User login
Hypertension worsened by commonly used prescription meds
Nearly half of these American adults had hypertension, and in this subgroup, 18.5% reported using a prescription drug known to increase blood pressure. The most widely used class of agents with this effect was antidepressants, used by 8.7%; followed by nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), used by 6.5%; steroids, 1.9%; estrogens, 1.7%; and several other agents each used by fewer than 1% of the study cohort, John Vitarello, MD, said during a press briefing on reports from the upcoming annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology.
He and his associates estimated that this use of prescription drugs known to raise blood pressure could be what stands in the way of some 560,000-2.2 million Americans from having their hypertension under control, depending on the exact blood pressure impact that various pressure-increasing drugs have and presuming that half of those on blood pressure increasing agents could stop them and switch to alternative agents, said Dr. Vitarello, a researcher at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston.
He also highlighted that the study assessed only prescription drugs and did not examine OTC drug use, which may be especially relevant for the many people who regularly take NSAIDs.
“Clinicians should review the prescription and OTC drug use of patients with hypertension and consider stopping drugs that increase blood pressure or switching the patient to alternatives” that are blood pressure neutral, Dr. Vitarello said during the briefing. He cautioned that maintaining hypertensive patients on agents that raise their blood pressure can result in “prescribing cascades” where taking drugs that boost blood pressure results in need for intensified antihypertensive treatment.
An opportunity for NSAID alternatives
“This study hopefully raises awareness that there is a very high use of medications that increase blood pressure, and use of OTC agents could increase the rate even higher” said Eugene Yang, MD, a cardiologist and codirector of the Cardiovascular Wellness and Prevention Program of the University of Washington, Seattle. Substituting for certain antidepressant agents may often not be realistic, but an opportunity exists for reducing NSAID use, a class also linked with an increased risk for bleeding and other adverse effects, Dr. Yang said during the briefing. Minimizing use of NSAIDs including ibuprofen and naproxen use “is something to think about,” he suggested.
“The effect of NSAIDs on blood pressure is not well studied and can vary from person to person” noted Dr. Vitarello, who added that higher NSAID dosages and more prolonged use likely increase the risk for an adverse effect on blood pressure. One reasonable option is to encourage patients to use an alternative class of pain reliever such as acetaminophen.
It remains “a challenge” to discern differences in adverse blood pressure effects, and in all adverse cardiovascular effects among different NSAIDs, said Dr. Yang. Results from “some studies show that certain NSAIDs may be safer, but other studies did not. We need to be very careful using NSAIDs because, on average, they increase blood pressure by about 3 mm Hg. We need to be mindful to try to prescribe alternative agents, like acetaminophen.”
A decade of data from NHANES
The analysis run by Dr. Vitarello and associates used data from 27,599 American adults included in the NHANES during 2009-2018, and focused on the 44% who either had an average blood pressure measurement of at least 130/80 mm Hg or reported having ever been told by a clinician that they had hypertension. The NHANES assessments included the prescription medications taken by each participant. The prevalence of using at least one prescription drug known to raise blood pressure was 24% among women and 14% among men, and 4% of those with hypertension were on two or more pressure-increasing agents.
The researchers based their identification of pressure-increasing prescription drugs on the list included in the 2017 guideline for managing high blood pressure from the American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association. This list specifies that the antidepressants that raise blood pressure are the monoamine oxidase inhibitors, serotonin norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors, and tricyclic antidepressants.
Dr. Vitarello and Dr. Yang had no disclosures.
Nearly half of these American adults had hypertension, and in this subgroup, 18.5% reported using a prescription drug known to increase blood pressure. The most widely used class of agents with this effect was antidepressants, used by 8.7%; followed by nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), used by 6.5%; steroids, 1.9%; estrogens, 1.7%; and several other agents each used by fewer than 1% of the study cohort, John Vitarello, MD, said during a press briefing on reports from the upcoming annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology.
He and his associates estimated that this use of prescription drugs known to raise blood pressure could be what stands in the way of some 560,000-2.2 million Americans from having their hypertension under control, depending on the exact blood pressure impact that various pressure-increasing drugs have and presuming that half of those on blood pressure increasing agents could stop them and switch to alternative agents, said Dr. Vitarello, a researcher at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston.
He also highlighted that the study assessed only prescription drugs and did not examine OTC drug use, which may be especially relevant for the many people who regularly take NSAIDs.
“Clinicians should review the prescription and OTC drug use of patients with hypertension and consider stopping drugs that increase blood pressure or switching the patient to alternatives” that are blood pressure neutral, Dr. Vitarello said during the briefing. He cautioned that maintaining hypertensive patients on agents that raise their blood pressure can result in “prescribing cascades” where taking drugs that boost blood pressure results in need for intensified antihypertensive treatment.
An opportunity for NSAID alternatives
“This study hopefully raises awareness that there is a very high use of medications that increase blood pressure, and use of OTC agents could increase the rate even higher” said Eugene Yang, MD, a cardiologist and codirector of the Cardiovascular Wellness and Prevention Program of the University of Washington, Seattle. Substituting for certain antidepressant agents may often not be realistic, but an opportunity exists for reducing NSAID use, a class also linked with an increased risk for bleeding and other adverse effects, Dr. Yang said during the briefing. Minimizing use of NSAIDs including ibuprofen and naproxen use “is something to think about,” he suggested.
“The effect of NSAIDs on blood pressure is not well studied and can vary from person to person” noted Dr. Vitarello, who added that higher NSAID dosages and more prolonged use likely increase the risk for an adverse effect on blood pressure. One reasonable option is to encourage patients to use an alternative class of pain reliever such as acetaminophen.
It remains “a challenge” to discern differences in adverse blood pressure effects, and in all adverse cardiovascular effects among different NSAIDs, said Dr. Yang. Results from “some studies show that certain NSAIDs may be safer, but other studies did not. We need to be very careful using NSAIDs because, on average, they increase blood pressure by about 3 mm Hg. We need to be mindful to try to prescribe alternative agents, like acetaminophen.”
A decade of data from NHANES
The analysis run by Dr. Vitarello and associates used data from 27,599 American adults included in the NHANES during 2009-2018, and focused on the 44% who either had an average blood pressure measurement of at least 130/80 mm Hg or reported having ever been told by a clinician that they had hypertension. The NHANES assessments included the prescription medications taken by each participant. The prevalence of using at least one prescription drug known to raise blood pressure was 24% among women and 14% among men, and 4% of those with hypertension were on two or more pressure-increasing agents.
The researchers based their identification of pressure-increasing prescription drugs on the list included in the 2017 guideline for managing high blood pressure from the American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association. This list specifies that the antidepressants that raise blood pressure are the monoamine oxidase inhibitors, serotonin norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors, and tricyclic antidepressants.
Dr. Vitarello and Dr. Yang had no disclosures.
Nearly half of these American adults had hypertension, and in this subgroup, 18.5% reported using a prescription drug known to increase blood pressure. The most widely used class of agents with this effect was antidepressants, used by 8.7%; followed by nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), used by 6.5%; steroids, 1.9%; estrogens, 1.7%; and several other agents each used by fewer than 1% of the study cohort, John Vitarello, MD, said during a press briefing on reports from the upcoming annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology.
He and his associates estimated that this use of prescription drugs known to raise blood pressure could be what stands in the way of some 560,000-2.2 million Americans from having their hypertension under control, depending on the exact blood pressure impact that various pressure-increasing drugs have and presuming that half of those on blood pressure increasing agents could stop them and switch to alternative agents, said Dr. Vitarello, a researcher at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston.
He also highlighted that the study assessed only prescription drugs and did not examine OTC drug use, which may be especially relevant for the many people who regularly take NSAIDs.
“Clinicians should review the prescription and OTC drug use of patients with hypertension and consider stopping drugs that increase blood pressure or switching the patient to alternatives” that are blood pressure neutral, Dr. Vitarello said during the briefing. He cautioned that maintaining hypertensive patients on agents that raise their blood pressure can result in “prescribing cascades” where taking drugs that boost blood pressure results in need for intensified antihypertensive treatment.
An opportunity for NSAID alternatives
“This study hopefully raises awareness that there is a very high use of medications that increase blood pressure, and use of OTC agents could increase the rate even higher” said Eugene Yang, MD, a cardiologist and codirector of the Cardiovascular Wellness and Prevention Program of the University of Washington, Seattle. Substituting for certain antidepressant agents may often not be realistic, but an opportunity exists for reducing NSAID use, a class also linked with an increased risk for bleeding and other adverse effects, Dr. Yang said during the briefing. Minimizing use of NSAIDs including ibuprofen and naproxen use “is something to think about,” he suggested.
“The effect of NSAIDs on blood pressure is not well studied and can vary from person to person” noted Dr. Vitarello, who added that higher NSAID dosages and more prolonged use likely increase the risk for an adverse effect on blood pressure. One reasonable option is to encourage patients to use an alternative class of pain reliever such as acetaminophen.
It remains “a challenge” to discern differences in adverse blood pressure effects, and in all adverse cardiovascular effects among different NSAIDs, said Dr. Yang. Results from “some studies show that certain NSAIDs may be safer, but other studies did not. We need to be very careful using NSAIDs because, on average, they increase blood pressure by about 3 mm Hg. We need to be mindful to try to prescribe alternative agents, like acetaminophen.”
A decade of data from NHANES
The analysis run by Dr. Vitarello and associates used data from 27,599 American adults included in the NHANES during 2009-2018, and focused on the 44% who either had an average blood pressure measurement of at least 130/80 mm Hg or reported having ever been told by a clinician that they had hypertension. The NHANES assessments included the prescription medications taken by each participant. The prevalence of using at least one prescription drug known to raise blood pressure was 24% among women and 14% among men, and 4% of those with hypertension were on two or more pressure-increasing agents.
The researchers based their identification of pressure-increasing prescription drugs on the list included in the 2017 guideline for managing high blood pressure from the American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association. This list specifies that the antidepressants that raise blood pressure are the monoamine oxidase inhibitors, serotonin norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors, and tricyclic antidepressants.
Dr. Vitarello and Dr. Yang had no disclosures.
FROM ACC 2021
Exercise plus liraglutide better for maintaining weight loss than either strategy alone
For persons with obesity who lost a substantial amount of weight on a low-calorie diet, the combination of exercise and medication significantly improved weight-loss maintenance, and more so than either strategy alone, according to results of a randomized, head-to-head trial.
A year after starting moderate to vigorous exercise coupled with liraglutide treatment, study participants had a weight loss 9.5 kg more than those who received placebo and usual activity, study results show.
Reductions in both weight and fat loss seen with exercise and liraglutide was roughly twice as much as what was achieved at 1 year with the strategies of liraglutide or exercise alone, according to authors of the study, which appears in the New England Journal of Medicine .
Although the findings may not apply to those who can’t or won’t perform moderate to vigorous exercise, the intervention in this study was nevertheless feasible in this group of persons with obesity who had a very low level of fitness, according to the authors.
Hope for healthy weight loss maintenance
Investigator Signe S. Torekov, PhD, said in an interview that these results provide hope that more-intensive exercise regimens, with or without medication, can be useful and well accepted among individuals struggling with obesity.
“When we started our study, we were told, ‘you are never going to have people with obesity exercising that much, and for that long’ – but people were actually very happy about the exercise,” said Dr. Torekov, a professor in the department of biomedical sciences at the University of Copenhagen.
“If you actually set up a program where people are monitored and you have a feedback system, then exercise is an excellent component in obesity treatment that should be much more actively used – not only for its weight-lowering component, but also for improving health and quality of life,” she said in an interview.
Weight-management specialist John D. Clark, MD, PhD, said results of this study can be used to help inform patients about how successful different strategies incorporating exercise and medication may be following initial weight loss.
“When patients plateau on a consistent, calorie-restricted dietary plan, we can educate them and manage expectations about what options may be available to them after their initial weight loss,” said Dr. Clark, of the University of Texas, Dallas.
“If the patient’s goal specifically is weight loss at all costs, then I may suggest, ‘let’s consider liraglutide or liraglutide in combination with exercise,’ ” he said in an interview. “Exercise improves body composition, even if it may not on its own be as successful in the next phase of their weight-loss journey, as shown in this study.”
Obesity and weight-loss challenges
Although it’s not uncommon for obese patients to lose a large amount of weight, keeping the weight off is frequently a challenge unless the patient follows a structured weight maintenance program, according to Dr. Torekov and coauthors.
The rapid weight regain seen in many obese patients could be a result of reductions in total energy expenditure or increased appetite. Exercise is one strategy to sustain weight loss, though according to the authors, very few studies have looked at exercise in isolation to quantify its contribution to maintenance.
Accordingly, the present study sought to determine whether exercise, medication, or the combination thereof works best to keep weight off.
The study incorporated liraglutide, a GLP-1 receptor agonist indicated for chronic weight management, along with a reduced-calorie diet and increased physical activity, in adults with elevated body mass index and at least one weight-related comorbidity.
The investigator-initiated phase 3 trial included 215 adults with a body mass index of 32-43. Individuals with type 2 diabetes were excluded. All participants followed an 8-week, low-calorie diet comprising 800 calories per day.
Participants who lost 5% or more of their body weight were then randomized to 1 year of exercise plus liraglutide, exercise plus placebo, usual activity plus liraglutide, or usual activity plus placebo.
The exercise program – which was structured but flexible, according to investigators – included group exercise sessions that incorporated 30 minutes of indoor cycling and 15 minutes of circuit training 2 days each week. Participants wore heart rate monitors during exercise to make sure they reached targets for moderate to vigorous intensity.
Instructors trained in exercise physiology planned and monitored individualized exercise programs for each participant in the exercise-medication or exercise-only arms of the study.
Participants in all groups attended 12 one-on-one consultations where body weight was measured and dietetic support was provided.
Weight loss with exercise and medication
Out of 215 individuals enrolled in the study, 195 lost at least 5% of body weight and continued on to the randomized portion, the investigators reported. During the diet phase, they lost a mean of 13.1 kg, translating into a 12% mean reduction in body weight.
The mean frequency of exercise was 2.4 times per week in the exercise-plus-medication group and 2.5 times per week in the exercise-only group. About one-third of the exercise took place in the group sessions, and there was no difference in relative intensity between group and individual exercise regimens, the investigators said.
Individuals in the exercise plus medication group continued to lose more weight, such that, at the end of 1 year, the weight loss decreased even further, by a mean of –3.4 kg. By contrast, weight increased by a mean of 6.1 kg for the placebo group, adding up to a treatment difference of –9.5 kg (95% confidence interval, –13.1 to –5.9; P < .001), according to the report.
That treatment effect was also seen, but more muted, in the exercise- and liraglutide-only groups, at –4.1 kg and –6.8 kg, respectively.
A significant treatment effect was observed for exercise plus liraglutide, compared with exercise alone, at –5.4 kg (P = .004), while the treatment effect for the combination versus liraglutide alone was not significant at –2.7 kg (P = .13), the data show.
Body-fat reduction at 52 weeks was –3.9 percentage points for exercise plus liraglutide as compared with placebo, or roughly twice the reductions seen in the exercise- and liraglutide-alone groups, the investigators said, adding that the combination preserved lean mass.
Reductions in hemoglobin A1c, which are generally thought to reduce diabetes risk, were reduced in both the liraglutide and liraglutide-exercise combination group, according to their report.
The research was supported in part by grants from the Novo Nordisk Foundation.
For persons with obesity who lost a substantial amount of weight on a low-calorie diet, the combination of exercise and medication significantly improved weight-loss maintenance, and more so than either strategy alone, according to results of a randomized, head-to-head trial.
A year after starting moderate to vigorous exercise coupled with liraglutide treatment, study participants had a weight loss 9.5 kg more than those who received placebo and usual activity, study results show.
Reductions in both weight and fat loss seen with exercise and liraglutide was roughly twice as much as what was achieved at 1 year with the strategies of liraglutide or exercise alone, according to authors of the study, which appears in the New England Journal of Medicine .
Although the findings may not apply to those who can’t or won’t perform moderate to vigorous exercise, the intervention in this study was nevertheless feasible in this group of persons with obesity who had a very low level of fitness, according to the authors.
Hope for healthy weight loss maintenance
Investigator Signe S. Torekov, PhD, said in an interview that these results provide hope that more-intensive exercise regimens, with or without medication, can be useful and well accepted among individuals struggling with obesity.
“When we started our study, we were told, ‘you are never going to have people with obesity exercising that much, and for that long’ – but people were actually very happy about the exercise,” said Dr. Torekov, a professor in the department of biomedical sciences at the University of Copenhagen.
“If you actually set up a program where people are monitored and you have a feedback system, then exercise is an excellent component in obesity treatment that should be much more actively used – not only for its weight-lowering component, but also for improving health and quality of life,” she said in an interview.
Weight-management specialist John D. Clark, MD, PhD, said results of this study can be used to help inform patients about how successful different strategies incorporating exercise and medication may be following initial weight loss.
“When patients plateau on a consistent, calorie-restricted dietary plan, we can educate them and manage expectations about what options may be available to them after their initial weight loss,” said Dr. Clark, of the University of Texas, Dallas.
“If the patient’s goal specifically is weight loss at all costs, then I may suggest, ‘let’s consider liraglutide or liraglutide in combination with exercise,’ ” he said in an interview. “Exercise improves body composition, even if it may not on its own be as successful in the next phase of their weight-loss journey, as shown in this study.”
Obesity and weight-loss challenges
Although it’s not uncommon for obese patients to lose a large amount of weight, keeping the weight off is frequently a challenge unless the patient follows a structured weight maintenance program, according to Dr. Torekov and coauthors.
The rapid weight regain seen in many obese patients could be a result of reductions in total energy expenditure or increased appetite. Exercise is one strategy to sustain weight loss, though according to the authors, very few studies have looked at exercise in isolation to quantify its contribution to maintenance.
Accordingly, the present study sought to determine whether exercise, medication, or the combination thereof works best to keep weight off.
The study incorporated liraglutide, a GLP-1 receptor agonist indicated for chronic weight management, along with a reduced-calorie diet and increased physical activity, in adults with elevated body mass index and at least one weight-related comorbidity.
The investigator-initiated phase 3 trial included 215 adults with a body mass index of 32-43. Individuals with type 2 diabetes were excluded. All participants followed an 8-week, low-calorie diet comprising 800 calories per day.
Participants who lost 5% or more of their body weight were then randomized to 1 year of exercise plus liraglutide, exercise plus placebo, usual activity plus liraglutide, or usual activity plus placebo.
The exercise program – which was structured but flexible, according to investigators – included group exercise sessions that incorporated 30 minutes of indoor cycling and 15 minutes of circuit training 2 days each week. Participants wore heart rate monitors during exercise to make sure they reached targets for moderate to vigorous intensity.
Instructors trained in exercise physiology planned and monitored individualized exercise programs for each participant in the exercise-medication or exercise-only arms of the study.
Participants in all groups attended 12 one-on-one consultations where body weight was measured and dietetic support was provided.
Weight loss with exercise and medication
Out of 215 individuals enrolled in the study, 195 lost at least 5% of body weight and continued on to the randomized portion, the investigators reported. During the diet phase, they lost a mean of 13.1 kg, translating into a 12% mean reduction in body weight.
The mean frequency of exercise was 2.4 times per week in the exercise-plus-medication group and 2.5 times per week in the exercise-only group. About one-third of the exercise took place in the group sessions, and there was no difference in relative intensity between group and individual exercise regimens, the investigators said.
Individuals in the exercise plus medication group continued to lose more weight, such that, at the end of 1 year, the weight loss decreased even further, by a mean of –3.4 kg. By contrast, weight increased by a mean of 6.1 kg for the placebo group, adding up to a treatment difference of –9.5 kg (95% confidence interval, –13.1 to –5.9; P < .001), according to the report.
That treatment effect was also seen, but more muted, in the exercise- and liraglutide-only groups, at –4.1 kg and –6.8 kg, respectively.
A significant treatment effect was observed for exercise plus liraglutide, compared with exercise alone, at –5.4 kg (P = .004), while the treatment effect for the combination versus liraglutide alone was not significant at –2.7 kg (P = .13), the data show.
Body-fat reduction at 52 weeks was –3.9 percentage points for exercise plus liraglutide as compared with placebo, or roughly twice the reductions seen in the exercise- and liraglutide-alone groups, the investigators said, adding that the combination preserved lean mass.
Reductions in hemoglobin A1c, which are generally thought to reduce diabetes risk, were reduced in both the liraglutide and liraglutide-exercise combination group, according to their report.
The research was supported in part by grants from the Novo Nordisk Foundation.
For persons with obesity who lost a substantial amount of weight on a low-calorie diet, the combination of exercise and medication significantly improved weight-loss maintenance, and more so than either strategy alone, according to results of a randomized, head-to-head trial.
A year after starting moderate to vigorous exercise coupled with liraglutide treatment, study participants had a weight loss 9.5 kg more than those who received placebo and usual activity, study results show.
Reductions in both weight and fat loss seen with exercise and liraglutide was roughly twice as much as what was achieved at 1 year with the strategies of liraglutide or exercise alone, according to authors of the study, which appears in the New England Journal of Medicine .
Although the findings may not apply to those who can’t or won’t perform moderate to vigorous exercise, the intervention in this study was nevertheless feasible in this group of persons with obesity who had a very low level of fitness, according to the authors.
Hope for healthy weight loss maintenance
Investigator Signe S. Torekov, PhD, said in an interview that these results provide hope that more-intensive exercise regimens, with or without medication, can be useful and well accepted among individuals struggling with obesity.
“When we started our study, we were told, ‘you are never going to have people with obesity exercising that much, and for that long’ – but people were actually very happy about the exercise,” said Dr. Torekov, a professor in the department of biomedical sciences at the University of Copenhagen.
“If you actually set up a program where people are monitored and you have a feedback system, then exercise is an excellent component in obesity treatment that should be much more actively used – not only for its weight-lowering component, but also for improving health and quality of life,” she said in an interview.
Weight-management specialist John D. Clark, MD, PhD, said results of this study can be used to help inform patients about how successful different strategies incorporating exercise and medication may be following initial weight loss.
“When patients plateau on a consistent, calorie-restricted dietary plan, we can educate them and manage expectations about what options may be available to them after their initial weight loss,” said Dr. Clark, of the University of Texas, Dallas.
“If the patient’s goal specifically is weight loss at all costs, then I may suggest, ‘let’s consider liraglutide or liraglutide in combination with exercise,’ ” he said in an interview. “Exercise improves body composition, even if it may not on its own be as successful in the next phase of their weight-loss journey, as shown in this study.”
Obesity and weight-loss challenges
Although it’s not uncommon for obese patients to lose a large amount of weight, keeping the weight off is frequently a challenge unless the patient follows a structured weight maintenance program, according to Dr. Torekov and coauthors.
The rapid weight regain seen in many obese patients could be a result of reductions in total energy expenditure or increased appetite. Exercise is one strategy to sustain weight loss, though according to the authors, very few studies have looked at exercise in isolation to quantify its contribution to maintenance.
Accordingly, the present study sought to determine whether exercise, medication, or the combination thereof works best to keep weight off.
The study incorporated liraglutide, a GLP-1 receptor agonist indicated for chronic weight management, along with a reduced-calorie diet and increased physical activity, in adults with elevated body mass index and at least one weight-related comorbidity.
The investigator-initiated phase 3 trial included 215 adults with a body mass index of 32-43. Individuals with type 2 diabetes were excluded. All participants followed an 8-week, low-calorie diet comprising 800 calories per day.
Participants who lost 5% or more of their body weight were then randomized to 1 year of exercise plus liraglutide, exercise plus placebo, usual activity plus liraglutide, or usual activity plus placebo.
The exercise program – which was structured but flexible, according to investigators – included group exercise sessions that incorporated 30 minutes of indoor cycling and 15 minutes of circuit training 2 days each week. Participants wore heart rate monitors during exercise to make sure they reached targets for moderate to vigorous intensity.
Instructors trained in exercise physiology planned and monitored individualized exercise programs for each participant in the exercise-medication or exercise-only arms of the study.
Participants in all groups attended 12 one-on-one consultations where body weight was measured and dietetic support was provided.
Weight loss with exercise and medication
Out of 215 individuals enrolled in the study, 195 lost at least 5% of body weight and continued on to the randomized portion, the investigators reported. During the diet phase, they lost a mean of 13.1 kg, translating into a 12% mean reduction in body weight.
The mean frequency of exercise was 2.4 times per week in the exercise-plus-medication group and 2.5 times per week in the exercise-only group. About one-third of the exercise took place in the group sessions, and there was no difference in relative intensity between group and individual exercise regimens, the investigators said.
Individuals in the exercise plus medication group continued to lose more weight, such that, at the end of 1 year, the weight loss decreased even further, by a mean of –3.4 kg. By contrast, weight increased by a mean of 6.1 kg for the placebo group, adding up to a treatment difference of –9.5 kg (95% confidence interval, –13.1 to –5.9; P < .001), according to the report.
That treatment effect was also seen, but more muted, in the exercise- and liraglutide-only groups, at –4.1 kg and –6.8 kg, respectively.
A significant treatment effect was observed for exercise plus liraglutide, compared with exercise alone, at –5.4 kg (P = .004), while the treatment effect for the combination versus liraglutide alone was not significant at –2.7 kg (P = .13), the data show.
Body-fat reduction at 52 weeks was –3.9 percentage points for exercise plus liraglutide as compared with placebo, or roughly twice the reductions seen in the exercise- and liraglutide-alone groups, the investigators said, adding that the combination preserved lean mass.
Reductions in hemoglobin A1c, which are generally thought to reduce diabetes risk, were reduced in both the liraglutide and liraglutide-exercise combination group, according to their report.
The research was supported in part by grants from the Novo Nordisk Foundation.
FROM THE NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE
FDA approves dapagliflozin (Farxiga) for chronic kidney disease
The Food and Drug Administration has approved dapagliflozin (Farxiga, AstraZeneca) to reduce the risk for kidney function decline, kidney failure, cardiovascular death, and hospitalization for heart failure in adult patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) at risk for disease progression.
“Chronic kidney disease is an important public health issue, and there is a significant unmet need for therapies that slow disease progression and improve outcomes,” said Aliza Thompson, MD, deputy director of the division of cardiology and nephrology at the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research. “Today’s approval of Farxiga for the treatment of chronic kidney disease is an important step forward in helping people living with kidney disease.”
Dapagliflozin was approved in 2014 to improve glycemic control in patients with diabetes mellitus, and approval was expanded in 2020 to include treatment of patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction, based on results of the DAPA-HF trial.
This new approval in chronic kidney disease was based on results of the DAPA-CKD trial that was stopped early in March 2020 because of efficacy of the treatment.
DAPA-CKD randomly assigned 4,304 patients with CKD but without diabetes to receive either dapagliflozin or placebo. The full study results, reported at the 2020 annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology and simultaneously published in the New England Journal of Medicine, showed that, during a median of 2.4 years, treatment with dapagliflozin led to a significant 31% relative reduction, compared with placebo in the study’s primary outcome, a composite that included at least a 50% drop in estimated glomerular filtration rate, compared with baseline, end-stage kidney disease, kidney transplant, renal death, or cardiovascular death.
Dapagliflozin treatment also cut all-cause mortality by a statistically significant relative reduction of 31%, and another secondary-endpoint analysis showed a statistically significant 29% relative reduction in the rate of cardiovascular death or heart failure hospitalization.
“Farxiga was not studied, nor is expected to be effective, in treating chronic kidney disease among patients with autosomal dominant or recessive polycystic (characterized by multiple cysts) kidney disease or among patients who require or have recently used immunosuppressive therapy to treat kidney disease,” the FDA statement noted.
Dapagliflozin should not be used by patients with a history of serious hypersensitivity reactions to this medication, or who are on dialysis, the agency added. “Serious, life-threatening cases of Fournier’s Gangrene have occurred in patients with diabetes taking Farxiga.”
Patients should consider taking a lower dose of insulin or insulin secretagogue to reduce hypoglycemic risk if they are also taking dapagliflozin. Treatment can also cause dehydration, serious urinary tract infections, genital yeast infections, and metabolic acidosis, the announcement said. “Patients should be assessed for their volume status and kidney function before starting Farxiga.”
Dapagliflozin previously received Fast Track, Breakthrough Therapy, and Priority Review designations for this new indication.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The Food and Drug Administration has approved dapagliflozin (Farxiga, AstraZeneca) to reduce the risk for kidney function decline, kidney failure, cardiovascular death, and hospitalization for heart failure in adult patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) at risk for disease progression.
“Chronic kidney disease is an important public health issue, and there is a significant unmet need for therapies that slow disease progression and improve outcomes,” said Aliza Thompson, MD, deputy director of the division of cardiology and nephrology at the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research. “Today’s approval of Farxiga for the treatment of chronic kidney disease is an important step forward in helping people living with kidney disease.”
Dapagliflozin was approved in 2014 to improve glycemic control in patients with diabetes mellitus, and approval was expanded in 2020 to include treatment of patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction, based on results of the DAPA-HF trial.
This new approval in chronic kidney disease was based on results of the DAPA-CKD trial that was stopped early in March 2020 because of efficacy of the treatment.
DAPA-CKD randomly assigned 4,304 patients with CKD but without diabetes to receive either dapagliflozin or placebo. The full study results, reported at the 2020 annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology and simultaneously published in the New England Journal of Medicine, showed that, during a median of 2.4 years, treatment with dapagliflozin led to a significant 31% relative reduction, compared with placebo in the study’s primary outcome, a composite that included at least a 50% drop in estimated glomerular filtration rate, compared with baseline, end-stage kidney disease, kidney transplant, renal death, or cardiovascular death.
Dapagliflozin treatment also cut all-cause mortality by a statistically significant relative reduction of 31%, and another secondary-endpoint analysis showed a statistically significant 29% relative reduction in the rate of cardiovascular death or heart failure hospitalization.
“Farxiga was not studied, nor is expected to be effective, in treating chronic kidney disease among patients with autosomal dominant or recessive polycystic (characterized by multiple cysts) kidney disease or among patients who require or have recently used immunosuppressive therapy to treat kidney disease,” the FDA statement noted.
Dapagliflozin should not be used by patients with a history of serious hypersensitivity reactions to this medication, or who are on dialysis, the agency added. “Serious, life-threatening cases of Fournier’s Gangrene have occurred in patients with diabetes taking Farxiga.”
Patients should consider taking a lower dose of insulin or insulin secretagogue to reduce hypoglycemic risk if they are also taking dapagliflozin. Treatment can also cause dehydration, serious urinary tract infections, genital yeast infections, and metabolic acidosis, the announcement said. “Patients should be assessed for their volume status and kidney function before starting Farxiga.”
Dapagliflozin previously received Fast Track, Breakthrough Therapy, and Priority Review designations for this new indication.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The Food and Drug Administration has approved dapagliflozin (Farxiga, AstraZeneca) to reduce the risk for kidney function decline, kidney failure, cardiovascular death, and hospitalization for heart failure in adult patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) at risk for disease progression.
“Chronic kidney disease is an important public health issue, and there is a significant unmet need for therapies that slow disease progression and improve outcomes,” said Aliza Thompson, MD, deputy director of the division of cardiology and nephrology at the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research. “Today’s approval of Farxiga for the treatment of chronic kidney disease is an important step forward in helping people living with kidney disease.”
Dapagliflozin was approved in 2014 to improve glycemic control in patients with diabetes mellitus, and approval was expanded in 2020 to include treatment of patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction, based on results of the DAPA-HF trial.
This new approval in chronic kidney disease was based on results of the DAPA-CKD trial that was stopped early in March 2020 because of efficacy of the treatment.
DAPA-CKD randomly assigned 4,304 patients with CKD but without diabetes to receive either dapagliflozin or placebo. The full study results, reported at the 2020 annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology and simultaneously published in the New England Journal of Medicine, showed that, during a median of 2.4 years, treatment with dapagliflozin led to a significant 31% relative reduction, compared with placebo in the study’s primary outcome, a composite that included at least a 50% drop in estimated glomerular filtration rate, compared with baseline, end-stage kidney disease, kidney transplant, renal death, or cardiovascular death.
Dapagliflozin treatment also cut all-cause mortality by a statistically significant relative reduction of 31%, and another secondary-endpoint analysis showed a statistically significant 29% relative reduction in the rate of cardiovascular death or heart failure hospitalization.
“Farxiga was not studied, nor is expected to be effective, in treating chronic kidney disease among patients with autosomal dominant or recessive polycystic (characterized by multiple cysts) kidney disease or among patients who require or have recently used immunosuppressive therapy to treat kidney disease,” the FDA statement noted.
Dapagliflozin should not be used by patients with a history of serious hypersensitivity reactions to this medication, or who are on dialysis, the agency added. “Serious, life-threatening cases of Fournier’s Gangrene have occurred in patients with diabetes taking Farxiga.”
Patients should consider taking a lower dose of insulin or insulin secretagogue to reduce hypoglycemic risk if they are also taking dapagliflozin. Treatment can also cause dehydration, serious urinary tract infections, genital yeast infections, and metabolic acidosis, the announcement said. “Patients should be assessed for their volume status and kidney function before starting Farxiga.”
Dapagliflozin previously received Fast Track, Breakthrough Therapy, and Priority Review designations for this new indication.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FDA OKs higher-dose naloxone nasal spray for opioid overdose
The Food and Drug Administration has approved a higher-dose naloxone hydrochloride nasal spray (Kloxxado) for the emergency treatment of known or suspected opioid overdose, as manifested by respiratory and/or central nervous system depression.
Kloxxado delivers 8 mg of naloxone into the nasal cavity, which is twice as much as the 4 mg of naloxone contained in Narcan nasal spray.
When administered quickly, naloxone can counter opioid overdose effects, usually within minutes. A higher dose of naloxone provides an additional option for the treatment of opioid overdoses, the FDA said in a news release.
“This approval meets another critical need in combating opioid overdose,” Patrizia Cavazzoni, MD, director, FDA Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, said in the release.
“Addressing the opioid crisis is a top priority for the FDA, and we will continue our efforts to increase access to naloxone and place this important medicine in the hands of those who need it most,” said Dr. Cavazzoni.
In a company news release announcing the approval, manufacturer Hikma Pharmaceuticals noted that a recent survey of community organizations in which the 4-mg naloxone nasal spray had been distributed showed that for 34% of attempted reversals, two or more doses of naloxone were used.
A separate study found that the percentage of overdose-related emergency medical service calls in the United States that led to the administration of multiple doses of naloxone increased to 21% during the period of 2013-2016, which represents a 43% increase over 4 years.
“The approval of Kloxxado is an important step in providing patients, friends, and family members – as well as the public health community – with an important new option for treating opioid overdose,” Brian Hoffmann, president of Hikma Generics, said in the release.
The FDA approved Kloxxado through the 505(b)(2) regulatory pathway, which allows the agency to refer to previous findings of safety and efficacy for an already-approved product, as well as to review findings from further studies of the product.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The Food and Drug Administration has approved a higher-dose naloxone hydrochloride nasal spray (Kloxxado) for the emergency treatment of known or suspected opioid overdose, as manifested by respiratory and/or central nervous system depression.
Kloxxado delivers 8 mg of naloxone into the nasal cavity, which is twice as much as the 4 mg of naloxone contained in Narcan nasal spray.
When administered quickly, naloxone can counter opioid overdose effects, usually within minutes. A higher dose of naloxone provides an additional option for the treatment of opioid overdoses, the FDA said in a news release.
“This approval meets another critical need in combating opioid overdose,” Patrizia Cavazzoni, MD, director, FDA Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, said in the release.
“Addressing the opioid crisis is a top priority for the FDA, and we will continue our efforts to increase access to naloxone and place this important medicine in the hands of those who need it most,” said Dr. Cavazzoni.
In a company news release announcing the approval, manufacturer Hikma Pharmaceuticals noted that a recent survey of community organizations in which the 4-mg naloxone nasal spray had been distributed showed that for 34% of attempted reversals, two or more doses of naloxone were used.
A separate study found that the percentage of overdose-related emergency medical service calls in the United States that led to the administration of multiple doses of naloxone increased to 21% during the period of 2013-2016, which represents a 43% increase over 4 years.
“The approval of Kloxxado is an important step in providing patients, friends, and family members – as well as the public health community – with an important new option for treating opioid overdose,” Brian Hoffmann, president of Hikma Generics, said in the release.
The FDA approved Kloxxado through the 505(b)(2) regulatory pathway, which allows the agency to refer to previous findings of safety and efficacy for an already-approved product, as well as to review findings from further studies of the product.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The Food and Drug Administration has approved a higher-dose naloxone hydrochloride nasal spray (Kloxxado) for the emergency treatment of known or suspected opioid overdose, as manifested by respiratory and/or central nervous system depression.
Kloxxado delivers 8 mg of naloxone into the nasal cavity, which is twice as much as the 4 mg of naloxone contained in Narcan nasal spray.
When administered quickly, naloxone can counter opioid overdose effects, usually within minutes. A higher dose of naloxone provides an additional option for the treatment of opioid overdoses, the FDA said in a news release.
“This approval meets another critical need in combating opioid overdose,” Patrizia Cavazzoni, MD, director, FDA Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, said in the release.
“Addressing the opioid crisis is a top priority for the FDA, and we will continue our efforts to increase access to naloxone and place this important medicine in the hands of those who need it most,” said Dr. Cavazzoni.
In a company news release announcing the approval, manufacturer Hikma Pharmaceuticals noted that a recent survey of community organizations in which the 4-mg naloxone nasal spray had been distributed showed that for 34% of attempted reversals, two or more doses of naloxone were used.
A separate study found that the percentage of overdose-related emergency medical service calls in the United States that led to the administration of multiple doses of naloxone increased to 21% during the period of 2013-2016, which represents a 43% increase over 4 years.
“The approval of Kloxxado is an important step in providing patients, friends, and family members – as well as the public health community – with an important new option for treating opioid overdose,” Brian Hoffmann, president of Hikma Generics, said in the release.
The FDA approved Kloxxado through the 505(b)(2) regulatory pathway, which allows the agency to refer to previous findings of safety and efficacy for an already-approved product, as well as to review findings from further studies of the product.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The cloudy role of cannabis as a neuropsychiatric treatment
Although the healing properties of cannabis have been touted for millennia, research into its potential neuropsychiatric applications truly began to take off in the 1990s following the discovery of the cannabinoid system in the brain. This led to speculation that cannabis could play a therapeutic role in regulating dopamine, serotonin, and other neurotransmitters and offer a new means of treating various ailments.
At the same time, efforts to liberalize marijuana laws have successfully played out in several nations, including the United States, where, as of April 29, 36 states provide some access to cannabis. These dual tracks – medical and political – have made cannabis an increasingly accepted part of the cultural fabric.
Yet with this development has come a new quandary for clinicians. Medical cannabis has been made widely available to patients and has largely outpaced the clinical evidence, leaving it unclear how and for which indications it should be used.
The many forms of medical cannabis
Cannabis is a genus of plants that includes marijuana (Cannabis sativa) and hemp. These plants contain over 100 compounds, including terpenes, flavonoids, and – most importantly for medicinal applications – cannabinoids.
The most abundant cannabinoid in marijuana is the psychotropic delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), which imparts the “high” sensation. The next most abundant cannabinoid is cannabidiol (CBD), which is the nonpsychotropic. THC and CBD are the most extensively studied cannabinoids, together and in isolation. Evidence suggests that other cannabinoids and terpenoids may also hold medical promise and that cannabis’ various compounds can work synergistically to produce a so-called entourage effect.
Patients walking into a typical medical cannabis dispensary will be faced with several plant-derived and synthetic options, which can differ considerably in terms of the ratios and amounts of THC and CBD they contain, as well in how they are consumed (i.e., via smoke, vapor, ingestion, topical administration, or oromucosal spray), all of which can alter their effects. Further complicating matters is the varying level of oversight each state and country has in how and whether they test for and accurately label products’ potency, cannabinoid content, and possible impurities.
Medically authorized, prescription cannabis products go through an official regulatory review process, and indications/contraindications have been established for them. To date, the Food and Drug Administration has approved one cannabis-derived drug product – Epidiolex (purified CBD) – for the treatment of seizures associated with Lennox-Gastaut syndrome or Dravet syndrome in patients aged 2 years and older. The FDA has also approved three synthetic cannabis-related drug products – Marinol, Syndros (or dronabinol, created from synthetic THC), and Cesamet (or nabilone, a synthetic cannabinoid similar to THC) – all of which are indicated for treatment-related nausea and anorexia associated with weight loss in AIDS patients.
Surveys of medical cannabis consumers indicate that most people cannot distinguish between THC and CBD, so the first role that physicians find themselves in when recommending this treatment may be in helping patients navigate the volume of options.
Promising treatment for pain
Chronic pain is the leading reason patients seek out medical cannabis. It is also the indication that most researchers agree has the strongest evidence to support its use.
“In my mind, the most promising immediate use for medical cannabis is with THC for pain,” Diana M. Martinez, MD, a professor of psychiatry at Columbia University, New York, who specializes in addiction research, said in a recent MDedge podcast. “THC could be added to the armamentarium of pain medications that we use today.”
In a 2015 systematic literature review, researchers assessed 28 randomized, controlled trials (RCTs) of the use of cannabinoids for chronic pain. They reported that a variety of formulations resulted in at least a 30% reduction in the odds of pain, compared with placebo. A meta-analysis of five RCTs involving patients with neuropathic pain found a 30% reduction in pain over placebo with inhaled, vaporized cannabis. Varying results have been reported in additional studies for this indication. The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine concluded that there was a substantial body of evidence that cannabis is an effective treatment for chronic pain in adults.
The ongoing opioid epidemic has lent these results additional relevance.
Seeing this firsthand has caused Mark Steven Wallace, MD, a pain management specialist and chair of the division of pain medicine at the University of California San Diego Health, to reconsider offering cannabis to his patients.
“I think it’s probably more efficacious, just from my personal experience, and it’s a much lower risk of abuse and dependence than the opioids,” he said.
Dr. Wallace advised that clinicians who treat pain consider the ratios of cannabinoids.
“This is anecdotal, but we do find that with the combination of the two, CBD reduces the psychoactive effects of the THC. The ratios we use during the daytime range around 20 mg of CBD to 1 mg of THC,” he said.
In a recent secondary analysis of an RCT involving patients with painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy, Dr. Wallace and colleagues showed that THC’s effects appear to reverse themselves at a certain level.
“As the THC level goes up, the pain reduces until you reach about 16 ng/mL; then it starts going in the opposite direction, and pain will start to increase,” he said. “Even recreational cannabis users have reported that they avoid high doses because it’s very aversive. Using cannabis is all about, start low and go slow.”
A mixed bag for neurologic indications
There are relatively limited data on the use of medical cannabis for other neurologic conditions, and results have varied. For uses other than pain management, the evidence that does exist is strongest regarding epilepsy, said Daniel Freedman, DO, assistant professor of neurology at the University of Texas at Austin. He noted “multiple high-quality RCTs showing that pharmaceutical-grade CBD can reduce seizures associated with two particular epilepsy syndromes: Dravet Syndrome and Lennox Gastaut.”
These findings led to the FDA’s 2018 approval of Epidiolex for these syndromes. In earlier years, interest in CBD for pediatric seizures was largely driven by anecdotal parental reports of its benefits. NASEM’s 2017 overview on medical cannabis found evidence from subsequent RCTs in this indication to be insufficient. Clinicians who prescribe CBD for this indication must be vigilant because it can interact with several commonly used antiepileptic drugs.
Cannabinoid treatments have also shown success in alleviating muscle spasticity resulting from multiple sclerosis, most prominently in the form of nabiximols (Sativex), a standardized oralmucosal spray containing approximately equal quantities of THC and CBD. Nabiximols is approved in Europe but not in the United States. Moderate evidence supports the efficacy of these and other treatments over placebo in reducing muscle spasticity. Patient ratings of its effects tend to be higher than clinician assessment.
Parkinson’s disease has not yet been approved as an indication for treatment with cannabis or cannabinoids, yet a growing body of preclinical data suggests these could influence the dopaminergic system, said Carsten Buhmann, MD, from the department of neurology at the University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf (Germany).
“In general, cannabinoids modulate basal-ganglia function on two levels which are especially relevant in Parkinson’s disease, i.e., the glutamatergic/dopaminergic synaptic neurotransmission and the corticostriatal plasticity,” he said. “Furthermore, activation of the endocannabinoid system might induce neuroprotective effects related to direct receptor-independent mechanisms, activation of anti-inflammatory cascades in glial cells via the cannabinoid receptor type 2, and antiglutamatergic antiexcitotoxic properties.”
Dr. Buhmann said that currently, clinical evidence is scarce, consisting of only four double-blind, placebo-controlled RCTs involving 49 patients. Various cannabinoids and methods of administering treatment were employed. Improvement was only observed in one of these RCTs, which found that the cannabinoid receptor agonist nabilone significantly reduced levodopa-induced dyskinesia for patients with Parkinson’s disease. Subjective data support a beneficial effect. In a nationwide survey of 1,348 respondents conducted by Dr. Buhmann and colleagues, the majority of medical cannabis users reported that it improved their symptoms (54% with oral CBD and 68% with inhaled THC-containing cannabis).
NASEM concluded that there was insufficient evidence to support the efficacy of medical cannabis for other neurologic conditions, including Tourette syndrome, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, Huntington disease, dystonia, or dementia. A 2020 position statement from the American Academy of Neurology cited the lack of sufficient peer-reviewed research as the reason it could not currently support the use of cannabis for neurologic disorders.
Yet, according to Dr. Freedman, who served as a coauthor of the AAN position statement, this hasn’t stymied research interest in the topic. He’s seen a substantial uptick in studies of CBD over the past 2 years. “The body of evidence grows, but I still see many claims being made without evidence. And no one seems to care about all the negative trials.”
Cannabis as a treatment for, and cause of, psychiatric disorders
Mental health problems – such as anxiety, depression, and PTSD – are among the most common reasons patients seek out medical cannabis. There is an understandable interest in using cannabis and cannabinoids to treat psychiatric disorders. Preclinical studies suggest that the endocannabinoid system plays a prominent role in modulating feelings of anxiety, mood, and fear. As with opioids and chronic pain management, there is hope that medical cannabis may provide a means of reducing prescription anxiolytics and their associated risks.
The authors of the first systematic review (BMC Psychiatry. 2020 Jan 16;20[1]:24) of the use of medical cannabis for major psychiatric disorders noted that the current evidence was “encouraging, albeit embryonic.”
Meta-analyses have indicated a small but positive association between cannabis use and anxiety, although this may reflect the fact that patients with anxiety sought out this treatment. Given the risks for substance use disorders among patients with anxiety, CBD may present a more viable option. Positive results have been shown as treatment for generalized social anxiety disorder.
Limited but encouraging results have also been reported regarding the alleviation of PTSD symptoms with both cannabis and CBD, although the body of high-quality evidence hasn’t notably progressed since 2017, when NASEM declared that the evidence was insufficient. Supportive evidence is similarly lacking regarding the treatment of depression. Longitudinal studies suggest that cannabis use, particularly heavy use, may increase the risk of developing this disorder. Because THC is psychoactive, it is advised that it be avoided by patients at risk for psychotic disorders. However, CBD has yielded limited benefits for patients with treatment-resistant schizophrenia and for young people at risk for psychosis.
The use of medical cannabis for psychiatric conditions requires a complex balancing act, inasmuch as these treatments may exacerbate the very problems they are intended to alleviate.
Marta Di Forti, MD, PhD, professor of psychiatric research at Kings College London, has been at the forefront of determining the mental health risks of continued cannabis use. In 2019, Dr. Di Forti developed the first and only Cannabis Clinic for Patients With Psychosis in London where she and her colleagues have continued to elucidate this connection.
Dr. Di Forti and colleagues have linked daily cannabis use to an increase in the risk of experiencing psychotic disorder, compared with never using it. That risk was further increased among users of high-potency cannabis (≥10% THC). The latter finding has troubling implications, because concentrations of THC have steadily risen since 1970. By contrast, CBD concentrations have remained generally stable. High-potency cannabis products are common in both recreational and medicinal settings.
“For somebody prescribing medicinal cannabis that has a ≥10% concentration of THC, I’d be particularly wary of the risk of psychosis,” said Dr. Di Forti. “If you’re expecting people to use a high content of THC daily to medicate pain or a chronic condition, you even more so need to be aware that this is a potential side effect.”
Dr. Di Forti noted that her findings come from a cohort of recreational users, most of whom were aged 18-35 years.
“There have actually not been studies developed from collecting data in this area from groups specifically using cannabis for medicinal rather than recreational purposes,” she said.
She added that she personally has no concerns about the use of medical cannabis but wants clinicians to be aware of the risk for psychosis, to structure their patient conversations to identify risk factors or family histories of psychosis, and to become knowledgeable in detecting the often subtle signs of its initial onset.
When cannabis-associated psychosis occurs, Dr. Di Forti said it is primarily treated with conventional means, such as antipsychotics and therapeutic interventions and by refraining from using cannabis. Achieving the latter goal can be a challenge for patients who are daily users of high-potency cannabis. Currently, there are no treatment options such as those offered to patients withdrawing from the use of alcohol or opioids. Dr. Di Forti and colleagues are currently researching a solution to that problem through the use of another medical cannabis, the oromucosal spray Sativex, which has been approved in the European Union.
The regulatory obstacles to clarifying cannabis’ role in medicine
That currently there is limited or no evidence to support the use of medical cannabis for the treatment of neuropsychiatric conditions points to the inherent difficulties in conducting high-level research in this area.
“There’s a tremendous shortage of reliable data, largely due to regulatory barriers,” said Dr. Martinez.
Since 1970, cannabis has been listed as a Schedule I drug that is illegal to prescribe (the Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018 removed hemp from such restrictions). The FDA has issued guidance for researchers who wish to investigate treatments using Cannabis sativa or its derivatives in which the THC content is greater than 0.3%. Such research requires regular interactions with several federal agencies, including the Drug Enforcement Administration.
“It’s impossible to do multicenter RCTs with large numbers of patients, because you can’t transport cannabis across state lines,” said Dr. Wallace.
Regulatory restrictions regarding medical cannabis vary considerably throughout the world (the European Monitoring Center for Drugs and Drug Addiction provides a useful breakdown of this on their website). The lack of consistency in regulatory oversight acts as an impediment for conducting large-scale international multicenter studies on the topic.
Dr. Buhmann noted that, in Germany, cannabis has been broadly approved for treatment-resistant conditions with severe symptoms that impair quality of life. In addition, it is easy to be reimbursed for the use of cannabis as a medical treatment. These factors serve as disincentives for the funding of high-quality studies.
“It’s likely that no pharmaceutical company will do an expensive RCT to get an approval for Parkinson’s disease because it is already possible to prescribe medical cannabis of any type of THC-containing cannabinoid, dose, or route of application,” Dr. Buhmann said.
In the face of such restrictions and barriers, researchers are turning to ambitious real-world data projects to better understand medical cannabis’ efficacy and safety. A notable example is ProjectTwenty21, which is supported by the Royal College of Psychiatrists. The project is collecting outcomes of the use of medical cannabis among 20,000 U.K. patients whose conventional treatments of chronic pain, anxiety disorder, epilepsy, multiple sclerosis, PTSD, substance use disorder, and Tourette syndrome failed.
Dr. Freedman noted that the continued lack of high-quality data creates a void that commercial interests fill with unfounded claims.
“The danger is that patients might abandon a medication or intervention backed by robust science in favor of something without any science or evidence behind it,” he said. “There is no reason not to expect the same level of data for claims about cannabis products as we would expect from pharmaceutical products.”
Getting to that point, however, will require that the authorities governing clinical trials begin to view cannabis as the research community does, as a possible treatment with potential value, rather than as an illicit drug that needs to be tamped down.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Although the healing properties of cannabis have been touted for millennia, research into its potential neuropsychiatric applications truly began to take off in the 1990s following the discovery of the cannabinoid system in the brain. This led to speculation that cannabis could play a therapeutic role in regulating dopamine, serotonin, and other neurotransmitters and offer a new means of treating various ailments.
At the same time, efforts to liberalize marijuana laws have successfully played out in several nations, including the United States, where, as of April 29, 36 states provide some access to cannabis. These dual tracks – medical and political – have made cannabis an increasingly accepted part of the cultural fabric.
Yet with this development has come a new quandary for clinicians. Medical cannabis has been made widely available to patients and has largely outpaced the clinical evidence, leaving it unclear how and for which indications it should be used.
The many forms of medical cannabis
Cannabis is a genus of plants that includes marijuana (Cannabis sativa) and hemp. These plants contain over 100 compounds, including terpenes, flavonoids, and – most importantly for medicinal applications – cannabinoids.
The most abundant cannabinoid in marijuana is the psychotropic delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), which imparts the “high” sensation. The next most abundant cannabinoid is cannabidiol (CBD), which is the nonpsychotropic. THC and CBD are the most extensively studied cannabinoids, together and in isolation. Evidence suggests that other cannabinoids and terpenoids may also hold medical promise and that cannabis’ various compounds can work synergistically to produce a so-called entourage effect.
Patients walking into a typical medical cannabis dispensary will be faced with several plant-derived and synthetic options, which can differ considerably in terms of the ratios and amounts of THC and CBD they contain, as well in how they are consumed (i.e., via smoke, vapor, ingestion, topical administration, or oromucosal spray), all of which can alter their effects. Further complicating matters is the varying level of oversight each state and country has in how and whether they test for and accurately label products’ potency, cannabinoid content, and possible impurities.
Medically authorized, prescription cannabis products go through an official regulatory review process, and indications/contraindications have been established for them. To date, the Food and Drug Administration has approved one cannabis-derived drug product – Epidiolex (purified CBD) – for the treatment of seizures associated with Lennox-Gastaut syndrome or Dravet syndrome in patients aged 2 years and older. The FDA has also approved three synthetic cannabis-related drug products – Marinol, Syndros (or dronabinol, created from synthetic THC), and Cesamet (or nabilone, a synthetic cannabinoid similar to THC) – all of which are indicated for treatment-related nausea and anorexia associated with weight loss in AIDS patients.
Surveys of medical cannabis consumers indicate that most people cannot distinguish between THC and CBD, so the first role that physicians find themselves in when recommending this treatment may be in helping patients navigate the volume of options.
Promising treatment for pain
Chronic pain is the leading reason patients seek out medical cannabis. It is also the indication that most researchers agree has the strongest evidence to support its use.
“In my mind, the most promising immediate use for medical cannabis is with THC for pain,” Diana M. Martinez, MD, a professor of psychiatry at Columbia University, New York, who specializes in addiction research, said in a recent MDedge podcast. “THC could be added to the armamentarium of pain medications that we use today.”
In a 2015 systematic literature review, researchers assessed 28 randomized, controlled trials (RCTs) of the use of cannabinoids for chronic pain. They reported that a variety of formulations resulted in at least a 30% reduction in the odds of pain, compared with placebo. A meta-analysis of five RCTs involving patients with neuropathic pain found a 30% reduction in pain over placebo with inhaled, vaporized cannabis. Varying results have been reported in additional studies for this indication. The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine concluded that there was a substantial body of evidence that cannabis is an effective treatment for chronic pain in adults.
The ongoing opioid epidemic has lent these results additional relevance.
Seeing this firsthand has caused Mark Steven Wallace, MD, a pain management specialist and chair of the division of pain medicine at the University of California San Diego Health, to reconsider offering cannabis to his patients.
“I think it’s probably more efficacious, just from my personal experience, and it’s a much lower risk of abuse and dependence than the opioids,” he said.
Dr. Wallace advised that clinicians who treat pain consider the ratios of cannabinoids.
“This is anecdotal, but we do find that with the combination of the two, CBD reduces the psychoactive effects of the THC. The ratios we use during the daytime range around 20 mg of CBD to 1 mg of THC,” he said.
In a recent secondary analysis of an RCT involving patients with painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy, Dr. Wallace and colleagues showed that THC’s effects appear to reverse themselves at a certain level.
“As the THC level goes up, the pain reduces until you reach about 16 ng/mL; then it starts going in the opposite direction, and pain will start to increase,” he said. “Even recreational cannabis users have reported that they avoid high doses because it’s very aversive. Using cannabis is all about, start low and go slow.”
A mixed bag for neurologic indications
There are relatively limited data on the use of medical cannabis for other neurologic conditions, and results have varied. For uses other than pain management, the evidence that does exist is strongest regarding epilepsy, said Daniel Freedman, DO, assistant professor of neurology at the University of Texas at Austin. He noted “multiple high-quality RCTs showing that pharmaceutical-grade CBD can reduce seizures associated with two particular epilepsy syndromes: Dravet Syndrome and Lennox Gastaut.”
These findings led to the FDA’s 2018 approval of Epidiolex for these syndromes. In earlier years, interest in CBD for pediatric seizures was largely driven by anecdotal parental reports of its benefits. NASEM’s 2017 overview on medical cannabis found evidence from subsequent RCTs in this indication to be insufficient. Clinicians who prescribe CBD for this indication must be vigilant because it can interact with several commonly used antiepileptic drugs.
Cannabinoid treatments have also shown success in alleviating muscle spasticity resulting from multiple sclerosis, most prominently in the form of nabiximols (Sativex), a standardized oralmucosal spray containing approximately equal quantities of THC and CBD. Nabiximols is approved in Europe but not in the United States. Moderate evidence supports the efficacy of these and other treatments over placebo in reducing muscle spasticity. Patient ratings of its effects tend to be higher than clinician assessment.
Parkinson’s disease has not yet been approved as an indication for treatment with cannabis or cannabinoids, yet a growing body of preclinical data suggests these could influence the dopaminergic system, said Carsten Buhmann, MD, from the department of neurology at the University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf (Germany).
“In general, cannabinoids modulate basal-ganglia function on two levels which are especially relevant in Parkinson’s disease, i.e., the glutamatergic/dopaminergic synaptic neurotransmission and the corticostriatal plasticity,” he said. “Furthermore, activation of the endocannabinoid system might induce neuroprotective effects related to direct receptor-independent mechanisms, activation of anti-inflammatory cascades in glial cells via the cannabinoid receptor type 2, and antiglutamatergic antiexcitotoxic properties.”
Dr. Buhmann said that currently, clinical evidence is scarce, consisting of only four double-blind, placebo-controlled RCTs involving 49 patients. Various cannabinoids and methods of administering treatment were employed. Improvement was only observed in one of these RCTs, which found that the cannabinoid receptor agonist nabilone significantly reduced levodopa-induced dyskinesia for patients with Parkinson’s disease. Subjective data support a beneficial effect. In a nationwide survey of 1,348 respondents conducted by Dr. Buhmann and colleagues, the majority of medical cannabis users reported that it improved their symptoms (54% with oral CBD and 68% with inhaled THC-containing cannabis).
NASEM concluded that there was insufficient evidence to support the efficacy of medical cannabis for other neurologic conditions, including Tourette syndrome, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, Huntington disease, dystonia, or dementia. A 2020 position statement from the American Academy of Neurology cited the lack of sufficient peer-reviewed research as the reason it could not currently support the use of cannabis for neurologic disorders.
Yet, according to Dr. Freedman, who served as a coauthor of the AAN position statement, this hasn’t stymied research interest in the topic. He’s seen a substantial uptick in studies of CBD over the past 2 years. “The body of evidence grows, but I still see many claims being made without evidence. And no one seems to care about all the negative trials.”
Cannabis as a treatment for, and cause of, psychiatric disorders
Mental health problems – such as anxiety, depression, and PTSD – are among the most common reasons patients seek out medical cannabis. There is an understandable interest in using cannabis and cannabinoids to treat psychiatric disorders. Preclinical studies suggest that the endocannabinoid system plays a prominent role in modulating feelings of anxiety, mood, and fear. As with opioids and chronic pain management, there is hope that medical cannabis may provide a means of reducing prescription anxiolytics and their associated risks.
The authors of the first systematic review (BMC Psychiatry. 2020 Jan 16;20[1]:24) of the use of medical cannabis for major psychiatric disorders noted that the current evidence was “encouraging, albeit embryonic.”
Meta-analyses have indicated a small but positive association between cannabis use and anxiety, although this may reflect the fact that patients with anxiety sought out this treatment. Given the risks for substance use disorders among patients with anxiety, CBD may present a more viable option. Positive results have been shown as treatment for generalized social anxiety disorder.
Limited but encouraging results have also been reported regarding the alleviation of PTSD symptoms with both cannabis and CBD, although the body of high-quality evidence hasn’t notably progressed since 2017, when NASEM declared that the evidence was insufficient. Supportive evidence is similarly lacking regarding the treatment of depression. Longitudinal studies suggest that cannabis use, particularly heavy use, may increase the risk of developing this disorder. Because THC is psychoactive, it is advised that it be avoided by patients at risk for psychotic disorders. However, CBD has yielded limited benefits for patients with treatment-resistant schizophrenia and for young people at risk for psychosis.
The use of medical cannabis for psychiatric conditions requires a complex balancing act, inasmuch as these treatments may exacerbate the very problems they are intended to alleviate.
Marta Di Forti, MD, PhD, professor of psychiatric research at Kings College London, has been at the forefront of determining the mental health risks of continued cannabis use. In 2019, Dr. Di Forti developed the first and only Cannabis Clinic for Patients With Psychosis in London where she and her colleagues have continued to elucidate this connection.
Dr. Di Forti and colleagues have linked daily cannabis use to an increase in the risk of experiencing psychotic disorder, compared with never using it. That risk was further increased among users of high-potency cannabis (≥10% THC). The latter finding has troubling implications, because concentrations of THC have steadily risen since 1970. By contrast, CBD concentrations have remained generally stable. High-potency cannabis products are common in both recreational and medicinal settings.
“For somebody prescribing medicinal cannabis that has a ≥10% concentration of THC, I’d be particularly wary of the risk of psychosis,” said Dr. Di Forti. “If you’re expecting people to use a high content of THC daily to medicate pain or a chronic condition, you even more so need to be aware that this is a potential side effect.”
Dr. Di Forti noted that her findings come from a cohort of recreational users, most of whom were aged 18-35 years.
“There have actually not been studies developed from collecting data in this area from groups specifically using cannabis for medicinal rather than recreational purposes,” she said.
She added that she personally has no concerns about the use of medical cannabis but wants clinicians to be aware of the risk for psychosis, to structure their patient conversations to identify risk factors or family histories of psychosis, and to become knowledgeable in detecting the often subtle signs of its initial onset.
When cannabis-associated psychosis occurs, Dr. Di Forti said it is primarily treated with conventional means, such as antipsychotics and therapeutic interventions and by refraining from using cannabis. Achieving the latter goal can be a challenge for patients who are daily users of high-potency cannabis. Currently, there are no treatment options such as those offered to patients withdrawing from the use of alcohol or opioids. Dr. Di Forti and colleagues are currently researching a solution to that problem through the use of another medical cannabis, the oromucosal spray Sativex, which has been approved in the European Union.
The regulatory obstacles to clarifying cannabis’ role in medicine
That currently there is limited or no evidence to support the use of medical cannabis for the treatment of neuropsychiatric conditions points to the inherent difficulties in conducting high-level research in this area.
“There’s a tremendous shortage of reliable data, largely due to regulatory barriers,” said Dr. Martinez.
Since 1970, cannabis has been listed as a Schedule I drug that is illegal to prescribe (the Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018 removed hemp from such restrictions). The FDA has issued guidance for researchers who wish to investigate treatments using Cannabis sativa or its derivatives in which the THC content is greater than 0.3%. Such research requires regular interactions with several federal agencies, including the Drug Enforcement Administration.
“It’s impossible to do multicenter RCTs with large numbers of patients, because you can’t transport cannabis across state lines,” said Dr. Wallace.
Regulatory restrictions regarding medical cannabis vary considerably throughout the world (the European Monitoring Center for Drugs and Drug Addiction provides a useful breakdown of this on their website). The lack of consistency in regulatory oversight acts as an impediment for conducting large-scale international multicenter studies on the topic.
Dr. Buhmann noted that, in Germany, cannabis has been broadly approved for treatment-resistant conditions with severe symptoms that impair quality of life. In addition, it is easy to be reimbursed for the use of cannabis as a medical treatment. These factors serve as disincentives for the funding of high-quality studies.
“It’s likely that no pharmaceutical company will do an expensive RCT to get an approval for Parkinson’s disease because it is already possible to prescribe medical cannabis of any type of THC-containing cannabinoid, dose, or route of application,” Dr. Buhmann said.
In the face of such restrictions and barriers, researchers are turning to ambitious real-world data projects to better understand medical cannabis’ efficacy and safety. A notable example is ProjectTwenty21, which is supported by the Royal College of Psychiatrists. The project is collecting outcomes of the use of medical cannabis among 20,000 U.K. patients whose conventional treatments of chronic pain, anxiety disorder, epilepsy, multiple sclerosis, PTSD, substance use disorder, and Tourette syndrome failed.
Dr. Freedman noted that the continued lack of high-quality data creates a void that commercial interests fill with unfounded claims.
“The danger is that patients might abandon a medication or intervention backed by robust science in favor of something without any science or evidence behind it,” he said. “There is no reason not to expect the same level of data for claims about cannabis products as we would expect from pharmaceutical products.”
Getting to that point, however, will require that the authorities governing clinical trials begin to view cannabis as the research community does, as a possible treatment with potential value, rather than as an illicit drug that needs to be tamped down.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Although the healing properties of cannabis have been touted for millennia, research into its potential neuropsychiatric applications truly began to take off in the 1990s following the discovery of the cannabinoid system in the brain. This led to speculation that cannabis could play a therapeutic role in regulating dopamine, serotonin, and other neurotransmitters and offer a new means of treating various ailments.
At the same time, efforts to liberalize marijuana laws have successfully played out in several nations, including the United States, where, as of April 29, 36 states provide some access to cannabis. These dual tracks – medical and political – have made cannabis an increasingly accepted part of the cultural fabric.
Yet with this development has come a new quandary for clinicians. Medical cannabis has been made widely available to patients and has largely outpaced the clinical evidence, leaving it unclear how and for which indications it should be used.
The many forms of medical cannabis
Cannabis is a genus of plants that includes marijuana (Cannabis sativa) and hemp. These plants contain over 100 compounds, including terpenes, flavonoids, and – most importantly for medicinal applications – cannabinoids.
The most abundant cannabinoid in marijuana is the psychotropic delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), which imparts the “high” sensation. The next most abundant cannabinoid is cannabidiol (CBD), which is the nonpsychotropic. THC and CBD are the most extensively studied cannabinoids, together and in isolation. Evidence suggests that other cannabinoids and terpenoids may also hold medical promise and that cannabis’ various compounds can work synergistically to produce a so-called entourage effect.
Patients walking into a typical medical cannabis dispensary will be faced with several plant-derived and synthetic options, which can differ considerably in terms of the ratios and amounts of THC and CBD they contain, as well in how they are consumed (i.e., via smoke, vapor, ingestion, topical administration, or oromucosal spray), all of which can alter their effects. Further complicating matters is the varying level of oversight each state and country has in how and whether they test for and accurately label products’ potency, cannabinoid content, and possible impurities.
Medically authorized, prescription cannabis products go through an official regulatory review process, and indications/contraindications have been established for them. To date, the Food and Drug Administration has approved one cannabis-derived drug product – Epidiolex (purified CBD) – for the treatment of seizures associated with Lennox-Gastaut syndrome or Dravet syndrome in patients aged 2 years and older. The FDA has also approved three synthetic cannabis-related drug products – Marinol, Syndros (or dronabinol, created from synthetic THC), and Cesamet (or nabilone, a synthetic cannabinoid similar to THC) – all of which are indicated for treatment-related nausea and anorexia associated with weight loss in AIDS patients.
Surveys of medical cannabis consumers indicate that most people cannot distinguish between THC and CBD, so the first role that physicians find themselves in when recommending this treatment may be in helping patients navigate the volume of options.
Promising treatment for pain
Chronic pain is the leading reason patients seek out medical cannabis. It is also the indication that most researchers agree has the strongest evidence to support its use.
“In my mind, the most promising immediate use for medical cannabis is with THC for pain,” Diana M. Martinez, MD, a professor of psychiatry at Columbia University, New York, who specializes in addiction research, said in a recent MDedge podcast. “THC could be added to the armamentarium of pain medications that we use today.”
In a 2015 systematic literature review, researchers assessed 28 randomized, controlled trials (RCTs) of the use of cannabinoids for chronic pain. They reported that a variety of formulations resulted in at least a 30% reduction in the odds of pain, compared with placebo. A meta-analysis of five RCTs involving patients with neuropathic pain found a 30% reduction in pain over placebo with inhaled, vaporized cannabis. Varying results have been reported in additional studies for this indication. The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine concluded that there was a substantial body of evidence that cannabis is an effective treatment for chronic pain in adults.
The ongoing opioid epidemic has lent these results additional relevance.
Seeing this firsthand has caused Mark Steven Wallace, MD, a pain management specialist and chair of the division of pain medicine at the University of California San Diego Health, to reconsider offering cannabis to his patients.
“I think it’s probably more efficacious, just from my personal experience, and it’s a much lower risk of abuse and dependence than the opioids,” he said.
Dr. Wallace advised that clinicians who treat pain consider the ratios of cannabinoids.
“This is anecdotal, but we do find that with the combination of the two, CBD reduces the psychoactive effects of the THC. The ratios we use during the daytime range around 20 mg of CBD to 1 mg of THC,” he said.
In a recent secondary analysis of an RCT involving patients with painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy, Dr. Wallace and colleagues showed that THC’s effects appear to reverse themselves at a certain level.
“As the THC level goes up, the pain reduces until you reach about 16 ng/mL; then it starts going in the opposite direction, and pain will start to increase,” he said. “Even recreational cannabis users have reported that they avoid high doses because it’s very aversive. Using cannabis is all about, start low and go slow.”
A mixed bag for neurologic indications
There are relatively limited data on the use of medical cannabis for other neurologic conditions, and results have varied. For uses other than pain management, the evidence that does exist is strongest regarding epilepsy, said Daniel Freedman, DO, assistant professor of neurology at the University of Texas at Austin. He noted “multiple high-quality RCTs showing that pharmaceutical-grade CBD can reduce seizures associated with two particular epilepsy syndromes: Dravet Syndrome and Lennox Gastaut.”
These findings led to the FDA’s 2018 approval of Epidiolex for these syndromes. In earlier years, interest in CBD for pediatric seizures was largely driven by anecdotal parental reports of its benefits. NASEM’s 2017 overview on medical cannabis found evidence from subsequent RCTs in this indication to be insufficient. Clinicians who prescribe CBD for this indication must be vigilant because it can interact with several commonly used antiepileptic drugs.
Cannabinoid treatments have also shown success in alleviating muscle spasticity resulting from multiple sclerosis, most prominently in the form of nabiximols (Sativex), a standardized oralmucosal spray containing approximately equal quantities of THC and CBD. Nabiximols is approved in Europe but not in the United States. Moderate evidence supports the efficacy of these and other treatments over placebo in reducing muscle spasticity. Patient ratings of its effects tend to be higher than clinician assessment.
Parkinson’s disease has not yet been approved as an indication for treatment with cannabis or cannabinoids, yet a growing body of preclinical data suggests these could influence the dopaminergic system, said Carsten Buhmann, MD, from the department of neurology at the University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf (Germany).
“In general, cannabinoids modulate basal-ganglia function on two levels which are especially relevant in Parkinson’s disease, i.e., the glutamatergic/dopaminergic synaptic neurotransmission and the corticostriatal plasticity,” he said. “Furthermore, activation of the endocannabinoid system might induce neuroprotective effects related to direct receptor-independent mechanisms, activation of anti-inflammatory cascades in glial cells via the cannabinoid receptor type 2, and antiglutamatergic antiexcitotoxic properties.”
Dr. Buhmann said that currently, clinical evidence is scarce, consisting of only four double-blind, placebo-controlled RCTs involving 49 patients. Various cannabinoids and methods of administering treatment were employed. Improvement was only observed in one of these RCTs, which found that the cannabinoid receptor agonist nabilone significantly reduced levodopa-induced dyskinesia for patients with Parkinson’s disease. Subjective data support a beneficial effect. In a nationwide survey of 1,348 respondents conducted by Dr. Buhmann and colleagues, the majority of medical cannabis users reported that it improved their symptoms (54% with oral CBD and 68% with inhaled THC-containing cannabis).
NASEM concluded that there was insufficient evidence to support the efficacy of medical cannabis for other neurologic conditions, including Tourette syndrome, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, Huntington disease, dystonia, or dementia. A 2020 position statement from the American Academy of Neurology cited the lack of sufficient peer-reviewed research as the reason it could not currently support the use of cannabis for neurologic disorders.
Yet, according to Dr. Freedman, who served as a coauthor of the AAN position statement, this hasn’t stymied research interest in the topic. He’s seen a substantial uptick in studies of CBD over the past 2 years. “The body of evidence grows, but I still see many claims being made without evidence. And no one seems to care about all the negative trials.”
Cannabis as a treatment for, and cause of, psychiatric disorders
Mental health problems – such as anxiety, depression, and PTSD – are among the most common reasons patients seek out medical cannabis. There is an understandable interest in using cannabis and cannabinoids to treat psychiatric disorders. Preclinical studies suggest that the endocannabinoid system plays a prominent role in modulating feelings of anxiety, mood, and fear. As with opioids and chronic pain management, there is hope that medical cannabis may provide a means of reducing prescription anxiolytics and their associated risks.
The authors of the first systematic review (BMC Psychiatry. 2020 Jan 16;20[1]:24) of the use of medical cannabis for major psychiatric disorders noted that the current evidence was “encouraging, albeit embryonic.”
Meta-analyses have indicated a small but positive association between cannabis use and anxiety, although this may reflect the fact that patients with anxiety sought out this treatment. Given the risks for substance use disorders among patients with anxiety, CBD may present a more viable option. Positive results have been shown as treatment for generalized social anxiety disorder.
Limited but encouraging results have also been reported regarding the alleviation of PTSD symptoms with both cannabis and CBD, although the body of high-quality evidence hasn’t notably progressed since 2017, when NASEM declared that the evidence was insufficient. Supportive evidence is similarly lacking regarding the treatment of depression. Longitudinal studies suggest that cannabis use, particularly heavy use, may increase the risk of developing this disorder. Because THC is psychoactive, it is advised that it be avoided by patients at risk for psychotic disorders. However, CBD has yielded limited benefits for patients with treatment-resistant schizophrenia and for young people at risk for psychosis.
The use of medical cannabis for psychiatric conditions requires a complex balancing act, inasmuch as these treatments may exacerbate the very problems they are intended to alleviate.
Marta Di Forti, MD, PhD, professor of psychiatric research at Kings College London, has been at the forefront of determining the mental health risks of continued cannabis use. In 2019, Dr. Di Forti developed the first and only Cannabis Clinic for Patients With Psychosis in London where she and her colleagues have continued to elucidate this connection.
Dr. Di Forti and colleagues have linked daily cannabis use to an increase in the risk of experiencing psychotic disorder, compared with never using it. That risk was further increased among users of high-potency cannabis (≥10% THC). The latter finding has troubling implications, because concentrations of THC have steadily risen since 1970. By contrast, CBD concentrations have remained generally stable. High-potency cannabis products are common in both recreational and medicinal settings.
“For somebody prescribing medicinal cannabis that has a ≥10% concentration of THC, I’d be particularly wary of the risk of psychosis,” said Dr. Di Forti. “If you’re expecting people to use a high content of THC daily to medicate pain or a chronic condition, you even more so need to be aware that this is a potential side effect.”
Dr. Di Forti noted that her findings come from a cohort of recreational users, most of whom were aged 18-35 years.
“There have actually not been studies developed from collecting data in this area from groups specifically using cannabis for medicinal rather than recreational purposes,” she said.
She added that she personally has no concerns about the use of medical cannabis but wants clinicians to be aware of the risk for psychosis, to structure their patient conversations to identify risk factors or family histories of psychosis, and to become knowledgeable in detecting the often subtle signs of its initial onset.
When cannabis-associated psychosis occurs, Dr. Di Forti said it is primarily treated with conventional means, such as antipsychotics and therapeutic interventions and by refraining from using cannabis. Achieving the latter goal can be a challenge for patients who are daily users of high-potency cannabis. Currently, there are no treatment options such as those offered to patients withdrawing from the use of alcohol or opioids. Dr. Di Forti and colleagues are currently researching a solution to that problem through the use of another medical cannabis, the oromucosal spray Sativex, which has been approved in the European Union.
The regulatory obstacles to clarifying cannabis’ role in medicine
That currently there is limited or no evidence to support the use of medical cannabis for the treatment of neuropsychiatric conditions points to the inherent difficulties in conducting high-level research in this area.
“There’s a tremendous shortage of reliable data, largely due to regulatory barriers,” said Dr. Martinez.
Since 1970, cannabis has been listed as a Schedule I drug that is illegal to prescribe (the Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018 removed hemp from such restrictions). The FDA has issued guidance for researchers who wish to investigate treatments using Cannabis sativa or its derivatives in which the THC content is greater than 0.3%. Such research requires regular interactions with several federal agencies, including the Drug Enforcement Administration.
“It’s impossible to do multicenter RCTs with large numbers of patients, because you can’t transport cannabis across state lines,” said Dr. Wallace.
Regulatory restrictions regarding medical cannabis vary considerably throughout the world (the European Monitoring Center for Drugs and Drug Addiction provides a useful breakdown of this on their website). The lack of consistency in regulatory oversight acts as an impediment for conducting large-scale international multicenter studies on the topic.
Dr. Buhmann noted that, in Germany, cannabis has been broadly approved for treatment-resistant conditions with severe symptoms that impair quality of life. In addition, it is easy to be reimbursed for the use of cannabis as a medical treatment. These factors serve as disincentives for the funding of high-quality studies.
“It’s likely that no pharmaceutical company will do an expensive RCT to get an approval for Parkinson’s disease because it is already possible to prescribe medical cannabis of any type of THC-containing cannabinoid, dose, or route of application,” Dr. Buhmann said.
In the face of such restrictions and barriers, researchers are turning to ambitious real-world data projects to better understand medical cannabis’ efficacy and safety. A notable example is ProjectTwenty21, which is supported by the Royal College of Psychiatrists. The project is collecting outcomes of the use of medical cannabis among 20,000 U.K. patients whose conventional treatments of chronic pain, anxiety disorder, epilepsy, multiple sclerosis, PTSD, substance use disorder, and Tourette syndrome failed.
Dr. Freedman noted that the continued lack of high-quality data creates a void that commercial interests fill with unfounded claims.
“The danger is that patients might abandon a medication or intervention backed by robust science in favor of something without any science or evidence behind it,” he said. “There is no reason not to expect the same level of data for claims about cannabis products as we would expect from pharmaceutical products.”
Getting to that point, however, will require that the authorities governing clinical trials begin to view cannabis as the research community does, as a possible treatment with potential value, rather than as an illicit drug that needs to be tamped down.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Superior survival with sintilimab in squamous NSCLC
Sintilimab improved both overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS), according to Yuankai Shi, MD, of the Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences & Peking Union Medical College in Beijing.
Dr. Shi presented these findings, from the ORIENT-3 study, at the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2021: Week 1 (Abstract CT041).
ORIENT-3 enrolled and randomized 290 patients with stage IIIB/IIIC or IV sqNSCLC and disease progression during or after first-line platimum-based chemotherapy. They were randomized 1:1 to receive sintilimab at 200 mg or docetaxel at 75 mg/m2intravenously every 3 weeks until disease progression or intolerable toxicity.
The median age was 60 years in the sintilimab arm and 61 years in the docetaxel arm. A majority of patients were men (94% in the sintilimab arm and 90% in the docetaxel arm), most were current or former smokers (90% and 80%, respectively), and more than three-quarters had an ECOG performance status of 1 (76% and 77%, respectively). More than half of patients had a PD-L1 tumor proportion score (TPS) of 1% or greater (57% and 47%, respectively), and 81% of patients in both arms had stage IV disease.
Results: Survival and safety
Patients in the sintilimab arm received a median of 8.0 cycles of therapy (range, 1-45), and those in the docetaxel arm received a median of 2.0 cycles of therapy (range, 1-15).
At a median follow-up of 23.56 months, the median OS was significantly longer in the sintilimab arm than in the docetaxel arm – 11.79 months and 8.25 months, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.74; P = .02489). OS benefits were generally consistent across subgroups.
The secondary endpoints of PFS and objective response rate also favored sintilimab, Dr. Shi reported.
The median PFS was 4.30 months in the sintilimab arm and 2.79 months in the docetaxel arm (HR, 0.52; P < .00001). Confirmed objective response rates were 25.5% and 2.2%, respectively; the median duration of response was 12.45 months and 4.14 months, respectively; and disease control rates were 65.5% and 37.8%, respectively.
“Sintilimab had a favorable safety profile over docetaxel, with a lower frequency of grade 3 or higher treatment-related adverse events, with no new safety signals observed,” Dr. Shi said.
Treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) occurred in 84.7% of patients receiving sintilimab and 83.1% of those receiving docetaxel. Hypothyroidism was the most common TRAE in the sintilimab arm (18.1%), and alopecia was the most common TRAE in the docetaxel arm (34.6%).
Grade 3 or higher TRAEs were less frequent in the sintilimab arm than in the docetaxel arm (18.1% vs. 36.2%). Rates of discontinuation because of TRAEs were 12.5% and 5.4% in the sintilimab and docetaxel arms, respectively. TRAEs leading to death occurred in five patients in the sintilimab arm and one in the docetaxel arm.
Use in the real world
Noting sintilimab’s significant OS and PFS benefits as well as superior response rate and duration of response, Dr. Shi concluded, “Sintilimab might provide an alternative second-line treatment option for advanced and metastatic sqNSCLC.”
AACR moderator Marina Garassino, MD, of the University of Chicago, commented on the potential utility of sintilimab and tislelizumab, another checkpoint inhibitor that was evaluated in NSCLC in the RATIONALE 303 trial (AACR 2021, Abstract CT039). Dr. Garassino observed that both drugs have demonstrated superiority to docetaxel as second-line therapy in NSCLC.
Although there have been no head-to-head trials, sintilimab and tislelizumab appear to be very similar to the already approved immune checkpoint inhibitors, which are currently being used as first-line treatment.
“That similarity would make them inappropriate for second-line treatment, except in countries where immune checkpoint inhibitors are not yet approved for first-line therapy,” Dr. Garassino noted.
When asked to comment on the higher treatment-related death rate observed with sintilimab, Dr. Garassino said, “We need to remember that these drugs were developed in China with a population that may have a side effect profile differing from that of a Western population. Also, we are very familiar with this class of drugs and know how to treat their side effects. Similar drugs but different populations and different trials, so it’s very hard to judge.”
Dr. Garassino speculated that with the “super expensive” price tags on the new checkpoint inhibitors, having additional agents that could provide choice and drive prices down would be welcome.
ORIENT-3 was funded by Innovent Biologics and Eli Lilly. Dr. Shi disclosed consultancy for Innovent Biologics. Dr. Garassino disclosed relationships with Eli Lilly, AstraZeneca, Novartis, and several other companies, not including Innovent Biologics.
Sintilimab improved both overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS), according to Yuankai Shi, MD, of the Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences & Peking Union Medical College in Beijing.
Dr. Shi presented these findings, from the ORIENT-3 study, at the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2021: Week 1 (Abstract CT041).
ORIENT-3 enrolled and randomized 290 patients with stage IIIB/IIIC or IV sqNSCLC and disease progression during or after first-line platimum-based chemotherapy. They were randomized 1:1 to receive sintilimab at 200 mg or docetaxel at 75 mg/m2intravenously every 3 weeks until disease progression or intolerable toxicity.
The median age was 60 years in the sintilimab arm and 61 years in the docetaxel arm. A majority of patients were men (94% in the sintilimab arm and 90% in the docetaxel arm), most were current or former smokers (90% and 80%, respectively), and more than three-quarters had an ECOG performance status of 1 (76% and 77%, respectively). More than half of patients had a PD-L1 tumor proportion score (TPS) of 1% or greater (57% and 47%, respectively), and 81% of patients in both arms had stage IV disease.
Results: Survival and safety
Patients in the sintilimab arm received a median of 8.0 cycles of therapy (range, 1-45), and those in the docetaxel arm received a median of 2.0 cycles of therapy (range, 1-15).
At a median follow-up of 23.56 months, the median OS was significantly longer in the sintilimab arm than in the docetaxel arm – 11.79 months and 8.25 months, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.74; P = .02489). OS benefits were generally consistent across subgroups.
The secondary endpoints of PFS and objective response rate also favored sintilimab, Dr. Shi reported.
The median PFS was 4.30 months in the sintilimab arm and 2.79 months in the docetaxel arm (HR, 0.52; P < .00001). Confirmed objective response rates were 25.5% and 2.2%, respectively; the median duration of response was 12.45 months and 4.14 months, respectively; and disease control rates were 65.5% and 37.8%, respectively.
“Sintilimab had a favorable safety profile over docetaxel, with a lower frequency of grade 3 or higher treatment-related adverse events, with no new safety signals observed,” Dr. Shi said.
Treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) occurred in 84.7% of patients receiving sintilimab and 83.1% of those receiving docetaxel. Hypothyroidism was the most common TRAE in the sintilimab arm (18.1%), and alopecia was the most common TRAE in the docetaxel arm (34.6%).
Grade 3 or higher TRAEs were less frequent in the sintilimab arm than in the docetaxel arm (18.1% vs. 36.2%). Rates of discontinuation because of TRAEs were 12.5% and 5.4% in the sintilimab and docetaxel arms, respectively. TRAEs leading to death occurred in five patients in the sintilimab arm and one in the docetaxel arm.
Use in the real world
Noting sintilimab’s significant OS and PFS benefits as well as superior response rate and duration of response, Dr. Shi concluded, “Sintilimab might provide an alternative second-line treatment option for advanced and metastatic sqNSCLC.”
AACR moderator Marina Garassino, MD, of the University of Chicago, commented on the potential utility of sintilimab and tislelizumab, another checkpoint inhibitor that was evaluated in NSCLC in the RATIONALE 303 trial (AACR 2021, Abstract CT039). Dr. Garassino observed that both drugs have demonstrated superiority to docetaxel as second-line therapy in NSCLC.
Although there have been no head-to-head trials, sintilimab and tislelizumab appear to be very similar to the already approved immune checkpoint inhibitors, which are currently being used as first-line treatment.
“That similarity would make them inappropriate for second-line treatment, except in countries where immune checkpoint inhibitors are not yet approved for first-line therapy,” Dr. Garassino noted.
When asked to comment on the higher treatment-related death rate observed with sintilimab, Dr. Garassino said, “We need to remember that these drugs were developed in China with a population that may have a side effect profile differing from that of a Western population. Also, we are very familiar with this class of drugs and know how to treat their side effects. Similar drugs but different populations and different trials, so it’s very hard to judge.”
Dr. Garassino speculated that with the “super expensive” price tags on the new checkpoint inhibitors, having additional agents that could provide choice and drive prices down would be welcome.
ORIENT-3 was funded by Innovent Biologics and Eli Lilly. Dr. Shi disclosed consultancy for Innovent Biologics. Dr. Garassino disclosed relationships with Eli Lilly, AstraZeneca, Novartis, and several other companies, not including Innovent Biologics.
Sintilimab improved both overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS), according to Yuankai Shi, MD, of the Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences & Peking Union Medical College in Beijing.
Dr. Shi presented these findings, from the ORIENT-3 study, at the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2021: Week 1 (Abstract CT041).
ORIENT-3 enrolled and randomized 290 patients with stage IIIB/IIIC or IV sqNSCLC and disease progression during or after first-line platimum-based chemotherapy. They were randomized 1:1 to receive sintilimab at 200 mg or docetaxel at 75 mg/m2intravenously every 3 weeks until disease progression or intolerable toxicity.
The median age was 60 years in the sintilimab arm and 61 years in the docetaxel arm. A majority of patients were men (94% in the sintilimab arm and 90% in the docetaxel arm), most were current or former smokers (90% and 80%, respectively), and more than three-quarters had an ECOG performance status of 1 (76% and 77%, respectively). More than half of patients had a PD-L1 tumor proportion score (TPS) of 1% or greater (57% and 47%, respectively), and 81% of patients in both arms had stage IV disease.
Results: Survival and safety
Patients in the sintilimab arm received a median of 8.0 cycles of therapy (range, 1-45), and those in the docetaxel arm received a median of 2.0 cycles of therapy (range, 1-15).
At a median follow-up of 23.56 months, the median OS was significantly longer in the sintilimab arm than in the docetaxel arm – 11.79 months and 8.25 months, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.74; P = .02489). OS benefits were generally consistent across subgroups.
The secondary endpoints of PFS and objective response rate also favored sintilimab, Dr. Shi reported.
The median PFS was 4.30 months in the sintilimab arm and 2.79 months in the docetaxel arm (HR, 0.52; P < .00001). Confirmed objective response rates were 25.5% and 2.2%, respectively; the median duration of response was 12.45 months and 4.14 months, respectively; and disease control rates were 65.5% and 37.8%, respectively.
“Sintilimab had a favorable safety profile over docetaxel, with a lower frequency of grade 3 or higher treatment-related adverse events, with no new safety signals observed,” Dr. Shi said.
Treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) occurred in 84.7% of patients receiving sintilimab and 83.1% of those receiving docetaxel. Hypothyroidism was the most common TRAE in the sintilimab arm (18.1%), and alopecia was the most common TRAE in the docetaxel arm (34.6%).
Grade 3 or higher TRAEs were less frequent in the sintilimab arm than in the docetaxel arm (18.1% vs. 36.2%). Rates of discontinuation because of TRAEs were 12.5% and 5.4% in the sintilimab and docetaxel arms, respectively. TRAEs leading to death occurred in five patients in the sintilimab arm and one in the docetaxel arm.
Use in the real world
Noting sintilimab’s significant OS and PFS benefits as well as superior response rate and duration of response, Dr. Shi concluded, “Sintilimab might provide an alternative second-line treatment option for advanced and metastatic sqNSCLC.”
AACR moderator Marina Garassino, MD, of the University of Chicago, commented on the potential utility of sintilimab and tislelizumab, another checkpoint inhibitor that was evaluated in NSCLC in the RATIONALE 303 trial (AACR 2021, Abstract CT039). Dr. Garassino observed that both drugs have demonstrated superiority to docetaxel as second-line therapy in NSCLC.
Although there have been no head-to-head trials, sintilimab and tislelizumab appear to be very similar to the already approved immune checkpoint inhibitors, which are currently being used as first-line treatment.
“That similarity would make them inappropriate for second-line treatment, except in countries where immune checkpoint inhibitors are not yet approved for first-line therapy,” Dr. Garassino noted.
When asked to comment on the higher treatment-related death rate observed with sintilimab, Dr. Garassino said, “We need to remember that these drugs were developed in China with a population that may have a side effect profile differing from that of a Western population. Also, we are very familiar with this class of drugs and know how to treat their side effects. Similar drugs but different populations and different trials, so it’s very hard to judge.”
Dr. Garassino speculated that with the “super expensive” price tags on the new checkpoint inhibitors, having additional agents that could provide choice and drive prices down would be welcome.
ORIENT-3 was funded by Innovent Biologics and Eli Lilly. Dr. Shi disclosed consultancy for Innovent Biologics. Dr. Garassino disclosed relationships with Eli Lilly, AstraZeneca, Novartis, and several other companies, not including Innovent Biologics.
FROM AACR 2021
Pfizer developing pill to treat COVID-19 symptoms
“If all goes well, and we implement the same speed that we are, and if regulators do the same, and they are, I hope that (it will be available) by the end of the year,” Dr. Bourla said on CNBC’s Squawk Box.
So far, the only antiviral drug authorized for use with COVID-19 is remdesivir, which is produced by Gilead Sciences and must be administered by injection in a health care setting.
An oral drug like the one Pfizer is developing could be taken at home and might keep people out of the hospital.
“Particular attention is on the oral because it provides several advantages,” Dr. Bourla said. “One of them is that you don’t need to go to the hospital to get the treatment, which is the case with all the injectables so far. You could get it at home, and that could be a game-changer.”
The drug might be effective against the emerging variants, he said. Pfizer is also working on an injectable antiviral drug.
Pfizer, with its European partner BioNTech, developed the first coronavirus vaccine authorized for use in the United States and Europe. The Pfizer pill under development would not be a vaccine to protect people from the virus but a drug to treat people who catch the virus.
The company announced in late March that it was starting clinical trials on the oral drug.
In a news release, the company said the oral drug would work by blocking protease, a critical enzyme that the virus needs to replicate. Protease inhibitors are used in medicines to treat HIV and hepatitis C.
A coronavirus vaccine that could be taken as a pill may enter clinical trials in the second quarter of 2021. The oral vaccine is being developed by Oravax Medical, a new joint venture of the Israeli-American company Oramed and the Indian company Premas Biotech. So far, all coronavirus vaccines are injectable.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
“If all goes well, and we implement the same speed that we are, and if regulators do the same, and they are, I hope that (it will be available) by the end of the year,” Dr. Bourla said on CNBC’s Squawk Box.
So far, the only antiviral drug authorized for use with COVID-19 is remdesivir, which is produced by Gilead Sciences and must be administered by injection in a health care setting.
An oral drug like the one Pfizer is developing could be taken at home and might keep people out of the hospital.
“Particular attention is on the oral because it provides several advantages,” Dr. Bourla said. “One of them is that you don’t need to go to the hospital to get the treatment, which is the case with all the injectables so far. You could get it at home, and that could be a game-changer.”
The drug might be effective against the emerging variants, he said. Pfizer is also working on an injectable antiviral drug.
Pfizer, with its European partner BioNTech, developed the first coronavirus vaccine authorized for use in the United States and Europe. The Pfizer pill under development would not be a vaccine to protect people from the virus but a drug to treat people who catch the virus.
The company announced in late March that it was starting clinical trials on the oral drug.
In a news release, the company said the oral drug would work by blocking protease, a critical enzyme that the virus needs to replicate. Protease inhibitors are used in medicines to treat HIV and hepatitis C.
A coronavirus vaccine that could be taken as a pill may enter clinical trials in the second quarter of 2021. The oral vaccine is being developed by Oravax Medical, a new joint venture of the Israeli-American company Oramed and the Indian company Premas Biotech. So far, all coronavirus vaccines are injectable.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
“If all goes well, and we implement the same speed that we are, and if regulators do the same, and they are, I hope that (it will be available) by the end of the year,” Dr. Bourla said on CNBC’s Squawk Box.
So far, the only antiviral drug authorized for use with COVID-19 is remdesivir, which is produced by Gilead Sciences and must be administered by injection in a health care setting.
An oral drug like the one Pfizer is developing could be taken at home and might keep people out of the hospital.
“Particular attention is on the oral because it provides several advantages,” Dr. Bourla said. “One of them is that you don’t need to go to the hospital to get the treatment, which is the case with all the injectables so far. You could get it at home, and that could be a game-changer.”
The drug might be effective against the emerging variants, he said. Pfizer is also working on an injectable antiviral drug.
Pfizer, with its European partner BioNTech, developed the first coronavirus vaccine authorized for use in the United States and Europe. The Pfizer pill under development would not be a vaccine to protect people from the virus but a drug to treat people who catch the virus.
The company announced in late March that it was starting clinical trials on the oral drug.
In a news release, the company said the oral drug would work by blocking protease, a critical enzyme that the virus needs to replicate. Protease inhibitors are used in medicines to treat HIV and hepatitis C.
A coronavirus vaccine that could be taken as a pill may enter clinical trials in the second quarter of 2021. The oral vaccine is being developed by Oravax Medical, a new joint venture of the Israeli-American company Oramed and the Indian company Premas Biotech. So far, all coronavirus vaccines are injectable.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
Some MS treatments may heighten COVID risk
, according to a new analysis of an Italian cohort of patients with MS. The study confirmed that steroid exposure in the month before COVID-19 symptom onset is tied to more severe disease, and anti-CD20 therapy poses similar risks. But the researchers noted that interferon and possibly teriflunomide were associated with a protective effect in the multivariate analysis.
Maria Pia Sormani, PhD, who is a professor of biostatistics at the University of Genoa, presented the study at the 2021 annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology.
The results confirm some previous analyses, and add to the body of evidence clinicians rely on, according to Jiwon Oh, MD, PhD, who moderated the session. “These data about the risk with the anti-CD20 therapies have been around for a while, but it seems that risk is pretty apparent, with this registry and other registries around the world. It affects counseling to patients on anti-CD20 therapies. We would counsel them to be cautious, obviously, follow public health precautions, but maybe be even more cautious. It affects our recommendations about the urgency of vaccination in these folks, how high priority they should be,” Dr. Oh said in an interview. She is the clinical director of the Barlo MS Center at St. Michael’s Unity Health in Toronto.
The analysis also hinted at complexities within demographics that might help explain some of the differing outcomes of infections. “We have learned that the course of the viral infection per se may not be the cause of severe outcomes, but the exaggerated inflammatory response to the virus is mainly responsible for intubations and deaths. The hypothesis we are investigating is whether anti-CD20 therapies can cause a more severe viral infection (that is something already known for other viral infections) but do not play a crucial role in causing the explosion of the inflammatory process,” said Dr. Sormani in an email.
The group plans to look at the risk of anti-CD20 therapies in different age groups, “to try to understand the underlying mechanism through which anti-CD20 increases the risk of more severe outcome,” she said.
Dr. Sormani presented an analysis of 3,274 patients with MS who contracted COVID-19 in Italy. The mean age was 44, the median Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) score was 2, Among the study cohort, 68.6% were female; 14% had progressive MS and 26 patients died. Patients who died had a mean age of 63, 48% were female, 73% had progressive MS, and 50% were not on any DMT.
The researchers used ordinal logistic regression that “orders” outcome on a severity scale of 0 (mild disease, no pneumonia or hospitalization), 1 (pneumonia or hospitalization, n = 184), or 2 (ICU admission or death, n = 36). They calculated the odds ratio of moving from 0 to 1, or 1 to 2, and carried the assumption that the risk is the same. For example, an odds ratio of 2 for males versus females would mean that males are twice as likely to be hospitalized and twice as likely to go from being hospitalized to going to the ICU or dying.
The researchers found that older age, male sex, and comorbidities increase risk of worse COVID-19 outcomes. Exposure to methylprednisolone 1 month before COVID-19 symptom onset carried an increased risk (OR, 2.33; P = .03). Compared with no therapy, receiving interferon was associated with lower risk (OR, 0.34; P = .009) and teriflunomide trended towards an association with better outcomes (OR, 0.49; P = .054). Anti-CD20 treatment (ocrelizumab or rituximab) was linked to worse outcomes (OR, 1.89; P = .012) overall, which held up when ocrelizumab (OR, 1.71; P = .04) and rituximab (OR, 2.77; P = .03) were considered separately.
To understand why the risk of ocrelizumab might be lower, the researchers examined risk by duration of anti-CD20 treatment, and found that risk increased with increased duration of treatment, with the lowest risk at treatment duration less than 6 months (OR, 1.56; 95% CI, 0.65-3.77; not significant), followed by 6 months to 1 year (OR, 1.68; 95% CI, 0.69-4.03; P < .001), 1-2 years (OR, 1.74; 95% CI, 0.83-3.64; trend), and the highest risk at more than 2 years (OR, 2.75; 95% CI, 1.28-5.88).
Dr. Sormani suggested that the greater risk associated with rituximab may be because of a tendency towards longer treatment length, since patients treated with rituximab were more often treated for greater lengths of time; 11% had been treated for 6 months or less (vs. 24% of ocrelizumab patients); 26%, 6-12 months (vs. 18% ocrelizumab); 19%, 1-2 years (vs. 37% ocrelizumab); and 44%, 2 years or longer (vs. 21% ocrelizumab).
Dr. Sormani has received consulting fees from Biogen, GeNeuro, Genzyme, MedDay, Merck KGaA, Novartis, Roche, and Immunic. The platform for data collection was donated by Merck. Dr. Oh has consulted for Roche, Celgene, Biogen-Idec, EMD-Serono, Sanofi-Genzyme, Novartis, Alexion. She has been on a scientific advisory or data safety monitoring board for Roche, Biogen-Idec, and Sanofi-Genzyme.
, according to a new analysis of an Italian cohort of patients with MS. The study confirmed that steroid exposure in the month before COVID-19 symptom onset is tied to more severe disease, and anti-CD20 therapy poses similar risks. But the researchers noted that interferon and possibly teriflunomide were associated with a protective effect in the multivariate analysis.
Maria Pia Sormani, PhD, who is a professor of biostatistics at the University of Genoa, presented the study at the 2021 annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology.
The results confirm some previous analyses, and add to the body of evidence clinicians rely on, according to Jiwon Oh, MD, PhD, who moderated the session. “These data about the risk with the anti-CD20 therapies have been around for a while, but it seems that risk is pretty apparent, with this registry and other registries around the world. It affects counseling to patients on anti-CD20 therapies. We would counsel them to be cautious, obviously, follow public health precautions, but maybe be even more cautious. It affects our recommendations about the urgency of vaccination in these folks, how high priority they should be,” Dr. Oh said in an interview. She is the clinical director of the Barlo MS Center at St. Michael’s Unity Health in Toronto.
The analysis also hinted at complexities within demographics that might help explain some of the differing outcomes of infections. “We have learned that the course of the viral infection per se may not be the cause of severe outcomes, but the exaggerated inflammatory response to the virus is mainly responsible for intubations and deaths. The hypothesis we are investigating is whether anti-CD20 therapies can cause a more severe viral infection (that is something already known for other viral infections) but do not play a crucial role in causing the explosion of the inflammatory process,” said Dr. Sormani in an email.
The group plans to look at the risk of anti-CD20 therapies in different age groups, “to try to understand the underlying mechanism through which anti-CD20 increases the risk of more severe outcome,” she said.
Dr. Sormani presented an analysis of 3,274 patients with MS who contracted COVID-19 in Italy. The mean age was 44, the median Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) score was 2, Among the study cohort, 68.6% were female; 14% had progressive MS and 26 patients died. Patients who died had a mean age of 63, 48% were female, 73% had progressive MS, and 50% were not on any DMT.
The researchers used ordinal logistic regression that “orders” outcome on a severity scale of 0 (mild disease, no pneumonia or hospitalization), 1 (pneumonia or hospitalization, n = 184), or 2 (ICU admission or death, n = 36). They calculated the odds ratio of moving from 0 to 1, or 1 to 2, and carried the assumption that the risk is the same. For example, an odds ratio of 2 for males versus females would mean that males are twice as likely to be hospitalized and twice as likely to go from being hospitalized to going to the ICU or dying.
The researchers found that older age, male sex, and comorbidities increase risk of worse COVID-19 outcomes. Exposure to methylprednisolone 1 month before COVID-19 symptom onset carried an increased risk (OR, 2.33; P = .03). Compared with no therapy, receiving interferon was associated with lower risk (OR, 0.34; P = .009) and teriflunomide trended towards an association with better outcomes (OR, 0.49; P = .054). Anti-CD20 treatment (ocrelizumab or rituximab) was linked to worse outcomes (OR, 1.89; P = .012) overall, which held up when ocrelizumab (OR, 1.71; P = .04) and rituximab (OR, 2.77; P = .03) were considered separately.
To understand why the risk of ocrelizumab might be lower, the researchers examined risk by duration of anti-CD20 treatment, and found that risk increased with increased duration of treatment, with the lowest risk at treatment duration less than 6 months (OR, 1.56; 95% CI, 0.65-3.77; not significant), followed by 6 months to 1 year (OR, 1.68; 95% CI, 0.69-4.03; P < .001), 1-2 years (OR, 1.74; 95% CI, 0.83-3.64; trend), and the highest risk at more than 2 years (OR, 2.75; 95% CI, 1.28-5.88).
Dr. Sormani suggested that the greater risk associated with rituximab may be because of a tendency towards longer treatment length, since patients treated with rituximab were more often treated for greater lengths of time; 11% had been treated for 6 months or less (vs. 24% of ocrelizumab patients); 26%, 6-12 months (vs. 18% ocrelizumab); 19%, 1-2 years (vs. 37% ocrelizumab); and 44%, 2 years or longer (vs. 21% ocrelizumab).
Dr. Sormani has received consulting fees from Biogen, GeNeuro, Genzyme, MedDay, Merck KGaA, Novartis, Roche, and Immunic. The platform for data collection was donated by Merck. Dr. Oh has consulted for Roche, Celgene, Biogen-Idec, EMD-Serono, Sanofi-Genzyme, Novartis, Alexion. She has been on a scientific advisory or data safety monitoring board for Roche, Biogen-Idec, and Sanofi-Genzyme.
, according to a new analysis of an Italian cohort of patients with MS. The study confirmed that steroid exposure in the month before COVID-19 symptom onset is tied to more severe disease, and anti-CD20 therapy poses similar risks. But the researchers noted that interferon and possibly teriflunomide were associated with a protective effect in the multivariate analysis.
Maria Pia Sormani, PhD, who is a professor of biostatistics at the University of Genoa, presented the study at the 2021 annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology.
The results confirm some previous analyses, and add to the body of evidence clinicians rely on, according to Jiwon Oh, MD, PhD, who moderated the session. “These data about the risk with the anti-CD20 therapies have been around for a while, but it seems that risk is pretty apparent, with this registry and other registries around the world. It affects counseling to patients on anti-CD20 therapies. We would counsel them to be cautious, obviously, follow public health precautions, but maybe be even more cautious. It affects our recommendations about the urgency of vaccination in these folks, how high priority they should be,” Dr. Oh said in an interview. She is the clinical director of the Barlo MS Center at St. Michael’s Unity Health in Toronto.
The analysis also hinted at complexities within demographics that might help explain some of the differing outcomes of infections. “We have learned that the course of the viral infection per se may not be the cause of severe outcomes, but the exaggerated inflammatory response to the virus is mainly responsible for intubations and deaths. The hypothesis we are investigating is whether anti-CD20 therapies can cause a more severe viral infection (that is something already known for other viral infections) but do not play a crucial role in causing the explosion of the inflammatory process,” said Dr. Sormani in an email.
The group plans to look at the risk of anti-CD20 therapies in different age groups, “to try to understand the underlying mechanism through which anti-CD20 increases the risk of more severe outcome,” she said.
Dr. Sormani presented an analysis of 3,274 patients with MS who contracted COVID-19 in Italy. The mean age was 44, the median Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) score was 2, Among the study cohort, 68.6% were female; 14% had progressive MS and 26 patients died. Patients who died had a mean age of 63, 48% were female, 73% had progressive MS, and 50% were not on any DMT.
The researchers used ordinal logistic regression that “orders” outcome on a severity scale of 0 (mild disease, no pneumonia or hospitalization), 1 (pneumonia or hospitalization, n = 184), or 2 (ICU admission or death, n = 36). They calculated the odds ratio of moving from 0 to 1, or 1 to 2, and carried the assumption that the risk is the same. For example, an odds ratio of 2 for males versus females would mean that males are twice as likely to be hospitalized and twice as likely to go from being hospitalized to going to the ICU or dying.
The researchers found that older age, male sex, and comorbidities increase risk of worse COVID-19 outcomes. Exposure to methylprednisolone 1 month before COVID-19 symptom onset carried an increased risk (OR, 2.33; P = .03). Compared with no therapy, receiving interferon was associated with lower risk (OR, 0.34; P = .009) and teriflunomide trended towards an association with better outcomes (OR, 0.49; P = .054). Anti-CD20 treatment (ocrelizumab or rituximab) was linked to worse outcomes (OR, 1.89; P = .012) overall, which held up when ocrelizumab (OR, 1.71; P = .04) and rituximab (OR, 2.77; P = .03) were considered separately.
To understand why the risk of ocrelizumab might be lower, the researchers examined risk by duration of anti-CD20 treatment, and found that risk increased with increased duration of treatment, with the lowest risk at treatment duration less than 6 months (OR, 1.56; 95% CI, 0.65-3.77; not significant), followed by 6 months to 1 year (OR, 1.68; 95% CI, 0.69-4.03; P < .001), 1-2 years (OR, 1.74; 95% CI, 0.83-3.64; trend), and the highest risk at more than 2 years (OR, 2.75; 95% CI, 1.28-5.88).
Dr. Sormani suggested that the greater risk associated with rituximab may be because of a tendency towards longer treatment length, since patients treated with rituximab were more often treated for greater lengths of time; 11% had been treated for 6 months or less (vs. 24% of ocrelizumab patients); 26%, 6-12 months (vs. 18% ocrelizumab); 19%, 1-2 years (vs. 37% ocrelizumab); and 44%, 2 years or longer (vs. 21% ocrelizumab).
Dr. Sormani has received consulting fees from Biogen, GeNeuro, Genzyme, MedDay, Merck KGaA, Novartis, Roche, and Immunic. The platform for data collection was donated by Merck. Dr. Oh has consulted for Roche, Celgene, Biogen-Idec, EMD-Serono, Sanofi-Genzyme, Novartis, Alexion. She has been on a scientific advisory or data safety monitoring board for Roche, Biogen-Idec, and Sanofi-Genzyme.
FROM AAN 2021
Line of therapy matters for assessing biologic’s serious infection risk in RA
The order in which tocilizumab (Actemra) is used in the sequence of treatments for rheumatoid arthritis could be muddying the waters when it comes to evaluating patients’ risk for serious infection.
According to new data emerging from the British Society for Rheumatology Biologics Register – Rheumatoid Arthritis (BSRBR-RA), the line of therapy is a confounding factor when examining the risk for serious infection with not only tocilizumab but also other biologic agents.
The good news for patients, however, is that there doesn’t appear to be any overall greater risk for serious infection with one biologic over another when the line of therapy is taken into account.
“We don’t have any strong signal that there is an increased risk of serious infections with tocilizumab, compared to TNF inhibitors,” rheumatologist Kim Lauper, MD, of Geneva University Hospitals, said in an interview after presenting the data at the annual conference of the British Society for Rheumatology.
This is in contrast to studies where an increased risk of infections with tocilizumab has been seen when compared to TNF inhibitors. However, those studies did not account for the line of therapy, explained Dr. Lauper, who is also a clinical research fellow in the Centre for Epidemiology Versus Arthritis at the University of Manchester (England), where the BSRBR-RA is managed.
“Tocilizumab is a treatment that we often give to patients after several other treatments, so they’re really different patients,” Dr. Lauper observed. Indeed, in the “real-world” setting, patients taking tocilizumab tend to be older, have longer disease duration, and have worse functional status than do those who might receive other biologics.
To look at the effect of line of therapy on the serious infection risk associated with commonly used biologic drugs, Dr. Lauper and associates examined data on more than 33,000 treatment courses, representing more than 62,500 patient-years.
Using etanercept as the comparator – because it represents the largest group of patients in the BSRBR-RA – the serious infection risk for tocilizumab, rituximab, adalimumab, infliximab, certolizumab pegol, and abatacept were calculated as an overall rate, and for their use as first-, second-, third-, fourth-, or fifth-line therapy.
The researchers adjusted their analysis for some clear baseline differences between the treatment groups, including age, prior treatment, disease duration, and comorbidities. Seropositivity, smoking status, general health status, and disease activity scores were also adjusted for in the analysis.
Crude hazard ratios (HRs), compared with etanercept, before and after adjusting for these already-known confounding factors were 1.0 and 1.2 for tocilizumab, 1.1 and 1.1 for adalimumab, 1.4 and 1.3 for infliximab, 0.6 and 0.8 for certolizumab pegol, 0.9 and 1.0 for rituximab, and 0.9 and 1.2 for abatacept.
Stratifying by line of therapy, however, changed the results: HRs were no longer significantly different, compared with etanercept, for tocilizumab, adalimumab, and infliximab for most lines of therapy.
Indeed, while the risk for serious infection occurring with tocilizumab was 20% higher overall, compared with etanercept, that risk was actually lower if tocilizumab had been used as first- or fifth-line therapy (HRs for both, 0.9) but higher if it had been used as a third- or fourth-line therapy (HR of 1.4 for both).
“We often use tocilizumab as a second-line, third-line, or even fourth-line therapy, and if we don’t adjust for anything, we can have the impression that there are more infections with tocilizumab. But then, when we adjust for confounding factors and the line of therapy, we don’t have this anymore,” Dr. Lauper said.
“Line of therapy in itself is not a risk for serious infections,” she said in qualifying the conclusions that could be drawn from the study. “It may be a marker of the disease or some patient characteristic that is associated with a higher risk of infections.” Nevertheless, it should be taken into account when evaluating serious outcomes and possibly other safety and effectiveness outcomes.
“I understand concentrating on the hospitalized infections because the data are so much more robust,” observed consultant rheumatologist Jon Packham, BM, DM, of Haywood Hospital in Stoke-on-Trent, England, who chaired the session. He queried if there were any data on milder or just antibiotic-treated infections. At present, there aren’t those data to look at, Dr. Lauper responded, as this is something that’s difficult for registers to capture because doctors often do not log them in the databases.
There are also too few data on Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors currently in the BSRBR-RA at present to be able to look at their rate of serious infection by line of therapy, Dr. Lauper noted. Because JAK inhibitors act on cytokines different from those affected by biologics for RA, there may be a difference there, but more data are needed on the JAK inhibitors before that question can be analyzed.
Dr. Lauper did not state having any disclosures. The BSRBR-RA is funded by the BSR via restricted income grants from several U.K. pharmaceutical companies, which has included or currently includes AbbVie, Celltrion, Hospira, Pfizer, UCB, Roche, Swedish Orphan Biovitrum, and Merck.
The order in which tocilizumab (Actemra) is used in the sequence of treatments for rheumatoid arthritis could be muddying the waters when it comes to evaluating patients’ risk for serious infection.
According to new data emerging from the British Society for Rheumatology Biologics Register – Rheumatoid Arthritis (BSRBR-RA), the line of therapy is a confounding factor when examining the risk for serious infection with not only tocilizumab but also other biologic agents.
The good news for patients, however, is that there doesn’t appear to be any overall greater risk for serious infection with one biologic over another when the line of therapy is taken into account.
“We don’t have any strong signal that there is an increased risk of serious infections with tocilizumab, compared to TNF inhibitors,” rheumatologist Kim Lauper, MD, of Geneva University Hospitals, said in an interview after presenting the data at the annual conference of the British Society for Rheumatology.
This is in contrast to studies where an increased risk of infections with tocilizumab has been seen when compared to TNF inhibitors. However, those studies did not account for the line of therapy, explained Dr. Lauper, who is also a clinical research fellow in the Centre for Epidemiology Versus Arthritis at the University of Manchester (England), where the BSRBR-RA is managed.
“Tocilizumab is a treatment that we often give to patients after several other treatments, so they’re really different patients,” Dr. Lauper observed. Indeed, in the “real-world” setting, patients taking tocilizumab tend to be older, have longer disease duration, and have worse functional status than do those who might receive other biologics.
To look at the effect of line of therapy on the serious infection risk associated with commonly used biologic drugs, Dr. Lauper and associates examined data on more than 33,000 treatment courses, representing more than 62,500 patient-years.
Using etanercept as the comparator – because it represents the largest group of patients in the BSRBR-RA – the serious infection risk for tocilizumab, rituximab, adalimumab, infliximab, certolizumab pegol, and abatacept were calculated as an overall rate, and for their use as first-, second-, third-, fourth-, or fifth-line therapy.
The researchers adjusted their analysis for some clear baseline differences between the treatment groups, including age, prior treatment, disease duration, and comorbidities. Seropositivity, smoking status, general health status, and disease activity scores were also adjusted for in the analysis.
Crude hazard ratios (HRs), compared with etanercept, before and after adjusting for these already-known confounding factors were 1.0 and 1.2 for tocilizumab, 1.1 and 1.1 for adalimumab, 1.4 and 1.3 for infliximab, 0.6 and 0.8 for certolizumab pegol, 0.9 and 1.0 for rituximab, and 0.9 and 1.2 for abatacept.
Stratifying by line of therapy, however, changed the results: HRs were no longer significantly different, compared with etanercept, for tocilizumab, adalimumab, and infliximab for most lines of therapy.
Indeed, while the risk for serious infection occurring with tocilizumab was 20% higher overall, compared with etanercept, that risk was actually lower if tocilizumab had been used as first- or fifth-line therapy (HRs for both, 0.9) but higher if it had been used as a third- or fourth-line therapy (HR of 1.4 for both).
“We often use tocilizumab as a second-line, third-line, or even fourth-line therapy, and if we don’t adjust for anything, we can have the impression that there are more infections with tocilizumab. But then, when we adjust for confounding factors and the line of therapy, we don’t have this anymore,” Dr. Lauper said.
“Line of therapy in itself is not a risk for serious infections,” she said in qualifying the conclusions that could be drawn from the study. “It may be a marker of the disease or some patient characteristic that is associated with a higher risk of infections.” Nevertheless, it should be taken into account when evaluating serious outcomes and possibly other safety and effectiveness outcomes.
“I understand concentrating on the hospitalized infections because the data are so much more robust,” observed consultant rheumatologist Jon Packham, BM, DM, of Haywood Hospital in Stoke-on-Trent, England, who chaired the session. He queried if there were any data on milder or just antibiotic-treated infections. At present, there aren’t those data to look at, Dr. Lauper responded, as this is something that’s difficult for registers to capture because doctors often do not log them in the databases.
There are also too few data on Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors currently in the BSRBR-RA at present to be able to look at their rate of serious infection by line of therapy, Dr. Lauper noted. Because JAK inhibitors act on cytokines different from those affected by biologics for RA, there may be a difference there, but more data are needed on the JAK inhibitors before that question can be analyzed.
Dr. Lauper did not state having any disclosures. The BSRBR-RA is funded by the BSR via restricted income grants from several U.K. pharmaceutical companies, which has included or currently includes AbbVie, Celltrion, Hospira, Pfizer, UCB, Roche, Swedish Orphan Biovitrum, and Merck.
The order in which tocilizumab (Actemra) is used in the sequence of treatments for rheumatoid arthritis could be muddying the waters when it comes to evaluating patients’ risk for serious infection.
According to new data emerging from the British Society for Rheumatology Biologics Register – Rheumatoid Arthritis (BSRBR-RA), the line of therapy is a confounding factor when examining the risk for serious infection with not only tocilizumab but also other biologic agents.
The good news for patients, however, is that there doesn’t appear to be any overall greater risk for serious infection with one biologic over another when the line of therapy is taken into account.
“We don’t have any strong signal that there is an increased risk of serious infections with tocilizumab, compared to TNF inhibitors,” rheumatologist Kim Lauper, MD, of Geneva University Hospitals, said in an interview after presenting the data at the annual conference of the British Society for Rheumatology.
This is in contrast to studies where an increased risk of infections with tocilizumab has been seen when compared to TNF inhibitors. However, those studies did not account for the line of therapy, explained Dr. Lauper, who is also a clinical research fellow in the Centre for Epidemiology Versus Arthritis at the University of Manchester (England), where the BSRBR-RA is managed.
“Tocilizumab is a treatment that we often give to patients after several other treatments, so they’re really different patients,” Dr. Lauper observed. Indeed, in the “real-world” setting, patients taking tocilizumab tend to be older, have longer disease duration, and have worse functional status than do those who might receive other biologics.
To look at the effect of line of therapy on the serious infection risk associated with commonly used biologic drugs, Dr. Lauper and associates examined data on more than 33,000 treatment courses, representing more than 62,500 patient-years.
Using etanercept as the comparator – because it represents the largest group of patients in the BSRBR-RA – the serious infection risk for tocilizumab, rituximab, adalimumab, infliximab, certolizumab pegol, and abatacept were calculated as an overall rate, and for their use as first-, second-, third-, fourth-, or fifth-line therapy.
The researchers adjusted their analysis for some clear baseline differences between the treatment groups, including age, prior treatment, disease duration, and comorbidities. Seropositivity, smoking status, general health status, and disease activity scores were also adjusted for in the analysis.
Crude hazard ratios (HRs), compared with etanercept, before and after adjusting for these already-known confounding factors were 1.0 and 1.2 for tocilizumab, 1.1 and 1.1 for adalimumab, 1.4 and 1.3 for infliximab, 0.6 and 0.8 for certolizumab pegol, 0.9 and 1.0 for rituximab, and 0.9 and 1.2 for abatacept.
Stratifying by line of therapy, however, changed the results: HRs were no longer significantly different, compared with etanercept, for tocilizumab, adalimumab, and infliximab for most lines of therapy.
Indeed, while the risk for serious infection occurring with tocilizumab was 20% higher overall, compared with etanercept, that risk was actually lower if tocilizumab had been used as first- or fifth-line therapy (HRs for both, 0.9) but higher if it had been used as a third- or fourth-line therapy (HR of 1.4 for both).
“We often use tocilizumab as a second-line, third-line, or even fourth-line therapy, and if we don’t adjust for anything, we can have the impression that there are more infections with tocilizumab. But then, when we adjust for confounding factors and the line of therapy, we don’t have this anymore,” Dr. Lauper said.
“Line of therapy in itself is not a risk for serious infections,” she said in qualifying the conclusions that could be drawn from the study. “It may be a marker of the disease or some patient characteristic that is associated with a higher risk of infections.” Nevertheless, it should be taken into account when evaluating serious outcomes and possibly other safety and effectiveness outcomes.
“I understand concentrating on the hospitalized infections because the data are so much more robust,” observed consultant rheumatologist Jon Packham, BM, DM, of Haywood Hospital in Stoke-on-Trent, England, who chaired the session. He queried if there were any data on milder or just antibiotic-treated infections. At present, there aren’t those data to look at, Dr. Lauper responded, as this is something that’s difficult for registers to capture because doctors often do not log them in the databases.
There are also too few data on Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors currently in the BSRBR-RA at present to be able to look at their rate of serious infection by line of therapy, Dr. Lauper noted. Because JAK inhibitors act on cytokines different from those affected by biologics for RA, there may be a difference there, but more data are needed on the JAK inhibitors before that question can be analyzed.
Dr. Lauper did not state having any disclosures. The BSRBR-RA is funded by the BSR via restricted income grants from several U.K. pharmaceutical companies, which has included or currently includes AbbVie, Celltrion, Hospira, Pfizer, UCB, Roche, Swedish Orphan Biovitrum, and Merck.
FROM BSR 2021
Survival benefit with nivolumab extends to 5 years in NSCLC
Across the two studies – CheckMate 017 and 057 – 854 patients were randomized 1:1 following progression on platinum therapy to either nivolumab at 3 mg/kg once every 2 weeks or docetaxel at 75 mg/m2 once every 3 weeks until further progression or unacceptable toxicity. Previously reported overall survival (OS) outcomes favored nivolumab.
At a minimum follow-up of 5.4 years, 50 nivolumab-treated patients and 9 docetaxel-treated patients were still alive.
The 5-year OS rates were 13.4% in the nivolumab arm and 2.6% in the docetaxel arm. The 5-year progression-free survival (PFS) rates were 8% and 0%, respectively.
There were no new safety signals with nivolumab, and there was no evidence of select late-onset grade 3-4 adverse events.
According to the study authors, this analysis is the longest phase 3 follow-up to date of a PD-1 inhibitor in previously treated, advanced NSCLC, and it suggests that “long-term survival beyond 5 years may ... be possible in NSCLC.”
“The results indicate that some patients with NSCLC can have long-lasting benefit from checkpoint inhibitors. We have seen similar results in terms of long-term OS with pembrolizumab,” said investigator Hossein Borghaei, DO, chief of thoracic medical oncology at the Fox Chase Cancer Center in Philadelphia.
Dr. Borghaei said the question now is “how to identify the population that really benefits from these treatments. We think PD-L1–high [patients] have a better chance, [as do patients with] tumors that have a higher percentage of tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes, but there’s nothing concrete beyond that.”
No baseline clinical or tumor factors emerged to distinguish between long-and short-term survivors, but the 5-year OS rate was 18.3% among nivolumab-treated patients with PD-L1 expression at or above 1% versus 8% among patients with expression below 1%.
The optimal duration of nivolumab treatment beyond 1 year is also uncertain.
The median duration of therapy was 36.9 months in the 5-year survivors treated with nivolumab, and 36% of patients (18/50) were still on nivolumab at the 5-year mark.
The median duration of time off treatment was 41.9 months among patients who discontinued nivolumab. Five patients (10%) were off treatment with no subsequent therapy and had not progressed at 5 years, “suggesting benefit even for patients who stopped nivolumab treatment,” the researchers wrote.
They also found that nivolumab-treated patients who remained alive at 3 years appeared to stabilize and plateau thereafter, with early response suggesting better long-term outcomes. The majority of patients without disease progression at 2, 3, and 4 years, for instance, remained progression free at 5 years. Nearly one-third of patients who achieved an objective response with nivolumab – but none of the patients who responded to docetaxel – had ongoing responses at 5 years.
Similarly, nivolumab-treated patients without disease progression at 2 years and 3 years had an 82% and 93% chance of survival, respectively, and a 59.6% and 78.3% chance of remaining progression free at 5 years.
This research was funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb. Dr. Borghaei and coauthors disclosed numerous ties to the company, including employment.
Across the two studies – CheckMate 017 and 057 – 854 patients were randomized 1:1 following progression on platinum therapy to either nivolumab at 3 mg/kg once every 2 weeks or docetaxel at 75 mg/m2 once every 3 weeks until further progression or unacceptable toxicity. Previously reported overall survival (OS) outcomes favored nivolumab.
At a minimum follow-up of 5.4 years, 50 nivolumab-treated patients and 9 docetaxel-treated patients were still alive.
The 5-year OS rates were 13.4% in the nivolumab arm and 2.6% in the docetaxel arm. The 5-year progression-free survival (PFS) rates were 8% and 0%, respectively.
There were no new safety signals with nivolumab, and there was no evidence of select late-onset grade 3-4 adverse events.
According to the study authors, this analysis is the longest phase 3 follow-up to date of a PD-1 inhibitor in previously treated, advanced NSCLC, and it suggests that “long-term survival beyond 5 years may ... be possible in NSCLC.”
“The results indicate that some patients with NSCLC can have long-lasting benefit from checkpoint inhibitors. We have seen similar results in terms of long-term OS with pembrolizumab,” said investigator Hossein Borghaei, DO, chief of thoracic medical oncology at the Fox Chase Cancer Center in Philadelphia.
Dr. Borghaei said the question now is “how to identify the population that really benefits from these treatments. We think PD-L1–high [patients] have a better chance, [as do patients with] tumors that have a higher percentage of tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes, but there’s nothing concrete beyond that.”
No baseline clinical or tumor factors emerged to distinguish between long-and short-term survivors, but the 5-year OS rate was 18.3% among nivolumab-treated patients with PD-L1 expression at or above 1% versus 8% among patients with expression below 1%.
The optimal duration of nivolumab treatment beyond 1 year is also uncertain.
The median duration of therapy was 36.9 months in the 5-year survivors treated with nivolumab, and 36% of patients (18/50) were still on nivolumab at the 5-year mark.
The median duration of time off treatment was 41.9 months among patients who discontinued nivolumab. Five patients (10%) were off treatment with no subsequent therapy and had not progressed at 5 years, “suggesting benefit even for patients who stopped nivolumab treatment,” the researchers wrote.
They also found that nivolumab-treated patients who remained alive at 3 years appeared to stabilize and plateau thereafter, with early response suggesting better long-term outcomes. The majority of patients without disease progression at 2, 3, and 4 years, for instance, remained progression free at 5 years. Nearly one-third of patients who achieved an objective response with nivolumab – but none of the patients who responded to docetaxel – had ongoing responses at 5 years.
Similarly, nivolumab-treated patients without disease progression at 2 years and 3 years had an 82% and 93% chance of survival, respectively, and a 59.6% and 78.3% chance of remaining progression free at 5 years.
This research was funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb. Dr. Borghaei and coauthors disclosed numerous ties to the company, including employment.
Across the two studies – CheckMate 017 and 057 – 854 patients were randomized 1:1 following progression on platinum therapy to either nivolumab at 3 mg/kg once every 2 weeks or docetaxel at 75 mg/m2 once every 3 weeks until further progression or unacceptable toxicity. Previously reported overall survival (OS) outcomes favored nivolumab.
At a minimum follow-up of 5.4 years, 50 nivolumab-treated patients and 9 docetaxel-treated patients were still alive.
The 5-year OS rates were 13.4% in the nivolumab arm and 2.6% in the docetaxel arm. The 5-year progression-free survival (PFS) rates were 8% and 0%, respectively.
There were no new safety signals with nivolumab, and there was no evidence of select late-onset grade 3-4 adverse events.
According to the study authors, this analysis is the longest phase 3 follow-up to date of a PD-1 inhibitor in previously treated, advanced NSCLC, and it suggests that “long-term survival beyond 5 years may ... be possible in NSCLC.”
“The results indicate that some patients with NSCLC can have long-lasting benefit from checkpoint inhibitors. We have seen similar results in terms of long-term OS with pembrolizumab,” said investigator Hossein Borghaei, DO, chief of thoracic medical oncology at the Fox Chase Cancer Center in Philadelphia.
Dr. Borghaei said the question now is “how to identify the population that really benefits from these treatments. We think PD-L1–high [patients] have a better chance, [as do patients with] tumors that have a higher percentage of tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes, but there’s nothing concrete beyond that.”
No baseline clinical or tumor factors emerged to distinguish between long-and short-term survivors, but the 5-year OS rate was 18.3% among nivolumab-treated patients with PD-L1 expression at or above 1% versus 8% among patients with expression below 1%.
The optimal duration of nivolumab treatment beyond 1 year is also uncertain.
The median duration of therapy was 36.9 months in the 5-year survivors treated with nivolumab, and 36% of patients (18/50) were still on nivolumab at the 5-year mark.
The median duration of time off treatment was 41.9 months among patients who discontinued nivolumab. Five patients (10%) were off treatment with no subsequent therapy and had not progressed at 5 years, “suggesting benefit even for patients who stopped nivolumab treatment,” the researchers wrote.
They also found that nivolumab-treated patients who remained alive at 3 years appeared to stabilize and plateau thereafter, with early response suggesting better long-term outcomes. The majority of patients without disease progression at 2, 3, and 4 years, for instance, remained progression free at 5 years. Nearly one-third of patients who achieved an objective response with nivolumab – but none of the patients who responded to docetaxel – had ongoing responses at 5 years.
Similarly, nivolumab-treated patients without disease progression at 2 years and 3 years had an 82% and 93% chance of survival, respectively, and a 59.6% and 78.3% chance of remaining progression free at 5 years.
This research was funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb. Dr. Borghaei and coauthors disclosed numerous ties to the company, including employment.
FROM THE JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY