Pharmacology

Combining minimally invasive endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty with a weekly injection of the glucagonlike peptide–1 agonist semaglutide (Ozempic, Novo Nordisk) leads to significantly greater weight loss than ESG alone in patients with diabetes and excess weight who are not candidates for bariatric surgery, new research shows.

During minimally invasive ESG, a flexible endoscope equipped with an endoscopic suturing device is inserted down the esophagus and into the stomach. The endoscopist then applies the sutures to the upper portion of the stomach, minimizing its size to restrict the amount of food a patient can ingest.

“Our stomachs can stretch back a bit, but we can use the suturing device again,” explained the lead investigator of the research Anna Carolina Hoff, MD, founder and clinical director of Angioskope Brazil in São José dos Campos.

“It’s important that patients with diabetes lose as much weight as possible because, if they lose about 10% of their total body weight, they have a great improvement in their glycemic levels, and some patients can even stop taking their [antidiabetic] medications,” Dr. Hoff said in an interview.

“And we found that by adding the GLP-1 agonist [semaglutide], we could increase weight loss from, on average, about 16%-18% of total body weight with ESG alone to up to 27%, so it’s a great metabolic combination,” she noted.

Dr. Hoff presented the findings at the annual Digestive Disease Week® (DDW).

Asked to comment, Scott Kahan, MD, MPH, director, National Center for Weight and Wellness, George Washington University, Washington, cautioned that it’s still early days for minimally invasive ESG.

“It is reasonable to assume that the long-term outcomes [with ESG] won’t be as good or durable over time as with bariatric surgery, but ... we will have to see.”

However, “we know that, typically, combinations of therapeutic options work better than a one-off option, so I think the real benefit of this study – outside the specific procedure and this specific medication – is that it is a very valuable proof-of-principle study showing that combinations do work better,” Dr. Kahan said in an interview.
 

Minimally invasive endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty

ESG is a surrogate for laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy that can offer the benefits of such a procedure to those who don’t qualify for, or don’t wish to pursue, bariatric surgery. It can be performed at an earlier stage of disease, in those with a body mass index of 30 mg/kg², whereas generally people are not offered bariatric procedures unless they have a BMI of at least 35 with comorbidities or a BMI of at least 40 if they do not have comorbidities.

Subcutaneous semaglutide is already approved for the treatment of type 2 diabetes in adults at doses of up to 1 mg/week; higher doses are needed for weight loss. Novo Nordisk has been investigating higher doses for weight loss in the STEP trial program, which is now complete, and the company has submitted the data to the Food and Drug Administration and European Medicines Agency for an additional indication of adults with obesity (BMI ≥30) or who are overweight (BMI ≥27) and who have at least one weight-related comorbidity, as an adjunct to a reduced-calorie diet and increased physical activity, with a decision expected soon.

Novo Nordisk has also developed an oral form of semaglutide, which has been approved as a once-daily agent for type 2 diabetes (Rybelsus) in doses of 7 mg and 14 mg to improve glycemic control along with diet and exercise. It is the first GLP-1 agonist available in tablet form.
 

Patients lost fat mass as well as excess weight

The Brazilian study involved 58 patients with obesity or overweight who also had diabetes and were undergoing minimally invasive ESG; they were further randomized to receive semaglutide or placebo.

The GLP-1 agonist (or sham placebo) was initiated 1 month after participants had undergone the procedure and patients were monitored each month for weight loss and type of fat loss achieved with the combination versus ESG alone. The initial dose of semaglutide used was 0.25 mg subcutaneous a week but could be titrated up to a maximum dose of 1.5 mg.

At the end of 11 months of active treatment versus placebo (12 months after ESG), patients who received additional semaglutide lost 86.3% of their excess body weight – the amount of weight patients needed to lose to reach normal BMI – compared with only 60.4% for ESG controls.

Specifically, the mean percentage total body weight loss at the end of 12 months was 25.2% for those in the combination group, compared with 18.6% for those treated with ESG alone (P < .001).

More importantly, patients in the combination group lost 12.6% of their body fat mass, compared with 9% for ESG controls, while mean A1c levels fell more in those treated with additional semaglutide compared with controls (P = .0394).

Indeed, five patients in the combination group reverted to a nondiabetic state and were able to discontinue antidiabetic medications altogether, Dr. Hoff noted.

“Our main goal is not just to lose weight but to lose body mass fat, which is very different from just losing weight,” she explained.

If patients lose weight but still maintain a high percentage of body fat mass, they have what she refers to as “sarcopenic obesity” because in this state patients have lost a lot of muscle mass but still have high levels of metabolically active visceral fat. Among many other inflammatory complexes, metabolically active visceral fat contains a large number of inflammasomes, and it is the latter that have been associated with obesity-related cancers. 

“Obesity is a progressive disease, so what we are trying to do here is buy time for patients so they do not progress to [bariatric] surgery, and this approach gives patients a chance to act earlier before obesity takes over and more metabolic consequences occur,” Dr. Hoff emphasized.

So, when combined with semaglutide, “we now have a minimally invasive procedure that can be just as successful [as surgery] and which can be made available to even more people looking to lose a significant amount of weight,” she concluded.

Dr. Hoff and Dr. Kahan have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Combining minimally invasive endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty with a weekly injection of the glucagonlike peptide–1 agonist semaglutide (Ozempic, Novo Nordisk) leads to significantly greater weight loss than ESG alone in patients with diabetes and excess weight who are not candidates for bariatric surgery, new research shows.

During minimally invasive ESG, a flexible endoscope equipped with an endoscopic suturing device is inserted down the esophagus and into the stomach. The endoscopist then applies the sutures to the upper portion of the stomach, minimizing its size to restrict the amount of food a patient can ingest.

“Our stomachs can stretch back a bit, but we can use the suturing device again,” explained the lead investigator of the research Anna Carolina Hoff, MD, founder and clinical director of Angioskope Brazil in São José dos Campos.

“It’s important that patients with diabetes lose as much weight as possible because, if they lose about 10% of their total body weight, they have a great improvement in their glycemic levels, and some patients can even stop taking their [antidiabetic] medications,” Dr. Hoff said in an interview.

“And we found that by adding the GLP-1 agonist [semaglutide], we could increase weight loss from, on average, about 16%-18% of total body weight with ESG alone to up to 27%, so it’s a great metabolic combination,” she noted.

Dr. Hoff presented the findings at the annual Digestive Disease Week® (DDW).

Asked to comment, Scott Kahan, MD, MPH, director, National Center for Weight and Wellness, George Washington University, Washington, cautioned that it’s still early days for minimally invasive ESG.

“It is reasonable to assume that the long-term outcomes [with ESG] won’t be as good or durable over time as with bariatric surgery, but ... we will have to see.”

However, “we know that, typically, combinations of therapeutic options work better than a one-off option, so I think the real benefit of this study – outside the specific procedure and this specific medication – is that it is a very valuable proof-of-principle study showing that combinations do work better,” Dr. Kahan said in an interview.
 

Minimally invasive endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty

ESG is a surrogate for laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy that can offer the benefits of such a procedure to those who don’t qualify for, or don’t wish to pursue, bariatric surgery. It can be performed at an earlier stage of disease, in those with a body mass index of 30 mg/kg², whereas generally people are not offered bariatric procedures unless they have a BMI of at least 35 with comorbidities or a BMI of at least 40 if they do not have comorbidities.

Subcutaneous semaglutide is already approved for the treatment of type 2 diabetes in adults at doses of up to 1 mg/week; higher doses are needed for weight loss. Novo Nordisk has been investigating higher doses for weight loss in the STEP trial program, which is now complete, and the company has submitted the data to the Food and Drug Administration and European Medicines Agency for an additional indication of adults with obesity (BMI ≥30) or who are overweight (BMI ≥27) and who have at least one weight-related comorbidity, as an adjunct to a reduced-calorie diet and increased physical activity, with a decision expected soon.

Novo Nordisk has also developed an oral form of semaglutide, which has been approved as a once-daily agent for type 2 diabetes (Rybelsus) in doses of 7 mg and 14 mg to improve glycemic control along with diet and exercise. It is the first GLP-1 agonist available in tablet form.
 

Patients lost fat mass as well as excess weight

The Brazilian study involved 58 patients with obesity or overweight who also had diabetes and were undergoing minimally invasive ESG; they were further randomized to receive semaglutide or placebo.

The GLP-1 agonist (or sham placebo) was initiated 1 month after participants had undergone the procedure and patients were monitored each month for weight loss and type of fat loss achieved with the combination versus ESG alone. The initial dose of semaglutide used was 0.25 mg subcutaneous a week but could be titrated up to a maximum dose of 1.5 mg.

At the end of 11 months of active treatment versus placebo (12 months after ESG), patients who received additional semaglutide lost 86.3% of their excess body weight – the amount of weight patients needed to lose to reach normal BMI – compared with only 60.4% for ESG controls.

Specifically, the mean percentage total body weight loss at the end of 12 months was 25.2% for those in the combination group, compared with 18.6% for those treated with ESG alone (P < .001).

More importantly, patients in the combination group lost 12.6% of their body fat mass, compared with 9% for ESG controls, while mean A1c levels fell more in those treated with additional semaglutide compared with controls (P = .0394).

Indeed, five patients in the combination group reverted to a nondiabetic state and were able to discontinue antidiabetic medications altogether, Dr. Hoff noted.

“Our main goal is not just to lose weight but to lose body mass fat, which is very different from just losing weight,” she explained.

If patients lose weight but still maintain a high percentage of body fat mass, they have what she refers to as “sarcopenic obesity” because in this state patients have lost a lot of muscle mass but still have high levels of metabolically active visceral fat. Among many other inflammatory complexes, metabolically active visceral fat contains a large number of inflammasomes, and it is the latter that have been associated with obesity-related cancers. 

“Obesity is a progressive disease, so what we are trying to do here is buy time for patients so they do not progress to [bariatric] surgery, and this approach gives patients a chance to act earlier before obesity takes over and more metabolic consequences occur,” Dr. Hoff emphasized.

So, when combined with semaglutide, “we now have a minimally invasive procedure that can be just as successful [as surgery] and which can be made available to even more people looking to lose a significant amount of weight,” she concluded.

Dr. Hoff and Dr. Kahan have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Combining minimally invasive endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty with a weekly injection of the glucagonlike peptide–1 agonist semaglutide (Ozempic, Novo Nordisk) leads to significantly greater weight loss than ESG alone in patients with diabetes and excess weight who are not candidates for bariatric surgery, new research shows.

During minimally invasive ESG, a flexible endoscope equipped with an endoscopic suturing device is inserted down the esophagus and into the stomach. The endoscopist then applies the sutures to the upper portion of the stomach, minimizing its size to restrict the amount of food a patient can ingest.

“Our stomachs can stretch back a bit, but we can use the suturing device again,” explained the lead investigator of the research Anna Carolina Hoff, MD, founder and clinical director of Angioskope Brazil in São José dos Campos.

“It’s important that patients with diabetes lose as much weight as possible because, if they lose about 10% of their total body weight, they have a great improvement in their glycemic levels, and some patients can even stop taking their [antidiabetic] medications,” Dr. Hoff said in an interview.

“And we found that by adding the GLP-1 agonist [semaglutide], we could increase weight loss from, on average, about 16%-18% of total body weight with ESG alone to up to 27%, so it’s a great metabolic combination,” she noted.

Dr. Hoff presented the findings at the annual Digestive Disease Week® (DDW).

Asked to comment, Scott Kahan, MD, MPH, director, National Center for Weight and Wellness, George Washington University, Washington, cautioned that it’s still early days for minimally invasive ESG.

“It is reasonable to assume that the long-term outcomes [with ESG] won’t be as good or durable over time as with bariatric surgery, but ... we will have to see.”

However, “we know that, typically, combinations of therapeutic options work better than a one-off option, so I think the real benefit of this study – outside the specific procedure and this specific medication – is that it is a very valuable proof-of-principle study showing that combinations do work better,” Dr. Kahan said in an interview.
 

Minimally invasive endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty

ESG is a surrogate for laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy that can offer the benefits of such a procedure to those who don’t qualify for, or don’t wish to pursue, bariatric surgery. It can be performed at an earlier stage of disease, in those with a body mass index of 30 mg/kg², whereas generally people are not offered bariatric procedures unless they have a BMI of at least 35 with comorbidities or a BMI of at least 40 if they do not have comorbidities.

Subcutaneous semaglutide is already approved for the treatment of type 2 diabetes in adults at doses of up to 1 mg/week; higher doses are needed for weight loss. Novo Nordisk has been investigating higher doses for weight loss in the STEP trial program, which is now complete, and the company has submitted the data to the Food and Drug Administration and European Medicines Agency for an additional indication of adults with obesity (BMI ≥30) or who are overweight (BMI ≥27) and who have at least one weight-related comorbidity, as an adjunct to a reduced-calorie diet and increased physical activity, with a decision expected soon.

Novo Nordisk has also developed an oral form of semaglutide, which has been approved as a once-daily agent for type 2 diabetes (Rybelsus) in doses of 7 mg and 14 mg to improve glycemic control along with diet and exercise. It is the first GLP-1 agonist available in tablet form.
 

Patients lost fat mass as well as excess weight

The Brazilian study involved 58 patients with obesity or overweight who also had diabetes and were undergoing minimally invasive ESG; they were further randomized to receive semaglutide or placebo.

The GLP-1 agonist (or sham placebo) was initiated 1 month after participants had undergone the procedure and patients were monitored each month for weight loss and type of fat loss achieved with the combination versus ESG alone. The initial dose of semaglutide used was 0.25 mg subcutaneous a week but could be titrated up to a maximum dose of 1.5 mg.

At the end of 11 months of active treatment versus placebo (12 months after ESG), patients who received additional semaglutide lost 86.3% of their excess body weight – the amount of weight patients needed to lose to reach normal BMI – compared with only 60.4% for ESG controls.

Specifically, the mean percentage total body weight loss at the end of 12 months was 25.2% for those in the combination group, compared with 18.6% for those treated with ESG alone (P < .001).

More importantly, patients in the combination group lost 12.6% of their body fat mass, compared with 9% for ESG controls, while mean A1c levels fell more in those treated with additional semaglutide compared with controls (P = .0394).

Indeed, five patients in the combination group reverted to a nondiabetic state and were able to discontinue antidiabetic medications altogether, Dr. Hoff noted.

“Our main goal is not just to lose weight but to lose body mass fat, which is very different from just losing weight,” she explained.

If patients lose weight but still maintain a high percentage of body fat mass, they have what she refers to as “sarcopenic obesity” because in this state patients have lost a lot of muscle mass but still have high levels of metabolically active visceral fat. Among many other inflammatory complexes, metabolically active visceral fat contains a large number of inflammasomes, and it is the latter that have been associated with obesity-related cancers. 

“Obesity is a progressive disease, so what we are trying to do here is buy time for patients so they do not progress to [bariatric] surgery, and this approach gives patients a chance to act earlier before obesity takes over and more metabolic consequences occur,” Dr. Hoff emphasized.

So, when combined with semaglutide, “we now have a minimally invasive procedure that can be just as successful [as surgery] and which can be made available to even more people looking to lose a significant amount of weight,” she concluded.

Dr. Hoff and Dr. Kahan have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has granted breakthrough therapy designation for Boehringer Ingelheim’s experimental agent for the treatment of cognitive impairment associated with schizophrenia (CIAS).

The drug, known as BI 425809, is a novel glycine transporter-1 inhibitor.

The company announced it will start the CONNEX phase 3 clinical trial program to assess the safety and efficacy of the drug for improving cognition for adults with schizophrenia.

The breakthrough therapy designation and the initiation of phase 3 testing are based on results from a phase 2 clinical trial published in The Lancet Psychiatry.

In the phase 2 trial, oral BI 425809, taken once daily, improved cognition after 12 weeks for patients with schizophrenia; doses of 10 mg and 25 mg showed the largest separation from placebo.

Impairment of cognitive function is a major burden for people with schizophrenia, and no pharmacologic treatments are currently approved for CIAS.

“Cognition is a fundamental aspect of everyday life, including problem solving, memory, and attention, which is why finding solutions for cognitive impairment is a key area of Boehringer Ingelheim mental health research,” Vikas Mohan Sharma, MS, with Boehringer Ingelheim, said in a news release.

“This breakthrough therapy designation further highlights the urgent need for novel treatments for people living with schizophrenia. By combining traditional treatment approaches with new and innovative technologies, we are developing targeted therapies that will help to ease the burden of mental health conditions and enable people living with these conditions to create more meaningful connections to their lives, loved ones, and society,” said Mr. Sharma.

The CONNEX clinical trial program is composed of three clinical trials – CONNEX-1, CONNEX-2, and CONNEX-3. All are phase 3 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled parallel group trials that will examine the efficacy and safety of BI 425809 taken once daily over a 26-week period for patients with schizophrenia.

The primary outcome measure is change from baseline in overall composite T-score of the Measurement and Treatment Research to Improve Cognition in Schizophrenia consensus cognitive battery.

The CONNEX trial program will use VeraSci’s Pathway electronic clinical outcome assessment platform, including VeraSci’s Virtual Reality Functional Capacity Assessment Tool (VRFCAT), which simulates key instrumental activities of daily living in a realistic interactive virtual environment, VeraSci explains in a news release announcing the partnership with Boehringer Ingelheim.

The VRFCAT is sensitive to functional capacity deficits and has been accepted into the FDA’s Clinical Outcome Assessment Qualification Program.

The CONNEX trials will also utilize speech biomarker technology from Aural Analytics, which will provide a “richer picture of trial participants’ cognition alongside more conventional clinical outcome measures,” Boehringer Ingelheim says.

“Several of the symptoms of schizophrenia are generated by cognitive and emotional processes that can be identified through disruptions in the outward flow of speech. Using innovative speech analytics may help to objectively assess the downstream consequences of these disruptions,” said Daniel Jones, Aural Analytics co-founder and CEO.

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has granted breakthrough therapy designation for Boehringer Ingelheim’s experimental agent for the treatment of cognitive impairment associated with schizophrenia (CIAS).

The drug, known as BI 425809, is a novel glycine transporter-1 inhibitor.

The company announced it will start the CONNEX phase 3 clinical trial program to assess the safety and efficacy of the drug for improving cognition for adults with schizophrenia.

The breakthrough therapy designation and the initiation of phase 3 testing are based on results from a phase 2 clinical trial published in The Lancet Psychiatry.

In the phase 2 trial, oral BI 425809, taken once daily, improved cognition after 12 weeks for patients with schizophrenia; doses of 10 mg and 25 mg showed the largest separation from placebo.

Impairment of cognitive function is a major burden for people with schizophrenia, and no pharmacologic treatments are currently approved for CIAS.

“Cognition is a fundamental aspect of everyday life, including problem solving, memory, and attention, which is why finding solutions for cognitive impairment is a key area of Boehringer Ingelheim mental health research,” Vikas Mohan Sharma, MS, with Boehringer Ingelheim, said in a news release.

“This breakthrough therapy designation further highlights the urgent need for novel treatments for people living with schizophrenia. By combining traditional treatment approaches with new and innovative technologies, we are developing targeted therapies that will help to ease the burden of mental health conditions and enable people living with these conditions to create more meaningful connections to their lives, loved ones, and society,” said Mr. Sharma.

The CONNEX clinical trial program is composed of three clinical trials – CONNEX-1, CONNEX-2, and CONNEX-3. All are phase 3 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled parallel group trials that will examine the efficacy and safety of BI 425809 taken once daily over a 26-week period for patients with schizophrenia.

The primary outcome measure is change from baseline in overall composite T-score of the Measurement and Treatment Research to Improve Cognition in Schizophrenia consensus cognitive battery.

The CONNEX trial program will use VeraSci’s Pathway electronic clinical outcome assessment platform, including VeraSci’s Virtual Reality Functional Capacity Assessment Tool (VRFCAT), which simulates key instrumental activities of daily living in a realistic interactive virtual environment, VeraSci explains in a news release announcing the partnership with Boehringer Ingelheim.

The VRFCAT is sensitive to functional capacity deficits and has been accepted into the FDA’s Clinical Outcome Assessment Qualification Program.

The CONNEX trials will also utilize speech biomarker technology from Aural Analytics, which will provide a “richer picture of trial participants’ cognition alongside more conventional clinical outcome measures,” Boehringer Ingelheim says.

“Several of the symptoms of schizophrenia are generated by cognitive and emotional processes that can be identified through disruptions in the outward flow of speech. Using innovative speech analytics may help to objectively assess the downstream consequences of these disruptions,” said Daniel Jones, Aural Analytics co-founder and CEO.

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has granted breakthrough therapy designation for Boehringer Ingelheim’s experimental agent for the treatment of cognitive impairment associated with schizophrenia (CIAS).

The drug, known as BI 425809, is a novel glycine transporter-1 inhibitor.

The company announced it will start the CONNEX phase 3 clinical trial program to assess the safety and efficacy of the drug for improving cognition for adults with schizophrenia.

The breakthrough therapy designation and the initiation of phase 3 testing are based on results from a phase 2 clinical trial published in The Lancet Psychiatry.

In the phase 2 trial, oral BI 425809, taken once daily, improved cognition after 12 weeks for patients with schizophrenia; doses of 10 mg and 25 mg showed the largest separation from placebo.

Impairment of cognitive function is a major burden for people with schizophrenia, and no pharmacologic treatments are currently approved for CIAS.

“Cognition is a fundamental aspect of everyday life, including problem solving, memory, and attention, which is why finding solutions for cognitive impairment is a key area of Boehringer Ingelheim mental health research,” Vikas Mohan Sharma, MS, with Boehringer Ingelheim, said in a news release.

“This breakthrough therapy designation further highlights the urgent need for novel treatments for people living with schizophrenia. By combining traditional treatment approaches with new and innovative technologies, we are developing targeted therapies that will help to ease the burden of mental health conditions and enable people living with these conditions to create more meaningful connections to their lives, loved ones, and society,” said Mr. Sharma.

The CONNEX clinical trial program is composed of three clinical trials – CONNEX-1, CONNEX-2, and CONNEX-3. All are phase 3 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled parallel group trials that will examine the efficacy and safety of BI 425809 taken once daily over a 26-week period for patients with schizophrenia.

The primary outcome measure is change from baseline in overall composite T-score of the Measurement and Treatment Research to Improve Cognition in Schizophrenia consensus cognitive battery.

The CONNEX trial program will use VeraSci’s Pathway electronic clinical outcome assessment platform, including VeraSci’s Virtual Reality Functional Capacity Assessment Tool (VRFCAT), which simulates key instrumental activities of daily living in a realistic interactive virtual environment, VeraSci explains in a news release announcing the partnership with Boehringer Ingelheim.

The VRFCAT is sensitive to functional capacity deficits and has been accepted into the FDA’s Clinical Outcome Assessment Qualification Program.

The CONNEX trials will also utilize speech biomarker technology from Aural Analytics, which will provide a “richer picture of trial participants’ cognition alongside more conventional clinical outcome measures,” Boehringer Ingelheim says.

“Several of the symptoms of schizophrenia are generated by cognitive and emotional processes that can be identified through disruptions in the outward flow of speech. Using innovative speech analytics may help to objectively assess the downstream consequences of these disruptions,” said Daniel Jones, Aural Analytics co-founder and CEO.

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

Overuse of basal insulin rather than adding therapies that target mealtime glucose levels is a common problem in primary care management of type 2 diabetes that impedes achievement of optimal glycemic control, new research suggests.

Such ‘overbasalization,’ defined as a hemoglobin A1c of greater than 8% despite use of more than 0.5 units/kg per day of basal insulin, was identified in about 40% of patients seen in a Florida primary care clinic during 2015-2018. The findings were published in the April 2021 issue of Clinical Diabetes by Kevin Cowart, PharmD, a diabetes care and education specialist at the University of South Florida, Tampa, and colleagues.

The literature suggests that once people with type 2 diabetes start basal insulin, the chance that they’ll achieve a given hemoglobin A1c target, i.e., less than 7%, diminishes significantly if that goal isn’t achieved within the first year of starting insulin, Dr. Cowart said in an interview.

“Our analysis suggests that overbasalization plays a role in patients with type 2 diabetes on basal insulin not achieving optimal glycemic control. Basal insulin is not designed to address postprandial hyperglycemia. I think there’s a clear need to address hesitancy in therapeutic progression beyond basal insulin. A lot of factors underlie the delays, with therapeutic inertia being one of them. It’s complex,” he said.
 

Overbasalization seen in large proportion of patients

The study comprised 655 adults diagnosed with type 2 diabetes for at least a year who received a prescription for a basal insulin (glargine U-100, glargine U-300, detemir, degludec U-100, degludec U-200, regular U-500, or NPH insulin).

The patients had a mean hemoglobin A1c of 8.4% and a mean basal insulin dose 0.4 units/kg per day. The prevalence of overbasalization was 38.1% for those with hemoglobin A1c above 8%, 42.7% for those with A1c of 9% or above, and 42% with A1c of 10% or greater.

Patient characteristics independently associated with overbasalization were age 35-54 years (odds ratio 1.89), age 65-80 years (0.44), A1c 9% or greater (13.97), and A1c 10% or greater (6.04). Having a prescription for insulin glargine U-100 was associated with a lower overbasalization risk (0.62). In multivariate analysis, only an A1c of 9% or greater remained significant.

Rozalina G. McCoy, MD, an endocrinologist and primary care clinician at the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., said in an interview that she sees [overbasalization] frequently in patients who are referred to her. “It’s kind of that wall that patients with type 2 diabetes hit because their A1c is high but their fasting blood sugars are normal. Sometimes it’s assumed that there’s a discrepancy, because people don’t always think about postprandial hyperglycemia.”

She also noted that there has been a push in recent years to simplify regimens, particularly in older patients.

“We really want to avoid rapid-acting insulin in older patients because we’re afraid of hypoglycemia, so we start them on basal and keep the noninsulins like metformin and sulfonylureas around. Initially those control the postprandial blood sugar but over time they’re no longer enough.”
 

Options exist for addressing postmeal blood sugar highs while minimizing lows

While in the past adding premeal insulin was the only option, today there are alternatives for addressing postmeal hyperglycemia, at least in the short term.

Dr. Cowart advised that the first step is to have patients self-monitor their blood glucose and titrate their basal insulin to address fasting hyperglycemia first. Once that appropriate dose is reached, if the patient’s hemoglobin A1c is still above target, the next step is to evaluate the need for postmeal control.

For patients who are at high cardiovascular risk, the next step might involve adding a sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor (SGLT2i) or a glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist (GLP-1RA) instead of premeal insulin. But for patients in whom overbasalization is the main concern, a GLP-1RA might be the better choice since it will have a greater impact on postprandial glucose levels, while an SGLT2i will have more effect on fasting blood sugar, he said.

Another option is to use a fixed-dose combination of basal insulin and a glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist (GLP-1RA), provided there aren’t cost or formulary barriers. “We want to use the right combination of drugs and not use too much of one to lead to hypoglycemia,” Dr. Cowart said.

Dr. McCoy doesn’t use fixed-dose combinations because they don’t allow as much flexibility in dosing. To correct overbasalization, she also recommends adding either a GLP-1RA or SGLT2i instead of premeal insulin. However, she cautions, “you still have to monitor those patients because after a few years it still won’t be enough and you’ll have to add mealtime insulin.”

If cost or lack of coverage prevents a patient’s use of SLGT2i/GLP-1RAs, Dr. McCoy said that adding just one premeal injection of rapid-acting insulin before the largest meal of the day is one option. Another is to use twice-daily NPH insulin instead of analog basal insulin, since that does offer some postprandial coverage.

Dr. Cowart said his approach in cost barrier situations is to try to use patient assistance programs and to look into the patient’s formulary to see if there is step therapy or tier considerations, and maybe have a discussion with the insurance company. “We often have to navigate that, and it does take a significant amount of time and could potentially delay patients getting the right therapy when it’s warranted. That is an area where there is a particular role for pharmacists in helping to overcome that and get patients on the right drugs,” he explained.
 

Problem may be even more common; testing is key

Dr. McCoy said that the A1c cutoff of 8% used to define overbasalization in the study probably resulted in an underestimation of the problem, since many patients are experiencing nighttime hypoglycemia from the basal insulin. The lows bring down their A1c level, but they’re still experiencing postmeal highs.

“I think they’re missing a lot of people, to be honest. I see a lot of patients with A1cs that aren’t that bad, say 7.5%, and their fasting blood sugars are okay, but if you were to put a [continuous glucose monitor] on those patients, invariably there’s hypoglycemia at night that no one knew about.”

Of course, for insurance reasons, most people with type 2 diabetes don’t currently have access to continuous glucose monitors. And often those who are not taking multiple daily injections are limited to one fingerstick test strip a day.

Dr. McCoy says that if hypoglycemia is a concern she will write a prior authorization justifying more test strips.

“I state explicitly in my notes why I recommend frequent monitoring. If they’re on a sulfonylurea, they should be able to check more frequently because they can have hypoglycemia. Same thing with basal insulin.”

Dr. McCoy advises that patients test their blood sugar 2 hours after the largest meal on one day, and at other times on different days. “Blood glucose after a meal shouldn’t be more than 200 [mg/dL]. If it is, that’s not a failure of basal insulin. It’s doing its job. You just need a different agent.”

Dr. Cowart has no disclosures. Dr. McCoy receives funding from the National Institutes of Health.

Overuse of basal insulin rather than adding therapies that target mealtime glucose levels is a common problem in primary care management of type 2 diabetes that impedes achievement of optimal glycemic control, new research suggests.

Such ‘overbasalization,’ defined as a hemoglobin A1c of greater than 8% despite use of more than 0.5 units/kg per day of basal insulin, was identified in about 40% of patients seen in a Florida primary care clinic during 2015-2018. The findings were published in the April 2021 issue of Clinical Diabetes by Kevin Cowart, PharmD, a diabetes care and education specialist at the University of South Florida, Tampa, and colleagues.

The literature suggests that once people with type 2 diabetes start basal insulin, the chance that they’ll achieve a given hemoglobin A1c target, i.e., less than 7%, diminishes significantly if that goal isn’t achieved within the first year of starting insulin, Dr. Cowart said in an interview.

“Our analysis suggests that overbasalization plays a role in patients with type 2 diabetes on basal insulin not achieving optimal glycemic control. Basal insulin is not designed to address postprandial hyperglycemia. I think there’s a clear need to address hesitancy in therapeutic progression beyond basal insulin. A lot of factors underlie the delays, with therapeutic inertia being one of them. It’s complex,” he said.
 

Overbasalization seen in large proportion of patients

The study comprised 655 adults diagnosed with type 2 diabetes for at least a year who received a prescription for a basal insulin (glargine U-100, glargine U-300, detemir, degludec U-100, degludec U-200, regular U-500, or NPH insulin).

The patients had a mean hemoglobin A1c of 8.4% and a mean basal insulin dose 0.4 units/kg per day. The prevalence of overbasalization was 38.1% for those with hemoglobin A1c above 8%, 42.7% for those with A1c of 9% or above, and 42% with A1c of 10% or greater.

Patient characteristics independently associated with overbasalization were age 35-54 years (odds ratio 1.89), age 65-80 years (0.44), A1c 9% or greater (13.97), and A1c 10% or greater (6.04). Having a prescription for insulin glargine U-100 was associated with a lower overbasalization risk (0.62). In multivariate analysis, only an A1c of 9% or greater remained significant.

Rozalina G. McCoy, MD, an endocrinologist and primary care clinician at the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., said in an interview that she sees [overbasalization] frequently in patients who are referred to her. “It’s kind of that wall that patients with type 2 diabetes hit because their A1c is high but their fasting blood sugars are normal. Sometimes it’s assumed that there’s a discrepancy, because people don’t always think about postprandial hyperglycemia.”

She also noted that there has been a push in recent years to simplify regimens, particularly in older patients.

“We really want to avoid rapid-acting insulin in older patients because we’re afraid of hypoglycemia, so we start them on basal and keep the noninsulins like metformin and sulfonylureas around. Initially those control the postprandial blood sugar but over time they’re no longer enough.”
 

Options exist for addressing postmeal blood sugar highs while minimizing lows

While in the past adding premeal insulin was the only option, today there are alternatives for addressing postmeal hyperglycemia, at least in the short term.

Dr. Cowart advised that the first step is to have patients self-monitor their blood glucose and titrate their basal insulin to address fasting hyperglycemia first. Once that appropriate dose is reached, if the patient’s hemoglobin A1c is still above target, the next step is to evaluate the need for postmeal control.

For patients who are at high cardiovascular risk, the next step might involve adding a sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor (SGLT2i) or a glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist (GLP-1RA) instead of premeal insulin. But for patients in whom overbasalization is the main concern, a GLP-1RA might be the better choice since it will have a greater impact on postprandial glucose levels, while an SGLT2i will have more effect on fasting blood sugar, he said.

Another option is to use a fixed-dose combination of basal insulin and a glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist (GLP-1RA), provided there aren’t cost or formulary barriers. “We want to use the right combination of drugs and not use too much of one to lead to hypoglycemia,” Dr. Cowart said.

Dr. McCoy doesn’t use fixed-dose combinations because they don’t allow as much flexibility in dosing. To correct overbasalization, she also recommends adding either a GLP-1RA or SGLT2i instead of premeal insulin. However, she cautions, “you still have to monitor those patients because after a few years it still won’t be enough and you’ll have to add mealtime insulin.”

If cost or lack of coverage prevents a patient’s use of SLGT2i/GLP-1RAs, Dr. McCoy said that adding just one premeal injection of rapid-acting insulin before the largest meal of the day is one option. Another is to use twice-daily NPH insulin instead of analog basal insulin, since that does offer some postprandial coverage.

Dr. Cowart said his approach in cost barrier situations is to try to use patient assistance programs and to look into the patient’s formulary to see if there is step therapy or tier considerations, and maybe have a discussion with the insurance company. “We often have to navigate that, and it does take a significant amount of time and could potentially delay patients getting the right therapy when it’s warranted. That is an area where there is a particular role for pharmacists in helping to overcome that and get patients on the right drugs,” he explained.
 

Problem may be even more common; testing is key

Dr. McCoy said that the A1c cutoff of 8% used to define overbasalization in the study probably resulted in an underestimation of the problem, since many patients are experiencing nighttime hypoglycemia from the basal insulin. The lows bring down their A1c level, but they’re still experiencing postmeal highs.

“I think they’re missing a lot of people, to be honest. I see a lot of patients with A1cs that aren’t that bad, say 7.5%, and their fasting blood sugars are okay, but if you were to put a [continuous glucose monitor] on those patients, invariably there’s hypoglycemia at night that no one knew about.”

Of course, for insurance reasons, most people with type 2 diabetes don’t currently have access to continuous glucose monitors. And often those who are not taking multiple daily injections are limited to one fingerstick test strip a day.

Dr. McCoy says that if hypoglycemia is a concern she will write a prior authorization justifying more test strips.

“I state explicitly in my notes why I recommend frequent monitoring. If they’re on a sulfonylurea, they should be able to check more frequently because they can have hypoglycemia. Same thing with basal insulin.”

Dr. McCoy advises that patients test their blood sugar 2 hours after the largest meal on one day, and at other times on different days. “Blood glucose after a meal shouldn’t be more than 200 [mg/dL]. If it is, that’s not a failure of basal insulin. It’s doing its job. You just need a different agent.”

Dr. Cowart has no disclosures. Dr. McCoy receives funding from the National Institutes of Health.

Overuse of basal insulin rather than adding therapies that target mealtime glucose levels is a common problem in primary care management of type 2 diabetes that impedes achievement of optimal glycemic control, new research suggests.

Such ‘overbasalization,’ defined as a hemoglobin A1c of greater than 8% despite use of more than 0.5 units/kg per day of basal insulin, was identified in about 40% of patients seen in a Florida primary care clinic during 2015-2018. The findings were published in the April 2021 issue of Clinical Diabetes by Kevin Cowart, PharmD, a diabetes care and education specialist at the University of South Florida, Tampa, and colleagues.

The literature suggests that once people with type 2 diabetes start basal insulin, the chance that they’ll achieve a given hemoglobin A1c target, i.e., less than 7%, diminishes significantly if that goal isn’t achieved within the first year of starting insulin, Dr. Cowart said in an interview.

“Our analysis suggests that overbasalization plays a role in patients with type 2 diabetes on basal insulin not achieving optimal glycemic control. Basal insulin is not designed to address postprandial hyperglycemia. I think there’s a clear need to address hesitancy in therapeutic progression beyond basal insulin. A lot of factors underlie the delays, with therapeutic inertia being one of them. It’s complex,” he said.
 

Overbasalization seen in large proportion of patients

The study comprised 655 adults diagnosed with type 2 diabetes for at least a year who received a prescription for a basal insulin (glargine U-100, glargine U-300, detemir, degludec U-100, degludec U-200, regular U-500, or NPH insulin).

The patients had a mean hemoglobin A1c of 8.4% and a mean basal insulin dose 0.4 units/kg per day. The prevalence of overbasalization was 38.1% for those with hemoglobin A1c above 8%, 42.7% for those with A1c of 9% or above, and 42% with A1c of 10% or greater.

Patient characteristics independently associated with overbasalization were age 35-54 years (odds ratio 1.89), age 65-80 years (0.44), A1c 9% or greater (13.97), and A1c 10% or greater (6.04). Having a prescription for insulin glargine U-100 was associated with a lower overbasalization risk (0.62). In multivariate analysis, only an A1c of 9% or greater remained significant.

Rozalina G. McCoy, MD, an endocrinologist and primary care clinician at the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., said in an interview that she sees [overbasalization] frequently in patients who are referred to her. “It’s kind of that wall that patients with type 2 diabetes hit because their A1c is high but their fasting blood sugars are normal. Sometimes it’s assumed that there’s a discrepancy, because people don’t always think about postprandial hyperglycemia.”

She also noted that there has been a push in recent years to simplify regimens, particularly in older patients.

“We really want to avoid rapid-acting insulin in older patients because we’re afraid of hypoglycemia, so we start them on basal and keep the noninsulins like metformin and sulfonylureas around. Initially those control the postprandial blood sugar but over time they’re no longer enough.”
 

Options exist for addressing postmeal blood sugar highs while minimizing lows

While in the past adding premeal insulin was the only option, today there are alternatives for addressing postmeal hyperglycemia, at least in the short term.

Dr. Cowart advised that the first step is to have patients self-monitor their blood glucose and titrate their basal insulin to address fasting hyperglycemia first. Once that appropriate dose is reached, if the patient’s hemoglobin A1c is still above target, the next step is to evaluate the need for postmeal control.

For patients who are at high cardiovascular risk, the next step might involve adding a sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor (SGLT2i) or a glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist (GLP-1RA) instead of premeal insulin. But for patients in whom overbasalization is the main concern, a GLP-1RA might be the better choice since it will have a greater impact on postprandial glucose levels, while an SGLT2i will have more effect on fasting blood sugar, he said.

Another option is to use a fixed-dose combination of basal insulin and a glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist (GLP-1RA), provided there aren’t cost or formulary barriers. “We want to use the right combination of drugs and not use too much of one to lead to hypoglycemia,” Dr. Cowart said.

Dr. McCoy doesn’t use fixed-dose combinations because they don’t allow as much flexibility in dosing. To correct overbasalization, she also recommends adding either a GLP-1RA or SGLT2i instead of premeal insulin. However, she cautions, “you still have to monitor those patients because after a few years it still won’t be enough and you’ll have to add mealtime insulin.”

If cost or lack of coverage prevents a patient’s use of SLGT2i/GLP-1RAs, Dr. McCoy said that adding just one premeal injection of rapid-acting insulin before the largest meal of the day is one option. Another is to use twice-daily NPH insulin instead of analog basal insulin, since that does offer some postprandial coverage.

Dr. Cowart said his approach in cost barrier situations is to try to use patient assistance programs and to look into the patient’s formulary to see if there is step therapy or tier considerations, and maybe have a discussion with the insurance company. “We often have to navigate that, and it does take a significant amount of time and could potentially delay patients getting the right therapy when it’s warranted. That is an area where there is a particular role for pharmacists in helping to overcome that and get patients on the right drugs,” he explained.
 

Problem may be even more common; testing is key

Dr. McCoy said that the A1c cutoff of 8% used to define overbasalization in the study probably resulted in an underestimation of the problem, since many patients are experiencing nighttime hypoglycemia from the basal insulin. The lows bring down their A1c level, but they’re still experiencing postmeal highs.

“I think they’re missing a lot of people, to be honest. I see a lot of patients with A1cs that aren’t that bad, say 7.5%, and their fasting blood sugars are okay, but if you were to put a [continuous glucose monitor] on those patients, invariably there’s hypoglycemia at night that no one knew about.”

Of course, for insurance reasons, most people with type 2 diabetes don’t currently have access to continuous glucose monitors. And often those who are not taking multiple daily injections are limited to one fingerstick test strip a day.

Dr. McCoy says that if hypoglycemia is a concern she will write a prior authorization justifying more test strips.

“I state explicitly in my notes why I recommend frequent monitoring. If they’re on a sulfonylurea, they should be able to check more frequently because they can have hypoglycemia. Same thing with basal insulin.”

Dr. McCoy advises that patients test their blood sugar 2 hours after the largest meal on one day, and at other times on different days. “Blood glucose after a meal shouldn’t be more than 200 [mg/dL]. If it is, that’s not a failure of basal insulin. It’s doing its job. You just need a different agent.”

Dr. Cowart has no disclosures. Dr. McCoy receives funding from the National Institutes of Health.

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.