.8), and 2.7 (95% CI, 2.5-2.8), respectively. After 1 year, there was no statistically significant difference in scores between the two groups. The average ratings for medication users were 2.6 (95% CI, 2.3-2.8) for difficulty initiating sleep, 3.8 (95% CI, 3.6-4.0) for waking frequently, and 2.8 (95% CI, 2.6-3.0) for waking early.

Average ratings among nonusers were 2.3 (95% CI, 2.2-2.4), 3.5 (95% CI, 3.3-3.6), and 2.5 (95% CI, 2.3-2.6), respectively.

After 2 years, there were still no statistically significant reductions in sleep disturbances among those taking prescription sleep medications, compared with those not taking medication.

The researchers noted that approximately half of the women in this cohort were current or past tobacco users and that 20% were moderate to heavy alcohol users.
 

More work-up, not more medication, needed

The study authors acknowledged the limitations of an observational study and noted that, since participants only reported medication use and sleep disturbances at annual visits, they did not know whether patients’ medication use was intermittent or of any interim outcomes. Additionally, the authors pointed out that those classified as “nonusers” may have been using over-the-counter medication.

“Investigations should look at detailed-use patterns, on a daily or weekly basis, with frequent outcomes data,” Dr. Solomon said in an interview. “While our data shed new light on chronic use, we only had data collected on an annual basis; daily or weekly data would provide more granular information.”

Regarding clinician prescribing practices, Dr. Solomon said, “short-term, intermittent use can be helpful, but use these agents sparingly” and “educate patients that chronic regular use of medications for sleep is not associated with improvement in sleep disturbances.”

Commenting on the study, Andrea Matsumura, MD, a sleep specialist at the Oregon Clinic in Portland, echoed this sentiment: “When someone says they are having trouble sleeping this is the tip of the iceberg and it warrants an evaluation to determine if someone has a breathing disorder, a circadian disorder, a life situation, or a type of insomnia that is driving the sleeplessness.”

“I think this study supports what we all should know,” Dr. Matsumura concluded. “Sleep aids are not meant to be used long term” and should not be used for longer than 2 weeks without further work-up.

Funding for this study was provided through a grant from the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Solomon has received salary support from research grants to Brigham and Women’s Hospital for unrelated work from AbbVie, Amgen, Corrona, Genentech and Pfizer. The other authors and Dr. Matsumura have reported no relevant financial relationships.

Psychotherapy and pharmacotherapy appear to be similarly effective for the treatment of depression, and a combination of both treatments might pack the biggest punch, according to a network meta-analysis (NMA) comparing either and both approaches with control conditions in the primary care setting.

The findings are important, since the majority of depressed patients are treated by primary care physicians, yet relatively few randomized trials of treatment have focused on this setting, noted senior study author Pim Cuijpers, PhD, from Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, and colleagues, in the paper, which was published in Annals of Family Medicine.

“The main message is that clinicians should certainly consider psychotherapy instead of pharmacotherapy, because this is preferred by most patients, and when possible, combined treatments should be the preferred choice because the outcomes are considerably better,” he said in an interview. Either way, he emphasized that “preference of patients is very important and all three treatments are better than usual care.”

The NMA included studies comparing psychotherapy, antidepressant medication, or a combination of both, with control conditions (defined as usual care, wait list, or pill placebo) in adult primary care patients with depression.

Patients could have major depression, persistent mood disorders (dysthymia), both, or high scores on self-rating depression scales. The primary outcome of the NMA was response, defined as a 50% improvement in the Hamilton Depression Rating scores (HAM-D).

A total of 58 studies met inclusion criteria, involving 9,301 patients.
 

Treatment options compared

Compared with usual care, both psychotherapy alone and pharmacotherapy alone had significantly better response rates, with no significant difference between them (relative risk, 1.60 and RR, 1.65, respectively). The combination of psychotherapy and pharmacotherapy was even better (RR, 2.15), whereas the wait list was less effective (RR, 0.68).

When comparing combined therapy with psychotherapy or pharmacotherapy, the superiority of combination therapy over psychotherapy was only slightly statistically significant (RR, 1.35; 95% confidence interval, 1.00-1.81), while pharmacotherapy was only slightly inferior (RR, 1.30; 95% CI, 0.98-1.73).

“The significance level is not very high, which is related to statistical power,” said Dr. Cuijpers. “But the mean benefit is quite substantial in my opinion, with a 35% higher chance of response in the combined treatment, compared to psychotherapy alone.”

Looking at the outcome of remission, (normally defined as a score of 7 or less on the HAM-D), the outcomes were “comparable to those for response, with the exception that combined treatment was not significantly different from psychotherapy,” they wrote.

One important caveat is that several studies included in the NMA included patients with moderate to severe depression, a population that is different from the usual primary care population of depressed patients who have mild to moderate symptoms. Antidepressant medications are also assumed to work better against more severe symptoms, added the authors. “The inclusion of these studies might therefore have resulted in an overestimation of the effects of pharmacotherapy in the present NMA.”

Among other limitations, the authors noted that studies included mixed populations of patients with dysthymia and major depression; they also made no distinction between different types of antidepressants.
 

Psychotherapies unknown, but meta-analysis is still useful

Commenting on these findings, Neil Skolnik, MD, professor of family and community medicine at Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Philadelphia, said this is “an important study, confirming and extending the conclusions” of a systematic review published in 2016 as a Clinical Practice Guideline from the American College of Physicians.

“Unfortunately, the authors did not specify what type of psychotherapy was studied in the meta-analysis, so we have to look elsewhere if we want to advise our patients on what type of psychotherapy to seek, since there are important differences between different types of therapy,” he said.

Still, he described the study as providing “helpful information for the practicing clinician, as it gives us solid information with which to engage and advise patients in a shared decision-making process for effective treatment of depression.”

“Some patients will choose psychotherapy, some will choose medications. They can make either choice with the confidence that both approaches are effective,” Dr. Skolnik elaborated. “In addition, if psychotherapy does not seem to be sufficiently helping we are on solid ground adding an antidepressant medication to psychotherapy, with this data showing that the combined treatment works better than psychotherapy alone.”

Dr. Cuijpers receives allowances for his memberships on the board of directors of Mind, Fonds Psychische Gezondheid, and Korrelatie, and for being chair of the PACO committee of the Raad voor Civiel-militaire Zorg en Onderzoek of the Dutch Ministry of Defense. He also serves as deputy editor of Depression and Anxiety and associate editor of Psychological Bulletin, and he receives royalties for books he has authored or coauthored. He received grants from the European Union, ZonMw, and PFGV. Another study author reported receiving personal fees from Mitsubishi-Tanabe, MSD, and Shionogi and a grant from Mitsubishi-Tanabe outside the submitted work. One author has received research and consultancy fees from INCiPiT (Italian Network for Paediatric Trials), CARIPLO Foundation, and Angelini Pharmam, while another reported receiving personal fees from Boehringer Ingelheim, Kyowa Kirin, ASKA Pharmaceutical, and Toyota Motor Corporation outside the submitted work. The other authors and Dr. Skolnik reported no conflicts.

Psychotherapy and pharmacotherapy appear to be similarly effective for the treatment of depression, and a combination of both treatments might pack the biggest punch, according to a network meta-analysis (NMA) comparing either and both approaches with control conditions in the primary care setting.

The findings are important, since the majority of depressed patients are treated by primary care physicians, yet relatively few randomized trials of treatment have focused on this setting, noted senior study author Pim Cuijpers, PhD, from Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, and colleagues, in the paper, which was published in Annals of Family Medicine.

“The main message is that clinicians should certainly consider psychotherapy instead of pharmacotherapy, because this is preferred by most patients, and when possible, combined treatments should be the preferred choice because the outcomes are considerably better,” he said in an interview. Either way, he emphasized that “preference of patients is very important and all three treatments are better than usual care.”

The NMA included studies comparing psychotherapy, antidepressant medication, or a combination of both, with control conditions (defined as usual care, wait list, or pill placebo) in adult primary care patients with depression.

Patients could have major depression, persistent mood disorders (dysthymia), both, or high scores on self-rating depression scales. The primary outcome of the NMA was response, defined as a 50% improvement in the Hamilton Depression Rating scores (HAM-D).

A total of 58 studies met inclusion criteria, involving 9,301 patients.
 

Treatment options compared

Compared with usual care, both psychotherapy alone and pharmacotherapy alone had significantly better response rates, with no significant difference between them (relative risk, 1.60 and RR, 1.65, respectively). The combination of psychotherapy and pharmacotherapy was even better (RR, 2.15), whereas the wait list was less effective (RR, 0.68).

When comparing combined therapy with psychotherapy or pharmacotherapy, the superiority of combination therapy over psychotherapy was only slightly statistically significant (RR, 1.35; 95% confidence interval, 1.00-1.81), while pharmacotherapy was only slightly inferior (RR, 1.30; 95% CI, 0.98-1.73).

“The significance level is not very high, which is related to statistical power,” said Dr. Cuijpers. “But the mean benefit is quite substantial in my opinion, with a 35% higher chance of response in the combined treatment, compared to psychotherapy alone.”

Looking at the outcome of remission, (normally defined as a score of 7 or less on the HAM-D), the outcomes were “comparable to those for response, with the exception that combined treatment was not significantly different from psychotherapy,” they wrote.

One important caveat is that several studies included in the NMA included patients with moderate to severe depression, a population that is different from the usual primary care population of depressed patients who have mild to moderate symptoms. Antidepressant medications are also assumed to work better against more severe symptoms, added the authors. “The inclusion of these studies might therefore have resulted in an overestimation of the effects of pharmacotherapy in the present NMA.”

Among other limitations, the authors noted that studies included mixed populations of patients with dysthymia and major depression; they also made no distinction between different types of antidepressants.
 

Psychotherapies unknown, but meta-analysis is still useful

Commenting on these findings, Neil Skolnik, MD, professor of family and community medicine at Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Philadelphia, said this is “an important study, confirming and extending the conclusions” of a systematic review published in 2016 as a Clinical Practice Guideline from the American College of Physicians.

“Unfortunately, the authors did not specify what type of psychotherapy was studied in the meta-analysis, so we have to look elsewhere if we want to advise our patients on what type of psychotherapy to seek, since there are important differences between different types of therapy,” he said.

Still, he described the study as providing “helpful information for the practicing clinician, as it gives us solid information with which to engage and advise patients in a shared decision-making process for effective treatment of depression.”

“Some patients will choose psychotherapy, some will choose medications. They can make either choice with the confidence that both approaches are effective,” Dr. Skolnik elaborated. “In addition, if psychotherapy does not seem to be sufficiently helping we are on solid ground adding an antidepressant medication to psychotherapy, with this data showing that the combined treatment works better than psychotherapy alone.”

Dr. Cuijpers receives allowances for his memberships on the board of directors of Mind, Fonds Psychische Gezondheid, and Korrelatie, and for being chair of the PACO committee of the Raad voor Civiel-militaire Zorg en Onderzoek of the Dutch Ministry of Defense. He also serves as deputy editor of Depression and Anxiety and associate editor of Psychological Bulletin, and he receives royalties for books he has authored or coauthored. He received grants from the European Union, ZonMw, and PFGV. Another study author reported receiving personal fees from Mitsubishi-Tanabe, MSD, and Shionogi and a grant from Mitsubishi-Tanabe outside the submitted work. One author has received research and consultancy fees from INCiPiT (Italian Network for Paediatric Trials), CARIPLO Foundation, and Angelini Pharmam, while another reported receiving personal fees from Boehringer Ingelheim, Kyowa Kirin, ASKA Pharmaceutical, and Toyota Motor Corporation outside the submitted work. The other authors and Dr. Skolnik reported no conflicts.

Psychotherapy and pharmacotherapy appear to be similarly effective for the treatment of depression, and a combination of both treatments might pack the biggest punch, according to a network meta-analysis (NMA) comparing either and both approaches with control conditions in the primary care setting.

The findings are important, since the majority of depressed patients are treated by primary care physicians, yet relatively few randomized trials of treatment have focused on this setting, noted senior study author Pim Cuijpers, PhD, from Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, and colleagues, in the paper, which was published in Annals of Family Medicine.

“The main message is that clinicians should certainly consider psychotherapy instead of pharmacotherapy, because this is preferred by most patients, and when possible, combined treatments should be the preferred choice because the outcomes are considerably better,” he said in an interview. Either way, he emphasized that “preference of patients is very important and all three treatments are better than usual care.”

The NMA included studies comparing psychotherapy, antidepressant medication, or a combination of both, with control conditions (defined as usual care, wait list, or pill placebo) in adult primary care patients with depression.

Patients could have major depression, persistent mood disorders (dysthymia), both, or high scores on self-rating depression scales. The primary outcome of the NMA was response, defined as a 50% improvement in the Hamilton Depression Rating scores (HAM-D).

A total of 58 studies met inclusion criteria, involving 9,301 patients.
 

Treatment options compared

Compared with usual care, both psychotherapy alone and pharmacotherapy alone had significantly better response rates, with no significant difference between them (relative risk, 1.60 and RR, 1.65, respectively). The combination of psychotherapy and pharmacotherapy was even better (RR, 2.15), whereas the wait list was less effective (RR, 0.68).

When comparing combined therapy with psychotherapy or pharmacotherapy, the superiority of combination therapy over psychotherapy was only slightly statistically significant (RR, 1.35; 95% confidence interval, 1.00-1.81), while pharmacotherapy was only slightly inferior (RR, 1.30; 95% CI, 0.98-1.73).

“The significance level is not very high, which is related to statistical power,” said Dr. Cuijpers. “But the mean benefit is quite substantial in my opinion, with a 35% higher chance of response in the combined treatment, compared to psychotherapy alone.”

Looking at the outcome of remission, (normally defined as a score of 7 or less on the HAM-D), the outcomes were “comparable to those for response, with the exception that combined treatment was not significantly different from psychotherapy,” they wrote.

One important caveat is that several studies included in the NMA included patients with moderate to severe depression, a population that is different from the usual primary care population of depressed patients who have mild to moderate symptoms. Antidepressant medications are also assumed to work better against more severe symptoms, added the authors. “The inclusion of these studies might therefore have resulted in an overestimation of the effects of pharmacotherapy in the present NMA.”

Among other limitations, the authors noted that studies included mixed populations of patients with dysthymia and major depression; they also made no distinction between different types of antidepressants.
 

Psychotherapies unknown, but meta-analysis is still useful

Commenting on these findings, Neil Skolnik, MD, professor of family and community medicine at Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Philadelphia, said this is “an important study, confirming and extending the conclusions” of a systematic review published in 2016 as a Clinical Practice Guideline from the American College of Physicians.

“Unfortunately, the authors did not specify what type of psychotherapy was studied in the meta-analysis, so we have to look elsewhere if we want to advise our patients on what type of psychotherapy to seek, since there are important differences between different types of therapy,” he said.

Still, he described the study as providing “helpful information for the practicing clinician, as it gives us solid information with which to engage and advise patients in a shared decision-making process for effective treatment of depression.”

“Some patients will choose psychotherapy, some will choose medications. They can make either choice with the confidence that both approaches are effective,” Dr. Skolnik elaborated. “In addition, if psychotherapy does not seem to be sufficiently helping we are on solid ground adding an antidepressant medication to psychotherapy, with this data showing that the combined treatment works better than psychotherapy alone.”

Dr. Cuijpers receives allowances for his memberships on the board of directors of Mind, Fonds Psychische Gezondheid, and Korrelatie, and for being chair of the PACO committee of the Raad voor Civiel-militaire Zorg en Onderzoek of the Dutch Ministry of Defense. He also serves as deputy editor of Depression and Anxiety and associate editor of Psychological Bulletin, and he receives royalties for books he has authored or coauthored. He received grants from the European Union, ZonMw, and PFGV. Another study author reported receiving personal fees from Mitsubishi-Tanabe, MSD, and Shionogi and a grant from Mitsubishi-Tanabe outside the submitted work. One author has received research and consultancy fees from INCiPiT (Italian Network for Paediatric Trials), CARIPLO Foundation, and Angelini Pharmam, while another reported receiving personal fees from Boehringer Ingelheim, Kyowa Kirin, ASKA Pharmaceutical, and Toyota Motor Corporation outside the submitted work. The other authors and Dr. Skolnik reported no conflicts.

In the late 1980s and early 1990s, an emphasis on better pain management led health care professionals (HCPs) to increase prescribing of opioids to better manage patient’s pain. In 1991, 76 million prescriptions were written for opioids in the United States, and by 2011, the number had nearly tripled to 219 million.¹ Overdose rates increased as well, nearly tripling from 1999 to 2014.² Of the 52,404 US deaths from drug overdoses in the in 2015, 63% involved an opioid.²

Opioid Safety Initiative

In response to the growing opioid epidemic, the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) created the Opioid Safety Initiative in 2014.³ This comprehensive, multifaceted initiative was designed to improve the care and safety of veterans managed with opioid therapy and promote rational opioid prescribing and monitoring. In 2016 the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) issued guidelines for opioid prescriptions, and the following year the VA and the US Department of Defense (DoD) updated the VA/DoD Clinical Practice Guidelines for Opioid Therapy for Chronic Pain (VA/DoD guidelines).^4,5 After the release of these guidelines, the use of opioid tapers expanded. However, due to public outcry of forced opioid tapering in 2019, the US Food and Drug Administration updated its opioid labeling requirements to provide clearer guidance on opioid tapers for tolerant patients.^6,7

As a result, HCPs began to develop various strategies to balance the safety and efficacy of opioid use in patients with chronic pain. The West Palm Beach VA Medical Center (WPBVAMC) in Florida has a Pain Clinic that includes 2 pain management clinical pharmacy specialists (CPSs) with specialized training in pain management, who are uniquely qualified to assess and evaluate medication therapy in complex pain patient cases. These CPSs were involved in the face-to-face management of patients requiring specialized pain care and participated in a pain pharmacy electronic consult (eConsult) service to document pain management consultative recommendations for patients appropriate for management at the primary care level. This formalized process increased specialty pain care access for veterans whose pain was managed by primary care providers (PCPs).

The pain pharmacy eConsult service was initiated at the WPBVAMC in June 2013 to assist PCPs in the management of outpatients with chronic pain. The eConsult service includes evaluation of a patient’s electronic health records (EHRs) by CPSs. The eConsult service also provided PCPs with the option to engage a pharmacist who could provide recommendations for opioid dosing conversion, opioid tapering, pain pharmacotherapy, or drug screen interpretation, without the necessity for an additional patient visit.

Subsequent to the release of the 2016 CDC (and later the 2017 VA/DoD) guidelines recommending reducing morphine equivalent daily dose (MEDD) levels, the WPBVAMC had a large increase in pain eConsult requests for opioid tapering and opioid pharmacotherapy. A 3.4-fold increase in requests occurred in March, April, and May vs the following 9 months, and a nearly 4-fold increase in requests for opioid tapers during the same period. However, the impact of the completed eConsults was unclear. Therefore, the primary objective of this study was to assess the effect of CPS services for opioid tapering and opioid pharmacotherapy by quantifying the number of recommendations accepted/implemented by PCPs. The secondary objectives included evaluating harms associated with the recommendations (eg, increase in visits to the emergency department [ED], hospitalizations, suicide attempts, or PCP visits) and provider satisfaction.

Methods

A retrospective chart review was completed to assess data of patients from the WPBVAMC and its associated community-based outpatient clinics (CBOCs). The project was approved by the WPBVAMC Scientific Advisory Committee as part of the facility’s performance improvement efforts.

Included patients had a pain pharmacy eConsult placed between April 1, 2016 and March 31, 2017. EHRs were reviewed and only eConsults for opioid pharmacotherapy recommendation or opioid tapers were evaluated. eConsults were excluded if the request was discontinued, completed by a HCP other than the pain CPS, or placed for an opioid dose conversion, nonopioid pharmacotherapy, or drug screen interpretation.

Data for analyses were entered into Microsoft Excel 2016 and were securely saved and accessible to relevant researchers. Patient protected health information used during patient care remained confidential.

Demographic data were collected, including age, gender, race, pertinent medical comorbidities (eg, diabetes mellitus, sleep apnea), and mental health comorbidities. Pain scores were collected at baseline and 6-months postconsult. Pain medications used by patients were noted at baseline and 6 months postconsult, including concomitant opioid and benzodiazepine use, MEDD, and other pain medication. The duration of time needed by pain CPS to complete each eConsult and total time from eConsult entered to HCP implementation of the initial recommendation was collected. The number of actionable recommendations (eg, changes in drug therapy, urine drug screens [UDSs], and referrals to other services also were recorded and reviewed 6 months postconsult to determine the number and percentage of recommendations implemented by the HCP. The EHR was examined to determine adverse events (AEs) (eg, any documentation of suicide attempt, calls to the Veterans Crisis Line, or death 6 month postconsult). Collected data also included new eConsults, the reason for opioid tapering either by HCP or patient, and assessment of economic harms (count of the number of visits to ED, hospitalizations, or unscheduled PCP visits with uncontrolled pain as chief reason within 6 months postconsult). Last, PCPs were sent a survey to assess their satisfaction with the pain eConsult service.

Results

Of 517 eConsults received from April 1, 2016 to March 31, 2017, 285 (55.1%) met inclusion criteria (Figure). Using a random number generator, 100 eConsults were further reviewed for outcomes of interest.

In this cohort, the mean age was 61 years, 87% were male, and 80% were White individuals. Most patients (83%) had ≥ 1 mental health comorbidity, and 53% had ≥ 2, with depressive symptoms, tobacco use, and/or posttraumatic stress disorder the most common diagnoses (Table 1). Eighty-seven percent of eConsults were for opioid tapers and the remaining 13% were for opioid pharmacotherapy.

The median pain score at time of consult was 6 on a 10-point scale, with no change at 6 months postconsult. However, 41% of patients overall had a median 3.3-point drop in pain score, 17% had no change in pain score, and 42% had a median 2.6-point increase in pain score.

Electronic Consults

Table 2 describes the reasons eConsults were requested. The most common reason was to taper the dose to be in compliance with the CDC 2016 guideline recommendation of MEDD < 90 mg, which was later increased to 100 mg by the VA/DoD guideline.

On average, eConsults were completed within a mean of 11.5 days of the PCP request, including nights and weekends. The CPS spent a mean 66.8 minutes to complete each eConsult. Once the eConsult was completed, PCPs took a mean of 9 days to initiate the primary recommendation. This 9-day average does not include 11 eConsults with no accepted recommendations and 11 eConsults for which the PCP implemented the primary recommendation before the CPS completed the consult, most likely due to a phone call or direct contact with the CPS at the time the eConsult was ordered.

A mean 3.5 actionable recommendations were made by the CPS and a mean 1.6 recommendations were implemented within 6 months by the PCP. At least 1 recommendation was accepted/implemented for 89% of patients, with a mean 55% recommendations that were accepted/implemented. Eleven percent of the eConsult final recommendations were not accepted by PCPs and clear documentation of the reasons were not provided.

In the 6 months postconsult, 11 patients (7 men and 4 women) experienced 32 AEs (Table 3). Eight patients had 15 ED visits, with 3 of the visits resulting in hospitalizations, 8 patients had 9 unscheduled PCP visits, 1 patient reported suicidal ideation and 2 patients made a total of 4 calls to the Veterans Crisis Line. There were also 2 deaths; however, both were due to end-stage disease (cirrhosis and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis) and not believed to be related to eConsult recommendations.

Eight patients had a history of substance use disorders (SUDs) and 8 had a history of a mood disorder or psychosis. One patient had both SUD and a mood/psychosis-related mental health disorder, including a reported suicidal attempt/ideation at an ED visit and a subsequent hospitalization. A similar number of AEs occurred in patients with decreases in MEDD of 0 to 24% compared with those that received more aggressive tapers of 75 to 100% (Table 4).

Primary Care Providers

Nine patients were reconsulted, with only 1 secondary to the PCP not implementing recommendations from the initial consult. No factors were found that correlated with likelihood of a patient being reconsulted.

Surveys on PCP satisfaction with the eConsult service were completed by 29 of the 55 PCPs. PCP feedback was generally positive with nearly 90% of PCPs planning to use the service in the future as well as recommending use to other providers.

Discussion

Most (89%) PCPs accepted at least 1 recommendation from the completed eConsult, and MEDDs decreased by 60%, likely reducing the patient’s risk of overdose or other AEs from opioids. There also was a slight reduction in patient’s mean pain scores; however, 41% had a decrease and 42% had an increase in pain scores. There was no clear relationship when pain scores were compared with MEDDs, likely giving credence to the idea that pain scores are largely subjective and an unreliable surrogate marker for assessing effectiveness of analgesic regimens.

Eleven patients experienced AEs, including 1 patient for whom the recommendations were not implemented by the PCP. Eight of the 11 had multiple AEs. One interesting finding was that 7 of the 11 patients with an AE tested positive for unexpected substances on routine UDS or were arrested for driving while intoxicated (DWI). However, only 3 of the 7 had an active SUD diagnosis. With 25% of the AEs coming from patients with a history of SUD, it is important that any history of SUD be documented in the EHR. Maintaining this documentation can be especially difficult if patients switch VA medical centers or receive services outside the VA. Thorough and accurate history and chart review should ideally be completed before prescribing opioids.

Guidelines

While the PCPs were following VA/DoD and CDC recommendations for opioid tapering to < 100 or 90 mg MEDD, respectively, there is weak evidence in these guidelines to support specific MEDD cutoffs. The CDC guidelines even state, “a single dosage threshold for safe opioid use could not be identified.”⁵ One of the largest issues when using MEDD as a cutoff is the lack of agreement on its calculation. In 2014, Nuckols and colleagues al conducted a study to compare the existing guidelines on the use of opioids for chronic pain. While 13 guidelines were considered eligible, most recommendations were supported only by observational data or expert recommendations, and there was no consensus on what constitutes a “morphine equivalent.”⁸ Currently there is no universally accepted opioid-conversion method, resulting in a substantial problem when calculating a MEDD.⁹ A survey of 8 online opioid dose conversion tools found a -55% to +242% variation.¹⁰ As Fudin and colleagues concluded in response to the large variations found in these various analyses, the studies “unequivocally disqualify the validity of embracing MEDD to assess risk in any meaningful statistical way.”¹¹ Pharmacogenetics, drug tolerance, drug-drug interactions, body surface area, and organ function are patient- specific factors that are not taken into consideration when relying solely on a MEDD calculation. Tapering to lowest functional dose rather than a specific number or cutoff may be a more effective way to treat patients, and providers should use the guidelines as recommendations and not a hardline mandate.

At 6 months, 6 patients were receiving no pain medications from the VA, and 24 of the patients were tapered from their opiate to discontinuation. It is unclear whether patients are no longer taking opioids or switched their care to non-VA providers to receive medications, including opioids, privately. This is difficult to verify, though a prescription drug monitoring program (PDMP) could be used to assess patient adherence. As many of the patients that were tapered due to identification of aberrant behaviors, lack of continuity of care across health care systems may result in future patient harm.

The results of this analysis highlight the importance of checking PDMP databases and routine UDSs when prescribing opioids—there can be serious safety concerns if patients are taking other prescribed or illicit medications. However, care must be taken; there were 2 instances of patients’ chronic opioid prescriptions discontinued by their VA provider after a review of the PDMP showed they had received non-VA opioids. In both cases, the quantity and doses received were small (counts of ≤ 12) and were received more than 6 months prior to the check of the PDMP. While this constitutes a breach of the Informed Consent for long-term opioid use, if there are no other concerning behaviors, it may be more prudent to review the informed consent with the patient and discuss why the behavior is a breach to ensure that patients and PCPs continue to work as a team to manage chronic pain.

Limitations

The study population was one limitation of this project. While data suggest that chronic pain affects women more than men, this study’s population was only 13% female. Thirty percent of the women in this study had an AE compared with only 8% of the men. Additional limitations included use of problem list for comorbidities, as lists may be inaccurate or outdated, and limiting the monitoring of AE to only 6 months. As some tapers were not initiated immediately and some taper schedules can last several months to years; therefor, outcomes may have been higher if patients were followed longer. Many of the patients with AEs had increased ED visits or unscheduled primary care visits as the tapers went on and their pain worsened, but the visits were outside the 6-month time frame for data collection. An additional weakness of this review included assessing a pain score, but not functional status, which may be a better predictor of the effectiveness of a patient’s pain management regimen. This assessment is needed in future studies for more reliable data. Finally, PCP survey results also should be viewed with caution. The current survey had only 29 respondents, and the 2014 survey had only 10 respondents and did not include CBOC providers.

Conclusion

A pain eConsult service managed by CPSs specializing in pain management can assist patients and PCPs with opioid therapy recommendations in a safe and timely manner, reducing risk of overdose secondary to high dose opioid therapy and with limited harm to patients.

In the late 1980s and early 1990s, an emphasis on better pain management led health care professionals (HCPs) to increase prescribing of opioids to better manage patient’s pain. In 1991, 76 million prescriptions were written for opioids in the United States, and by 2011, the number had nearly tripled to 219 million.¹ Overdose rates increased as well, nearly tripling from 1999 to 2014.² Of the 52,404 US deaths from drug overdoses in the in 2015, 63% involved an opioid.²

Opioid Safety Initiative

In response to the growing opioid epidemic, the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) created the Opioid Safety Initiative in 2014.³ This comprehensive, multifaceted initiative was designed to improve the care and safety of veterans managed with opioid therapy and promote rational opioid prescribing and monitoring. In 2016 the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) issued guidelines for opioid prescriptions, and the following year the VA and the US Department of Defense (DoD) updated the VA/DoD Clinical Practice Guidelines for Opioid Therapy for Chronic Pain (VA/DoD guidelines).^4,5 After the release of these guidelines, the use of opioid tapers expanded. However, due to public outcry of forced opioid tapering in 2019, the US Food and Drug Administration updated its opioid labeling requirements to provide clearer guidance on opioid tapers for tolerant patients.^6,7

As a result, HCPs began to develop various strategies to balance the safety and efficacy of opioid use in patients with chronic pain. The West Palm Beach VA Medical Center (WPBVAMC) in Florida has a Pain Clinic that includes 2 pain management clinical pharmacy specialists (CPSs) with specialized training in pain management, who are uniquely qualified to assess and evaluate medication therapy in complex pain patient cases. These CPSs were involved in the face-to-face management of patients requiring specialized pain care and participated in a pain pharmacy electronic consult (eConsult) service to document pain management consultative recommendations for patients appropriate for management at the primary care level. This formalized process increased specialty pain care access for veterans whose pain was managed by primary care providers (PCPs).

The pain pharmacy eConsult service was initiated at the WPBVAMC in June 2013 to assist PCPs in the management of outpatients with chronic pain. The eConsult service includes evaluation of a patient’s electronic health records (EHRs) by CPSs. The eConsult service also provided PCPs with the option to engage a pharmacist who could provide recommendations for opioid dosing conversion, opioid tapering, pain pharmacotherapy, or drug screen interpretation, without the necessity for an additional patient visit.

Subsequent to the release of the 2016 CDC (and later the 2017 VA/DoD) guidelines recommending reducing morphine equivalent daily dose (MEDD) levels, the WPBVAMC had a large increase in pain eConsult requests for opioid tapering and opioid pharmacotherapy. A 3.4-fold increase in requests occurred in March, April, and May vs the following 9 months, and a nearly 4-fold increase in requests for opioid tapers during the same period. However, the impact of the completed eConsults was unclear. Therefore, the primary objective of this study was to assess the effect of CPS services for opioid tapering and opioid pharmacotherapy by quantifying the number of recommendations accepted/implemented by PCPs. The secondary objectives included evaluating harms associated with the recommendations (eg, increase in visits to the emergency department [ED], hospitalizations, suicide attempts, or PCP visits) and provider satisfaction.

Methods

A retrospective chart review was completed to assess data of patients from the WPBVAMC and its associated community-based outpatient clinics (CBOCs). The project was approved by the WPBVAMC Scientific Advisory Committee as part of the facility’s performance improvement efforts.

Included patients had a pain pharmacy eConsult placed between April 1, 2016 and March 31, 2017. EHRs were reviewed and only eConsults for opioid pharmacotherapy recommendation or opioid tapers were evaluated. eConsults were excluded if the request was discontinued, completed by a HCP other than the pain CPS, or placed for an opioid dose conversion, nonopioid pharmacotherapy, or drug screen interpretation.

Data for analyses were entered into Microsoft Excel 2016 and were securely saved and accessible to relevant researchers. Patient protected health information used during patient care remained confidential.

Demographic data were collected, including age, gender, race, pertinent medical comorbidities (eg, diabetes mellitus, sleep apnea), and mental health comorbidities. Pain scores were collected at baseline and 6-months postconsult. Pain medications used by patients were noted at baseline and 6 months postconsult, including concomitant opioid and benzodiazepine use, MEDD, and other pain medication. The duration of time needed by pain CPS to complete each eConsult and total time from eConsult entered to HCP implementation of the initial recommendation was collected. The number of actionable recommendations (eg, changes in drug therapy, urine drug screens [UDSs], and referrals to other services also were recorded and reviewed 6 months postconsult to determine the number and percentage of recommendations implemented by the HCP. The EHR was examined to determine adverse events (AEs) (eg, any documentation of suicide attempt, calls to the Veterans Crisis Line, or death 6 month postconsult). Collected data also included new eConsults, the reason for opioid tapering either by HCP or patient, and assessment of economic harms (count of the number of visits to ED, hospitalizations, or unscheduled PCP visits with uncontrolled pain as chief reason within 6 months postconsult). Last, PCPs were sent a survey to assess their satisfaction with the pain eConsult service.

Results

Of 517 eConsults received from April 1, 2016 to March 31, 2017, 285 (55.1%) met inclusion criteria (Figure). Using a random number generator, 100 eConsults were further reviewed for outcomes of interest.

In this cohort, the mean age was 61 years, 87% were male, and 80% were White individuals. Most patients (83%) had ≥ 1 mental health comorbidity, and 53% had ≥ 2, with depressive symptoms, tobacco use, and/or posttraumatic stress disorder the most common diagnoses (Table 1). Eighty-seven percent of eConsults were for opioid tapers and the remaining 13% were for opioid pharmacotherapy.

The median pain score at time of consult was 6 on a 10-point scale, with no change at 6 months postconsult. However, 41% of patients overall had a median 3.3-point drop in pain score, 17% had no change in pain score, and 42% had a median 2.6-point increase in pain score.

Electronic Consults

Table 2 describes the reasons eConsults were requested. The most common reason was to taper the dose to be in compliance with the CDC 2016 guideline recommendation of MEDD < 90 mg, which was later increased to 100 mg by the VA/DoD guideline.

On average, eConsults were completed within a mean of 11.5 days of the PCP request, including nights and weekends. The CPS spent a mean 66.8 minutes to complete each eConsult. Once the eConsult was completed, PCPs took a mean of 9 days to initiate the primary recommendation. This 9-day average does not include 11 eConsults with no accepted recommendations and 11 eConsults for which the PCP implemented the primary recommendation before the CPS completed the consult, most likely due to a phone call or direct contact with the CPS at the time the eConsult was ordered.

A mean 3.5 actionable recommendations were made by the CPS and a mean 1.6 recommendations were implemented within 6 months by the PCP. At least 1 recommendation was accepted/implemented for 89% of patients, with a mean 55% recommendations that were accepted/implemented. Eleven percent of the eConsult final recommendations were not accepted by PCPs and clear documentation of the reasons were not provided.

In the 6 months postconsult, 11 patients (7 men and 4 women) experienced 32 AEs (Table 3). Eight patients had 15 ED visits, with 3 of the visits resulting in hospitalizations, 8 patients had 9 unscheduled PCP visits, 1 patient reported suicidal ideation and 2 patients made a total of 4 calls to the Veterans Crisis Line. There were also 2 deaths; however, both were due to end-stage disease (cirrhosis and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis) and not believed to be related to eConsult recommendations.

Eight patients had a history of substance use disorders (SUDs) and 8 had a history of a mood disorder or psychosis. One patient had both SUD and a mood/psychosis-related mental health disorder, including a reported suicidal attempt/ideation at an ED visit and a subsequent hospitalization. A similar number of AEs occurred in patients with decreases in MEDD of 0 to 24% compared with those that received more aggressive tapers of 75 to 100% (Table 4).

Primary Care Providers

Nine patients were reconsulted, with only 1 secondary to the PCP not implementing recommendations from the initial consult. No factors were found that correlated with likelihood of a patient being reconsulted.

Surveys on PCP satisfaction with the eConsult service were completed by 29 of the 55 PCPs. PCP feedback was generally positive with nearly 90% of PCPs planning to use the service in the future as well as recommending use to other providers.

Discussion

Most (89%) PCPs accepted at least 1 recommendation from the completed eConsult, and MEDDs decreased by 60%, likely reducing the patient’s risk of overdose or other AEs from opioids. There also was a slight reduction in patient’s mean pain scores; however, 41% had a decrease and 42% had an increase in pain scores. There was no clear relationship when pain scores were compared with MEDDs, likely giving credence to the idea that pain scores are largely subjective and an unreliable surrogate marker for assessing effectiveness of analgesic regimens.

Eleven patients experienced AEs, including 1 patient for whom the recommendations were not implemented by the PCP. Eight of the 11 had multiple AEs. One interesting finding was that 7 of the 11 patients with an AE tested positive for unexpected substances on routine UDS or were arrested for driving while intoxicated (DWI). However, only 3 of the 7 had an active SUD diagnosis. With 25% of the AEs coming from patients with a history of SUD, it is important that any history of SUD be documented in the EHR. Maintaining this documentation can be especially difficult if patients switch VA medical centers or receive services outside the VA. Thorough and accurate history and chart review should ideally be completed before prescribing opioids.

Guidelines

While the PCPs were following VA/DoD and CDC recommendations for opioid tapering to < 100 or 90 mg MEDD, respectively, there is weak evidence in these guidelines to support specific MEDD cutoffs. The CDC guidelines even state, “a single dosage threshold for safe opioid use could not be identified.”⁵ One of the largest issues when using MEDD as a cutoff is the lack of agreement on its calculation. In 2014, Nuckols and colleagues al conducted a study to compare the existing guidelines on the use of opioids for chronic pain. While 13 guidelines were considered eligible, most recommendations were supported only by observational data or expert recommendations, and there was no consensus on what constitutes a “morphine equivalent.”⁸ Currently there is no universally accepted opioid-conversion method, resulting in a substantial problem when calculating a MEDD.⁹ A survey of 8 online opioid dose conversion tools found a -55% to +242% variation.¹⁰ As Fudin and colleagues concluded in response to the large variations found in these various analyses, the studies “unequivocally disqualify the validity of embracing MEDD to assess risk in any meaningful statistical way.”¹¹ Pharmacogenetics, drug tolerance, drug-drug interactions, body surface area, and organ function are patient- specific factors that are not taken into consideration when relying solely on a MEDD calculation. Tapering to lowest functional dose rather than a specific number or cutoff may be a more effective way to treat patients, and providers should use the guidelines as recommendations and not a hardline mandate.

At 6 months, 6 patients were receiving no pain medications from the VA, and 24 of the patients were tapered from their opiate to discontinuation. It is unclear whether patients are no longer taking opioids or switched their care to non-VA providers to receive medications, including opioids, privately. This is difficult to verify, though a prescription drug monitoring program (PDMP) could be used to assess patient adherence. As many of the patients that were tapered due to identification of aberrant behaviors, lack of continuity of care across health care systems may result in future patient harm.

The results of this analysis highlight the importance of checking PDMP databases and routine UDSs when prescribing opioids—there can be serious safety concerns if patients are taking other prescribed or illicit medications. However, care must be taken; there were 2 instances of patients’ chronic opioid prescriptions discontinued by their VA provider after a review of the PDMP showed they had received non-VA opioids. In both cases, the quantity and doses received were small (counts of ≤ 12) and were received more than 6 months prior to the check of the PDMP. While this constitutes a breach of the Informed Consent for long-term opioid use, if there are no other concerning behaviors, it may be more prudent to review the informed consent with the patient and discuss why the behavior is a breach to ensure that patients and PCPs continue to work as a team to manage chronic pain.

Limitations

The study population was one limitation of this project. While data suggest that chronic pain affects women more than men, this study’s population was only 13% female. Thirty percent of the women in this study had an AE compared with only 8% of the men. Additional limitations included use of problem list for comorbidities, as lists may be inaccurate or outdated, and limiting the monitoring of AE to only 6 months. As some tapers were not initiated immediately and some taper schedules can last several months to years; therefor, outcomes may have been higher if patients were followed longer. Many of the patients with AEs had increased ED visits or unscheduled primary care visits as the tapers went on and their pain worsened, but the visits were outside the 6-month time frame for data collection. An additional weakness of this review included assessing a pain score, but not functional status, which may be a better predictor of the effectiveness of a patient’s pain management regimen. This assessment is needed in future studies for more reliable data. Finally, PCP survey results also should be viewed with caution. The current survey had only 29 respondents, and the 2014 survey had only 10 respondents and did not include CBOC providers.

Conclusion

A pain eConsult service managed by CPSs specializing in pain management can assist patients and PCPs with opioid therapy recommendations in a safe and timely manner, reducing risk of overdose secondary to high dose opioid therapy and with limited harm to patients.

In the late 1980s and early 1990s, an emphasis on better pain management led health care professionals (HCPs) to increase prescribing of opioids to better manage patient’s pain. In 1991, 76 million prescriptions were written for opioids in the United States, and by 2011, the number had nearly tripled to 219 million.¹ Overdose rates increased as well, nearly tripling from 1999 to 2014.² Of the 52,404 US deaths from drug overdoses in the in 2015, 63% involved an opioid.²

Opioid Safety Initiative

In response to the growing opioid epidemic, the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) created the Opioid Safety Initiative in 2014.³ This comprehensive, multifaceted initiative was designed to improve the care and safety of veterans managed with opioid therapy and promote rational opioid prescribing and monitoring. In 2016 the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) issued guidelines for opioid prescriptions, and the following year the VA and the US Department of Defense (DoD) updated the VA/DoD Clinical Practice Guidelines for Opioid Therapy for Chronic Pain (VA/DoD guidelines).^4,5 After the release of these guidelines, the use of opioid tapers expanded. However, due to public outcry of forced opioid tapering in 2019, the US Food and Drug Administration updated its opioid labeling requirements to provide clearer guidance on opioid tapers for tolerant patients.^6,7

As a result, HCPs began to develop various strategies to balance the safety and efficacy of opioid use in patients with chronic pain. The West Palm Beach VA Medical Center (WPBVAMC) in Florida has a Pain Clinic that includes 2 pain management clinical pharmacy specialists (CPSs) with specialized training in pain management, who are uniquely qualified to assess and evaluate medication therapy in complex pain patient cases. These CPSs were involved in the face-to-face management of patients requiring specialized pain care and participated in a pain pharmacy electronic consult (eConsult) service to document pain management consultative recommendations for patients appropriate for management at the primary care level. This formalized process increased specialty pain care access for veterans whose pain was managed by primary care providers (PCPs).

The pain pharmacy eConsult service was initiated at the WPBVAMC in June 2013 to assist PCPs in the management of outpatients with chronic pain. The eConsult service includes evaluation of a patient’s electronic health records (EHRs) by CPSs. The eConsult service also provided PCPs with the option to engage a pharmacist who could provide recommendations for opioid dosing conversion, opioid tapering, pain pharmacotherapy, or drug screen interpretation, without the necessity for an additional patient visit.

Subsequent to the release of the 2016 CDC (and later the 2017 VA/DoD) guidelines recommending reducing morphine equivalent daily dose (MEDD) levels, the WPBVAMC had a large increase in pain eConsult requests for opioid tapering and opioid pharmacotherapy. A 3.4-fold increase in requests occurred in March, April, and May vs the following 9 months, and a nearly 4-fold increase in requests for opioid tapers during the same period. However, the impact of the completed eConsults was unclear. Therefore, the primary objective of this study was to assess the effect of CPS services for opioid tapering and opioid pharmacotherapy by quantifying the number of recommendations accepted/implemented by PCPs. The secondary objectives included evaluating harms associated with the recommendations (eg, increase in visits to the emergency department [ED], hospitalizations, suicide attempts, or PCP visits) and provider satisfaction.

Methods

A retrospective chart review was completed to assess data of patients from the WPBVAMC and its associated community-based outpatient clinics (CBOCs). The project was approved by the WPBVAMC Scientific Advisory Committee as part of the facility’s performance improvement efforts.

Included patients had a pain pharmacy eConsult placed between April 1, 2016 and March 31, 2017. EHRs were reviewed and only eConsults for opioid pharmacotherapy recommendation or opioid tapers were evaluated. eConsults were excluded if the request was discontinued, completed by a HCP other than the pain CPS, or placed for an opioid dose conversion, nonopioid pharmacotherapy, or drug screen interpretation.

Data for analyses were entered into Microsoft Excel 2016 and were securely saved and accessible to relevant researchers. Patient protected health information used during patient care remained confidential.

Demographic data were collected, including age, gender, race, pertinent medical comorbidities (eg, diabetes mellitus, sleep apnea), and mental health comorbidities. Pain scores were collected at baseline and 6-months postconsult. Pain medications used by patients were noted at baseline and 6 months postconsult, including concomitant opioid and benzodiazepine use, MEDD, and other pain medication. The duration of time needed by pain CPS to complete each eConsult and total time from eConsult entered to HCP implementation of the initial recommendation was collected. The number of actionable recommendations (eg, changes in drug therapy, urine drug screens [UDSs], and referrals to other services also were recorded and reviewed 6 months postconsult to determine the number and percentage of recommendations implemented by the HCP. The EHR was examined to determine adverse events (AEs) (eg, any documentation of suicide attempt, calls to the Veterans Crisis Line, or death 6 month postconsult). Collected data also included new eConsults, the reason for opioid tapering either by HCP or patient, and assessment of economic harms (count of the number of visits to ED, hospitalizations, or unscheduled PCP visits with uncontrolled pain as chief reason within 6 months postconsult). Last, PCPs were sent a survey to assess their satisfaction with the pain eConsult service.

Results

Of 517 eConsults received from April 1, 2016 to March 31, 2017, 285 (55.1%) met inclusion criteria (Figure). Using a random number generator, 100 eConsults were further reviewed for outcomes of interest.

In this cohort, the mean age was 61 years, 87% were male, and 80% were White individuals. Most patients (83%) had ≥ 1 mental health comorbidity, and 53% had ≥ 2, with depressive symptoms, tobacco use, and/or posttraumatic stress disorder the most common diagnoses (Table 1). Eighty-seven percent of eConsults were for opioid tapers and the remaining 13% were for opioid pharmacotherapy.

The median pain score at time of consult was 6 on a 10-point scale, with no change at 6 months postconsult. However, 41% of patients overall had a median 3.3-point drop in pain score, 17% had no change in pain score, and 42% had a median 2.6-point increase in pain score.

Electronic Consults

Table 2 describes the reasons eConsults were requested. The most common reason was to taper the dose to be in compliance with the CDC 2016 guideline recommendation of MEDD < 90 mg, which was later increased to 100 mg by the VA/DoD guideline.

On average, eConsults were completed within a mean of 11.5 days of the PCP request, including nights and weekends. The CPS spent a mean 66.8 minutes to complete each eConsult. Once the eConsult was completed, PCPs took a mean of 9 days to initiate the primary recommendation. This 9-day average does not include 11 eConsults with no accepted recommendations and 11 eConsults for which the PCP implemented the primary recommendation before the CPS completed the consult, most likely due to a phone call or direct contact with the CPS at the time the eConsult was ordered.

A mean 3.5 actionable recommendations were made by the CPS and a mean 1.6 recommendations were implemented within 6 months by the PCP. At least 1 recommendation was accepted/implemented for 89% of patients, with a mean 55% recommendations that were accepted/implemented. Eleven percent of the eConsult final recommendations were not accepted by PCPs and clear documentation of the reasons were not provided.

In the 6 months postconsult, 11 patients (7 men and 4 women) experienced 32 AEs (Table 3). Eight patients had 15 ED visits, with 3 of the visits resulting in hospitalizations, 8 patients had 9 unscheduled PCP visits, 1 patient reported suicidal ideation and 2 patients made a total of 4 calls to the Veterans Crisis Line. There were also 2 deaths; however, both were due to end-stage disease (cirrhosis and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis) and not believed to be related to eConsult recommendations.

Eight patients had a history of substance use disorders (SUDs) and 8 had a history of a mood disorder or psychosis. One patient had both SUD and a mood/psychosis-related mental health disorder, including a reported suicidal attempt/ideation at an ED visit and a subsequent hospitalization. A similar number of AEs occurred in patients with decreases in MEDD of 0 to 24% compared with those that received more aggressive tapers of 75 to 100% (Table 4).

Primary Care Providers

Nine patients were reconsulted, with only 1 secondary to the PCP not implementing recommendations from the initial consult. No factors were found that correlated with likelihood of a patient being reconsulted.

Surveys on PCP satisfaction with the eConsult service were completed by 29 of the 55 PCPs. PCP feedback was generally positive with nearly 90% of PCPs planning to use the service in the future as well as recommending use to other providers.

Discussion

Most (89%) PCPs accepted at least 1 recommendation from the completed eConsult, and MEDDs decreased by 60%, likely reducing the patient’s risk of overdose or other AEs from opioids. There also was a slight reduction in patient’s mean pain scores; however, 41% had a decrease and 42% had an increase in pain scores. There was no clear relationship when pain scores were compared with MEDDs, likely giving credence to the idea that pain scores are largely subjective and an unreliable surrogate marker for assessing effectiveness of analgesic regimens.

Eleven patients experienced AEs, including 1 patient for whom the recommendations were not implemented by the PCP. Eight of the 11 had multiple AEs. One interesting finding was that 7 of the 11 patients with an AE tested positive for unexpected substances on routine UDS or were arrested for driving while intoxicated (DWI). However, only 3 of the 7 had an active SUD diagnosis. With 25% of the AEs coming from patients with a history of SUD, it is important that any history of SUD be documented in the EHR. Maintaining this documentation can be especially difficult if patients switch VA medical centers or receive services outside the VA. Thorough and accurate history and chart review should ideally be completed before prescribing opioids.

Guidelines

While the PCPs were following VA/DoD and CDC recommendations for opioid tapering to < 100 or 90 mg MEDD, respectively, there is weak evidence in these guidelines to support specific MEDD cutoffs. The CDC guidelines even state, “a single dosage threshold for safe opioid use could not be identified.”⁵ One of the largest issues when using MEDD as a cutoff is the lack of agreement on its calculation. In 2014, Nuckols and colleagues al conducted a study to compare the existing guidelines on the use of opioids for chronic pain. While 13 guidelines were considered eligible, most recommendations were supported only by observational data or expert recommendations, and there was no consensus on what constitutes a “morphine equivalent.”⁸ Currently there is no universally accepted opioid-conversion method, resulting in a substantial problem when calculating a MEDD.⁹ A survey of 8 online opioid dose conversion tools found a -55% to +242% variation.¹⁰ As Fudin and colleagues concluded in response to the large variations found in these various analyses, the studies “unequivocally disqualify the validity of embracing MEDD to assess risk in any meaningful statistical way.”¹¹ Pharmacogenetics, drug tolerance, drug-drug interactions, body surface area, and organ function are patient- specific factors that are not taken into consideration when relying solely on a MEDD calculation. Tapering to lowest functional dose rather than a specific number or cutoff may be a more effective way to treat patients, and providers should use the guidelines as recommendations and not a hardline mandate.

At 6 months, 6 patients were receiving no pain medications from the VA, and 24 of the patients were tapered from their opiate to discontinuation. It is unclear whether patients are no longer taking opioids or switched their care to non-VA providers to receive medications, including opioids, privately. This is difficult to verify, though a prescription drug monitoring program (PDMP) could be used to assess patient adherence. As many of the patients that were tapered due to identification of aberrant behaviors, lack of continuity of care across health care systems may result in future patient harm.

The results of this analysis highlight the importance of checking PDMP databases and routine UDSs when prescribing opioids—there can be serious safety concerns if patients are taking other prescribed or illicit medications. However, care must be taken; there were 2 instances of patients’ chronic opioid prescriptions discontinued by their VA provider after a review of the PDMP showed they had received non-VA opioids. In both cases, the quantity and doses received were small (counts of ≤ 12) and were received more than 6 months prior to the check of the PDMP. While this constitutes a breach of the Informed Consent for long-term opioid use, if there are no other concerning behaviors, it may be more prudent to review the informed consent with the patient and discuss why the behavior is a breach to ensure that patients and PCPs continue to work as a team to manage chronic pain.

Limitations

The study population was one limitation of this project. While data suggest that chronic pain affects women more than men, this study’s population was only 13% female. Thirty percent of the women in this study had an AE compared with only 8% of the men. Additional limitations included use of problem list for comorbidities, as lists may be inaccurate or outdated, and limiting the monitoring of AE to only 6 months. As some tapers were not initiated immediately and some taper schedules can last several months to years; therefor, outcomes may have been higher if patients were followed longer. Many of the patients with AEs had increased ED visits or unscheduled primary care visits as the tapers went on and their pain worsened, but the visits were outside the 6-month time frame for data collection. An additional weakness of this review included assessing a pain score, but not functional status, which may be a better predictor of the effectiveness of a patient’s pain management regimen. This assessment is needed in future studies for more reliable data. Finally, PCP survey results also should be viewed with caution. The current survey had only 29 respondents, and the 2014 survey had only 10 respondents and did not include CBOC providers.

Conclusion

A pain eConsult service managed by CPSs specializing in pain management can assist patients and PCPs with opioid therapy recommendations in a safe and timely manner, reducing risk of overdose secondary to high dose opioid therapy and with limited harm to patients.