User login
Psilocybin matches SSRI for moderate to severe depression in phase 2 study
The psychedelic drug psilocybin performed just as well as a widely used antidepressant in easing the symptoms of major depression, and outperformed the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor on a range of secondary measures, results of a small-scale, phase 2 study show.
In a 6-week trial that included 59 patients with moderate to severe depression, there was no significant difference between the impact of high-dose psilocybin on the study’s primary yardstick – the 16-item Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology–Self-Report – and that of the SSRI escitalopram.
Patients in the psilocybin cohort did show a much more rapid improvement in the main measure than those taking escitalopram, but this gap narrowed over the span of the trial until it was no longer statistically significant.
“It’s very clear that psilocybin therapy has a faster antidepressant onset than escitalopram. And psilocybin was consistently superior on the ancillary outcomes, but it wasn’t different on the primary,” the study’s lead author Robin Carhart-Harris, PhD, head of the Centre for Psychedelic Research at Imperial College London, told reporters attending a news briefing.
Results of the phase 2, double-blind, randomized study were published online April 15, 2021, in the New England Journal of Medicine.
Secondary outcomes
Investigators found that psilocybin bested escitalopram in several secondary outcomes, including feelings of well-being, the ability to express emotion, and social functioning.
Still, Larger and longer trials are required.
“But the secondaries were highly suggestive – tantalizingly suggestive – of the potential superiority of psilocybin therapy to treat not just depression, but these ancillary symptoms,” Dr. Carhart-Harris said.
After they were selected from 1000 screening calls, the 59 patients were randomly assigned to receive psilocybin and 29 patients to receive escitalopram. Every procedure was mirrored in both groups.
At the 2 “dosing days” scheduled during the 6-week trial, all patients received an oral dose of psilocybin in a clinical setting. However, the escitalopram group received 1 mg versus 25 mg for the psilocybin group.
“And the reason why we did that is because we can standardize expectation. We say to everyone, you will receive psilocybin. It’s just the dosage might differ,” Dr. Carhart-Harris said.
He conceded that most patients – though not all – were able to determine which group they were in following the first dosing day based on the drugs’ effects.
Supportive therapy
Following the oral dose, volunteers would spend 6 hours reclining on a bed, surrounded by pillows and a curated selection of music and supported by two “guides” or therapists. The guides were on hand to support patients through their psychedelic experience but did not chat or otherwise interfere.
The next day, patients attended a session with their two therapists to talk through their experiences.
Between dosing days, patients in the high-dose psilocybin group would take daily capsules containing a placebo. The low-dose group received a course of escitalopram.
The incidence of adverse effects was similar in each group. None was serious.
The study’s principal investigator David Nutt, DM, FRCP, FRCPsych, FSB, FMedSci, the Edmond J. Safra Chair in Neuropsychopharmacology at Imperial College London, said that many patients in the psilocybin group reported revelatory insights during dosing days.
“Very often, for the first time, people have actually come to understand why they’re depressed,” he said.
The word psychedelic, coined in 1957 by psychiatrist Humphry Osmond, derives from the Greek words “psyche,” which means “soul” or “mind,” and “delos,” which means “reveal.”
'Profound experiences'
Certainly, patients in the psilocybin group received enough of the compound to induce what Dr. Carhart-Harris called “very profound experiences.”
The researchers said that the results, while promising, should not encourage anyone to self-medicate with psychedelic substances, which are still illegal in most jurisdictions.
“I view this very much – and I think most colleagues do as well – as a combination treatment,” Dr. Carhart-Harris said. “And we strongly believe that the psychotherapy component is as important as the drug action.”
He said the study was inspired by his earlier research into the effects of psilocybin on brain function along with a small open-label trial of the compound’s effects on treatment-resistant depression published in The Lancet Psychiatry in July 2016.
The team stressed that the cohort and the absence of an entirely placebo group limit conclusions that can be drawn about either treatment.
Dr. Carhart-Harris also said he would have liked a more diverse group of patients. Participants were mostly White and mostly male, with a mean age of 41, and a high educational attainment. Of the 59 enrolled, only 34% were women.
Volunteers underwent functional MRI scans at the start and end of the trial. The team will now analyze these results to gain insight into impact on brain function and will gather and assess follow-up data. They also plan a trial examining the effect of psilocybin on anorexia.
“I think it’s fair to say the results signal hope that we may be looking at a promising alternative treatment for depression,” Dr. Carhart-Harris said. “It’s often said that we need novel treatments to treat depression because too many new drugs are what [are] sometimes called ‘me too’ drugs: They work in the same way as drugs that have preceded them. Psilocybin therapy seems to work fundamentally in a different way to SSRIs.”
Unanswered questions
In an accompanying editorial, Jeffrey A. Lieberman, MD, Lawrence C. Kolb Professor and chairman of the department of psychiatry at Columbia University, New York, warned that there remain many unanswered questions about using psychedelics for medical purposes.
They were considered potential miracle cures for a range of mental disorders in the 1960s, only to be banned in 1970s America because of “the perceived dangers and corrosive effects” on society, he wrote.
“The Carhart-Harris study notwithstanding, we are still awaiting definitive proof of the therapeutic efficacy of psychedelics and their capacity to improve the human condition,” Dr. Lieberman wrote. “Should the mind-bending properties of the psychedelics prove to be the panacea their proponents professed, informed consent and safety standards must be established. How do we explain mystical, ineffable, and potentially transformative experiences to patients, particularly if they are in a vulnerable state of mind? What is their potential for addiction?”
David Owens, MD, PhD, professor emeritus of clinical psychiatry at the University of Edinburgh, described Lieberman’s comments as “spot on.”
“This is a small, exploratory study with numbers too small to analyze fully,” he said. “The population is not recruited randomly from, for example, consecutive admissions or presentations, and screening of volunteers was by telephone, not face to face. One might say this is an ‘interested’ population, willing to go for novel approaches and with no placebo group, the extent of the placebo response cannot be assessed.”
The study was funded by the Alexander Mosley Charitable Trust and the founders of the Centre for Psychedelic Research. Infrastructure support was provided by the National Institute for Health Research Imperial Biomedical Research Centre and NIHR Imperial Clinical Research Facility.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The psychedelic drug psilocybin performed just as well as a widely used antidepressant in easing the symptoms of major depression, and outperformed the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor on a range of secondary measures, results of a small-scale, phase 2 study show.
In a 6-week trial that included 59 patients with moderate to severe depression, there was no significant difference between the impact of high-dose psilocybin on the study’s primary yardstick – the 16-item Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology–Self-Report – and that of the SSRI escitalopram.
Patients in the psilocybin cohort did show a much more rapid improvement in the main measure than those taking escitalopram, but this gap narrowed over the span of the trial until it was no longer statistically significant.
“It’s very clear that psilocybin therapy has a faster antidepressant onset than escitalopram. And psilocybin was consistently superior on the ancillary outcomes, but it wasn’t different on the primary,” the study’s lead author Robin Carhart-Harris, PhD, head of the Centre for Psychedelic Research at Imperial College London, told reporters attending a news briefing.
Results of the phase 2, double-blind, randomized study were published online April 15, 2021, in the New England Journal of Medicine.
Secondary outcomes
Investigators found that psilocybin bested escitalopram in several secondary outcomes, including feelings of well-being, the ability to express emotion, and social functioning.
Still, Larger and longer trials are required.
“But the secondaries were highly suggestive – tantalizingly suggestive – of the potential superiority of psilocybin therapy to treat not just depression, but these ancillary symptoms,” Dr. Carhart-Harris said.
After they were selected from 1000 screening calls, the 59 patients were randomly assigned to receive psilocybin and 29 patients to receive escitalopram. Every procedure was mirrored in both groups.
At the 2 “dosing days” scheduled during the 6-week trial, all patients received an oral dose of psilocybin in a clinical setting. However, the escitalopram group received 1 mg versus 25 mg for the psilocybin group.
“And the reason why we did that is because we can standardize expectation. We say to everyone, you will receive psilocybin. It’s just the dosage might differ,” Dr. Carhart-Harris said.
He conceded that most patients – though not all – were able to determine which group they were in following the first dosing day based on the drugs’ effects.
Supportive therapy
Following the oral dose, volunteers would spend 6 hours reclining on a bed, surrounded by pillows and a curated selection of music and supported by two “guides” or therapists. The guides were on hand to support patients through their psychedelic experience but did not chat or otherwise interfere.
The next day, patients attended a session with their two therapists to talk through their experiences.
Between dosing days, patients in the high-dose psilocybin group would take daily capsules containing a placebo. The low-dose group received a course of escitalopram.
The incidence of adverse effects was similar in each group. None was serious.
The study’s principal investigator David Nutt, DM, FRCP, FRCPsych, FSB, FMedSci, the Edmond J. Safra Chair in Neuropsychopharmacology at Imperial College London, said that many patients in the psilocybin group reported revelatory insights during dosing days.
“Very often, for the first time, people have actually come to understand why they’re depressed,” he said.
The word psychedelic, coined in 1957 by psychiatrist Humphry Osmond, derives from the Greek words “psyche,” which means “soul” or “mind,” and “delos,” which means “reveal.”
'Profound experiences'
Certainly, patients in the psilocybin group received enough of the compound to induce what Dr. Carhart-Harris called “very profound experiences.”
The researchers said that the results, while promising, should not encourage anyone to self-medicate with psychedelic substances, which are still illegal in most jurisdictions.
“I view this very much – and I think most colleagues do as well – as a combination treatment,” Dr. Carhart-Harris said. “And we strongly believe that the psychotherapy component is as important as the drug action.”
He said the study was inspired by his earlier research into the effects of psilocybin on brain function along with a small open-label trial of the compound’s effects on treatment-resistant depression published in The Lancet Psychiatry in July 2016.
The team stressed that the cohort and the absence of an entirely placebo group limit conclusions that can be drawn about either treatment.
Dr. Carhart-Harris also said he would have liked a more diverse group of patients. Participants were mostly White and mostly male, with a mean age of 41, and a high educational attainment. Of the 59 enrolled, only 34% were women.
Volunteers underwent functional MRI scans at the start and end of the trial. The team will now analyze these results to gain insight into impact on brain function and will gather and assess follow-up data. They also plan a trial examining the effect of psilocybin on anorexia.
“I think it’s fair to say the results signal hope that we may be looking at a promising alternative treatment for depression,” Dr. Carhart-Harris said. “It’s often said that we need novel treatments to treat depression because too many new drugs are what [are] sometimes called ‘me too’ drugs: They work in the same way as drugs that have preceded them. Psilocybin therapy seems to work fundamentally in a different way to SSRIs.”
Unanswered questions
In an accompanying editorial, Jeffrey A. Lieberman, MD, Lawrence C. Kolb Professor and chairman of the department of psychiatry at Columbia University, New York, warned that there remain many unanswered questions about using psychedelics for medical purposes.
They were considered potential miracle cures for a range of mental disorders in the 1960s, only to be banned in 1970s America because of “the perceived dangers and corrosive effects” on society, he wrote.
“The Carhart-Harris study notwithstanding, we are still awaiting definitive proof of the therapeutic efficacy of psychedelics and their capacity to improve the human condition,” Dr. Lieberman wrote. “Should the mind-bending properties of the psychedelics prove to be the panacea their proponents professed, informed consent and safety standards must be established. How do we explain mystical, ineffable, and potentially transformative experiences to patients, particularly if they are in a vulnerable state of mind? What is their potential for addiction?”
David Owens, MD, PhD, professor emeritus of clinical psychiatry at the University of Edinburgh, described Lieberman’s comments as “spot on.”
“This is a small, exploratory study with numbers too small to analyze fully,” he said. “The population is not recruited randomly from, for example, consecutive admissions or presentations, and screening of volunteers was by telephone, not face to face. One might say this is an ‘interested’ population, willing to go for novel approaches and with no placebo group, the extent of the placebo response cannot be assessed.”
The study was funded by the Alexander Mosley Charitable Trust and the founders of the Centre for Psychedelic Research. Infrastructure support was provided by the National Institute for Health Research Imperial Biomedical Research Centre and NIHR Imperial Clinical Research Facility.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The psychedelic drug psilocybin performed just as well as a widely used antidepressant in easing the symptoms of major depression, and outperformed the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor on a range of secondary measures, results of a small-scale, phase 2 study show.
In a 6-week trial that included 59 patients with moderate to severe depression, there was no significant difference between the impact of high-dose psilocybin on the study’s primary yardstick – the 16-item Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology–Self-Report – and that of the SSRI escitalopram.
Patients in the psilocybin cohort did show a much more rapid improvement in the main measure than those taking escitalopram, but this gap narrowed over the span of the trial until it was no longer statistically significant.
“It’s very clear that psilocybin therapy has a faster antidepressant onset than escitalopram. And psilocybin was consistently superior on the ancillary outcomes, but it wasn’t different on the primary,” the study’s lead author Robin Carhart-Harris, PhD, head of the Centre for Psychedelic Research at Imperial College London, told reporters attending a news briefing.
Results of the phase 2, double-blind, randomized study were published online April 15, 2021, in the New England Journal of Medicine.
Secondary outcomes
Investigators found that psilocybin bested escitalopram in several secondary outcomes, including feelings of well-being, the ability to express emotion, and social functioning.
Still, Larger and longer trials are required.
“But the secondaries were highly suggestive – tantalizingly suggestive – of the potential superiority of psilocybin therapy to treat not just depression, but these ancillary symptoms,” Dr. Carhart-Harris said.
After they were selected from 1000 screening calls, the 59 patients were randomly assigned to receive psilocybin and 29 patients to receive escitalopram. Every procedure was mirrored in both groups.
At the 2 “dosing days” scheduled during the 6-week trial, all patients received an oral dose of psilocybin in a clinical setting. However, the escitalopram group received 1 mg versus 25 mg for the psilocybin group.
“And the reason why we did that is because we can standardize expectation. We say to everyone, you will receive psilocybin. It’s just the dosage might differ,” Dr. Carhart-Harris said.
He conceded that most patients – though not all – were able to determine which group they were in following the first dosing day based on the drugs’ effects.
Supportive therapy
Following the oral dose, volunteers would spend 6 hours reclining on a bed, surrounded by pillows and a curated selection of music and supported by two “guides” or therapists. The guides were on hand to support patients through their psychedelic experience but did not chat or otherwise interfere.
The next day, patients attended a session with their two therapists to talk through their experiences.
Between dosing days, patients in the high-dose psilocybin group would take daily capsules containing a placebo. The low-dose group received a course of escitalopram.
The incidence of adverse effects was similar in each group. None was serious.
The study’s principal investigator David Nutt, DM, FRCP, FRCPsych, FSB, FMedSci, the Edmond J. Safra Chair in Neuropsychopharmacology at Imperial College London, said that many patients in the psilocybin group reported revelatory insights during dosing days.
“Very often, for the first time, people have actually come to understand why they’re depressed,” he said.
The word psychedelic, coined in 1957 by psychiatrist Humphry Osmond, derives from the Greek words “psyche,” which means “soul” or “mind,” and “delos,” which means “reveal.”
'Profound experiences'
Certainly, patients in the psilocybin group received enough of the compound to induce what Dr. Carhart-Harris called “very profound experiences.”
The researchers said that the results, while promising, should not encourage anyone to self-medicate with psychedelic substances, which are still illegal in most jurisdictions.
“I view this very much – and I think most colleagues do as well – as a combination treatment,” Dr. Carhart-Harris said. “And we strongly believe that the psychotherapy component is as important as the drug action.”
He said the study was inspired by his earlier research into the effects of psilocybin on brain function along with a small open-label trial of the compound’s effects on treatment-resistant depression published in The Lancet Psychiatry in July 2016.
The team stressed that the cohort and the absence of an entirely placebo group limit conclusions that can be drawn about either treatment.
Dr. Carhart-Harris also said he would have liked a more diverse group of patients. Participants were mostly White and mostly male, with a mean age of 41, and a high educational attainment. Of the 59 enrolled, only 34% were women.
Volunteers underwent functional MRI scans at the start and end of the trial. The team will now analyze these results to gain insight into impact on brain function and will gather and assess follow-up data. They also plan a trial examining the effect of psilocybin on anorexia.
“I think it’s fair to say the results signal hope that we may be looking at a promising alternative treatment for depression,” Dr. Carhart-Harris said. “It’s often said that we need novel treatments to treat depression because too many new drugs are what [are] sometimes called ‘me too’ drugs: They work in the same way as drugs that have preceded them. Psilocybin therapy seems to work fundamentally in a different way to SSRIs.”
Unanswered questions
In an accompanying editorial, Jeffrey A. Lieberman, MD, Lawrence C. Kolb Professor and chairman of the department of psychiatry at Columbia University, New York, warned that there remain many unanswered questions about using psychedelics for medical purposes.
They were considered potential miracle cures for a range of mental disorders in the 1960s, only to be banned in 1970s America because of “the perceived dangers and corrosive effects” on society, he wrote.
“The Carhart-Harris study notwithstanding, we are still awaiting definitive proof of the therapeutic efficacy of psychedelics and their capacity to improve the human condition,” Dr. Lieberman wrote. “Should the mind-bending properties of the psychedelics prove to be the panacea their proponents professed, informed consent and safety standards must be established. How do we explain mystical, ineffable, and potentially transformative experiences to patients, particularly if they are in a vulnerable state of mind? What is their potential for addiction?”
David Owens, MD, PhD, professor emeritus of clinical psychiatry at the University of Edinburgh, described Lieberman’s comments as “spot on.”
“This is a small, exploratory study with numbers too small to analyze fully,” he said. “The population is not recruited randomly from, for example, consecutive admissions or presentations, and screening of volunteers was by telephone, not face to face. One might say this is an ‘interested’ population, willing to go for novel approaches and with no placebo group, the extent of the placebo response cannot be assessed.”
The study was funded by the Alexander Mosley Charitable Trust and the founders of the Centre for Psychedelic Research. Infrastructure support was provided by the National Institute for Health Research Imperial Biomedical Research Centre and NIHR Imperial Clinical Research Facility.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Transgender hormone therapy linked to blood pressure changes
Transgender people treated with gender-affirming hormone therapy show distinctive changes in blood pressure that begin soon after treatment initiation and do not subside over years of treatment, according to the largest and longest observational study to date to look at the issue.
“Many physicians may not be aware of the changes to blood pressure in trans patients who start hormone therapy,” senior author Michael S. Irwig, MD, director of transgender medicine at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston, told this news organization.
“The take-away message for physicians is to monitor blood pressure both before and after starting hormone therapy in transgender patients, as over a third of transgender individuals had stage 1 hypertension before starting hormone therapy, and many had their blood pressure increase after starting hormone therapy.”
Mean blood pressure increases in transgender males, decreases in females
In the study, published in Hypertension, Katherine Banks, MD, George Washington University, Washington, and colleagues, followed 470 transgender adult patients for up to 5 years.
The mean systolic blood pressure levels in transgender female patients (male at birth) significantly decreased compared with baseline within a few months of them starting gender-affirming hormone treatment.
Conversely, the systolic blood pressure levels in transgender males (females at birth) who were treated with testosterone increased over the same period.
There were no significant changes in the groups in terms of diastolic blood pressure, consistent with other studies.
“Our study is the first to describe the time course of the blood pressure effects of gender-affirming hormone therapy and to compare the rates of elevated blood pressure and stage 1 and stage 2 hypertension using blood pressure readings from gender-diverse individuals pre- and post–gender-affirming hormone therapy,” the authors note.
Gender-affirming hormone therapy – which has been prescribed to transgender patients for more than 25 years – typically involves a combination of estrogen and an anti-androgen for males transitioning to female, while the therapy for those transitioning to male generally only involves testosterone.
The therapy has previously been linked to various cardiac effects, with evidence showing transgender men have as much as a 5-times greater risk of heart attack versus cisgender women, the authors note.
Although the American Heart Association issued a 2020 Scientific Statement addressing the cardiovascular disease risk, evidence on the effects specifically on blood pressure in transgender patients has been inconsistent.
For the new study, Dr. Banks and colleagues enrolled 247 transgender females and 223 transgender males who were treated between 2007 and 2015 at two medical centers in Washington, D.C. Of the individuals, who had a mean age of 27.8, about 27% were non-White and 16% were Latinx.
They had blood pressure measurements taken at baseline and at follow-up clinical visits for up to 57 months following the initiation of gender-affirming hormone therapy.
Over the follow-up period, the transgender females had decreases in mean systolic blood pressure of 4.0 mm Hg within 2 to 4 months of starting hormone therapy (P < .0001) and mean declines of 6.0 mm Hg were further observed at 11 to 21 months compared with baseline.
In transgender males, the mean systolic blood pressure increased by 2.6 mm Hg at 2 to 4 months (P = .02), and by 2.9 mm Hg at 11 to 21 months after starting therapy.
Furthermore, “although the average increase in systolic blood pressure was 2.6 mm Hg in transgender men within 2 to 4 months, some patients had much higher increases,” Dr. Irwig noted.
As many as 40% of transgender men had stage 1 hypertension after 11 to 21 months of hormone therapy.
The blood pressure changes in transgender males and females were observed across all three racial ethnic groups of Whites, Blacks, and Latinx, and the changes remained consistent throughout the entire follow-up period of approximately 5 years while hormone therapy was continued.
In addition to the changes after therapy initiation, the researchers note that more than one-third of individuals in both groups had stage 1 hypertension even before starting hormone therapy.
The findings are a concern in light of “clear evidence linking hypertension and higher blood pressure with cardiovascular events such as stroke and heart attacks,” Dr. Irwig said.
Protective effects for transgender females?
Transgender females showed as much as a 47% decrease in the prevalence of stage 2 hypertension, from 19% to 10%, within 2 to 4 months of treatment with gender-affirming hormone therapy (P = .001), and the rate declined further to 8% at 11 to 21 months, suggesting a protective effect of the treatment.
“The rate of stage 2 hypertension did drop in transgender feminine individuals, which could be protective and lower their risk for cardiovascular events,” Dr. Irwig said.
“This was not a surprise, as lowering testosterone and the use of spironolactone can lower blood pressure,” he noted.
Exceptions in both groups
Of note, a sizable proportion of patients had blood pressure changes that were in fact the opposite of the patterns seen in the majority of their gender group.
Specifically, while 42% to 53% of the transgender females had systolic blood pressure readings of at least 5 mm Hg lower than their baseline readings, up to 32% had increases of at least 5 mm Hg compared to baseline readings.
Likewise, whereas 41% to 59% of transgender males had increases of at least 5 mm Hg compared with baseline, up to 35% had levels that were at least 5 mm Hg lower than baseline.
“It was a surprise that over a quarter of individuals had changes opposite to the mean changes,” Dr. Irwig said.
The differing blood pressure changes underscore that “more research is needed to determine which formulations of estrogen, testosterone, and antiandrogens are optimal regarding blood pressure and cardiovascular health, especially in older individuals,” the authors note.
Gender-affirming hormone therapy formulations differ
Various formulations for gender-affirming hormone regimens are available, including oral, transdermal, sublingual, and intramuscular preparations.
In the study, 77% to 91% of transgender males were on intramuscular testosterone injections, with the rest on transdermal formulations, and 92% of transgender female patients were started on oral estradiol, with mean doses generally increasing over time.
The study’s results are consistent with evidence from other studies, with 7 of 8 involving transgender males showing mean increases in systolic blood pressure ranging from 1 to 14 mm Hg.
Previous research supports cardiovascular risk
As reported by this news organization, other emerging research on cardiovascular risks to transgender people include a recent study showing more than 10% of transgender males were found to have hematocrit levels that could put them at risk for blood clots.
And further research on transgender youth also shows concerning elevations in lipids and other cardiovascular risks.
The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Transgender people treated with gender-affirming hormone therapy show distinctive changes in blood pressure that begin soon after treatment initiation and do not subside over years of treatment, according to the largest and longest observational study to date to look at the issue.
“Many physicians may not be aware of the changes to blood pressure in trans patients who start hormone therapy,” senior author Michael S. Irwig, MD, director of transgender medicine at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston, told this news organization.
“The take-away message for physicians is to monitor blood pressure both before and after starting hormone therapy in transgender patients, as over a third of transgender individuals had stage 1 hypertension before starting hormone therapy, and many had their blood pressure increase after starting hormone therapy.”
Mean blood pressure increases in transgender males, decreases in females
In the study, published in Hypertension, Katherine Banks, MD, George Washington University, Washington, and colleagues, followed 470 transgender adult patients for up to 5 years.
The mean systolic blood pressure levels in transgender female patients (male at birth) significantly decreased compared with baseline within a few months of them starting gender-affirming hormone treatment.
Conversely, the systolic blood pressure levels in transgender males (females at birth) who were treated with testosterone increased over the same period.
There were no significant changes in the groups in terms of diastolic blood pressure, consistent with other studies.
“Our study is the first to describe the time course of the blood pressure effects of gender-affirming hormone therapy and to compare the rates of elevated blood pressure and stage 1 and stage 2 hypertension using blood pressure readings from gender-diverse individuals pre- and post–gender-affirming hormone therapy,” the authors note.
Gender-affirming hormone therapy – which has been prescribed to transgender patients for more than 25 years – typically involves a combination of estrogen and an anti-androgen for males transitioning to female, while the therapy for those transitioning to male generally only involves testosterone.
The therapy has previously been linked to various cardiac effects, with evidence showing transgender men have as much as a 5-times greater risk of heart attack versus cisgender women, the authors note.
Although the American Heart Association issued a 2020 Scientific Statement addressing the cardiovascular disease risk, evidence on the effects specifically on blood pressure in transgender patients has been inconsistent.
For the new study, Dr. Banks and colleagues enrolled 247 transgender females and 223 transgender males who were treated between 2007 and 2015 at two medical centers in Washington, D.C. Of the individuals, who had a mean age of 27.8, about 27% were non-White and 16% were Latinx.
They had blood pressure measurements taken at baseline and at follow-up clinical visits for up to 57 months following the initiation of gender-affirming hormone therapy.
Over the follow-up period, the transgender females had decreases in mean systolic blood pressure of 4.0 mm Hg within 2 to 4 months of starting hormone therapy (P < .0001) and mean declines of 6.0 mm Hg were further observed at 11 to 21 months compared with baseline.
In transgender males, the mean systolic blood pressure increased by 2.6 mm Hg at 2 to 4 months (P = .02), and by 2.9 mm Hg at 11 to 21 months after starting therapy.
Furthermore, “although the average increase in systolic blood pressure was 2.6 mm Hg in transgender men within 2 to 4 months, some patients had much higher increases,” Dr. Irwig noted.
As many as 40% of transgender men had stage 1 hypertension after 11 to 21 months of hormone therapy.
The blood pressure changes in transgender males and females were observed across all three racial ethnic groups of Whites, Blacks, and Latinx, and the changes remained consistent throughout the entire follow-up period of approximately 5 years while hormone therapy was continued.
In addition to the changes after therapy initiation, the researchers note that more than one-third of individuals in both groups had stage 1 hypertension even before starting hormone therapy.
The findings are a concern in light of “clear evidence linking hypertension and higher blood pressure with cardiovascular events such as stroke and heart attacks,” Dr. Irwig said.
Protective effects for transgender females?
Transgender females showed as much as a 47% decrease in the prevalence of stage 2 hypertension, from 19% to 10%, within 2 to 4 months of treatment with gender-affirming hormone therapy (P = .001), and the rate declined further to 8% at 11 to 21 months, suggesting a protective effect of the treatment.
“The rate of stage 2 hypertension did drop in transgender feminine individuals, which could be protective and lower their risk for cardiovascular events,” Dr. Irwig said.
“This was not a surprise, as lowering testosterone and the use of spironolactone can lower blood pressure,” he noted.
Exceptions in both groups
Of note, a sizable proportion of patients had blood pressure changes that were in fact the opposite of the patterns seen in the majority of their gender group.
Specifically, while 42% to 53% of the transgender females had systolic blood pressure readings of at least 5 mm Hg lower than their baseline readings, up to 32% had increases of at least 5 mm Hg compared to baseline readings.
Likewise, whereas 41% to 59% of transgender males had increases of at least 5 mm Hg compared with baseline, up to 35% had levels that were at least 5 mm Hg lower than baseline.
“It was a surprise that over a quarter of individuals had changes opposite to the mean changes,” Dr. Irwig said.
The differing blood pressure changes underscore that “more research is needed to determine which formulations of estrogen, testosterone, and antiandrogens are optimal regarding blood pressure and cardiovascular health, especially in older individuals,” the authors note.
Gender-affirming hormone therapy formulations differ
Various formulations for gender-affirming hormone regimens are available, including oral, transdermal, sublingual, and intramuscular preparations.
In the study, 77% to 91% of transgender males were on intramuscular testosterone injections, with the rest on transdermal formulations, and 92% of transgender female patients were started on oral estradiol, with mean doses generally increasing over time.
The study’s results are consistent with evidence from other studies, with 7 of 8 involving transgender males showing mean increases in systolic blood pressure ranging from 1 to 14 mm Hg.
Previous research supports cardiovascular risk
As reported by this news organization, other emerging research on cardiovascular risks to transgender people include a recent study showing more than 10% of transgender males were found to have hematocrit levels that could put them at risk for blood clots.
And further research on transgender youth also shows concerning elevations in lipids and other cardiovascular risks.
The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Transgender people treated with gender-affirming hormone therapy show distinctive changes in blood pressure that begin soon after treatment initiation and do not subside over years of treatment, according to the largest and longest observational study to date to look at the issue.
“Many physicians may not be aware of the changes to blood pressure in trans patients who start hormone therapy,” senior author Michael S. Irwig, MD, director of transgender medicine at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston, told this news organization.
“The take-away message for physicians is to monitor blood pressure both before and after starting hormone therapy in transgender patients, as over a third of transgender individuals had stage 1 hypertension before starting hormone therapy, and many had their blood pressure increase after starting hormone therapy.”
Mean blood pressure increases in transgender males, decreases in females
In the study, published in Hypertension, Katherine Banks, MD, George Washington University, Washington, and colleagues, followed 470 transgender adult patients for up to 5 years.
The mean systolic blood pressure levels in transgender female patients (male at birth) significantly decreased compared with baseline within a few months of them starting gender-affirming hormone treatment.
Conversely, the systolic blood pressure levels in transgender males (females at birth) who were treated with testosterone increased over the same period.
There were no significant changes in the groups in terms of diastolic blood pressure, consistent with other studies.
“Our study is the first to describe the time course of the blood pressure effects of gender-affirming hormone therapy and to compare the rates of elevated blood pressure and stage 1 and stage 2 hypertension using blood pressure readings from gender-diverse individuals pre- and post–gender-affirming hormone therapy,” the authors note.
Gender-affirming hormone therapy – which has been prescribed to transgender patients for more than 25 years – typically involves a combination of estrogen and an anti-androgen for males transitioning to female, while the therapy for those transitioning to male generally only involves testosterone.
The therapy has previously been linked to various cardiac effects, with evidence showing transgender men have as much as a 5-times greater risk of heart attack versus cisgender women, the authors note.
Although the American Heart Association issued a 2020 Scientific Statement addressing the cardiovascular disease risk, evidence on the effects specifically on blood pressure in transgender patients has been inconsistent.
For the new study, Dr. Banks and colleagues enrolled 247 transgender females and 223 transgender males who were treated between 2007 and 2015 at two medical centers in Washington, D.C. Of the individuals, who had a mean age of 27.8, about 27% were non-White and 16% were Latinx.
They had blood pressure measurements taken at baseline and at follow-up clinical visits for up to 57 months following the initiation of gender-affirming hormone therapy.
Over the follow-up period, the transgender females had decreases in mean systolic blood pressure of 4.0 mm Hg within 2 to 4 months of starting hormone therapy (P < .0001) and mean declines of 6.0 mm Hg were further observed at 11 to 21 months compared with baseline.
In transgender males, the mean systolic blood pressure increased by 2.6 mm Hg at 2 to 4 months (P = .02), and by 2.9 mm Hg at 11 to 21 months after starting therapy.
Furthermore, “although the average increase in systolic blood pressure was 2.6 mm Hg in transgender men within 2 to 4 months, some patients had much higher increases,” Dr. Irwig noted.
As many as 40% of transgender men had stage 1 hypertension after 11 to 21 months of hormone therapy.
The blood pressure changes in transgender males and females were observed across all three racial ethnic groups of Whites, Blacks, and Latinx, and the changes remained consistent throughout the entire follow-up period of approximately 5 years while hormone therapy was continued.
In addition to the changes after therapy initiation, the researchers note that more than one-third of individuals in both groups had stage 1 hypertension even before starting hormone therapy.
The findings are a concern in light of “clear evidence linking hypertension and higher blood pressure with cardiovascular events such as stroke and heart attacks,” Dr. Irwig said.
Protective effects for transgender females?
Transgender females showed as much as a 47% decrease in the prevalence of stage 2 hypertension, from 19% to 10%, within 2 to 4 months of treatment with gender-affirming hormone therapy (P = .001), and the rate declined further to 8% at 11 to 21 months, suggesting a protective effect of the treatment.
“The rate of stage 2 hypertension did drop in transgender feminine individuals, which could be protective and lower their risk for cardiovascular events,” Dr. Irwig said.
“This was not a surprise, as lowering testosterone and the use of spironolactone can lower blood pressure,” he noted.
Exceptions in both groups
Of note, a sizable proportion of patients had blood pressure changes that were in fact the opposite of the patterns seen in the majority of their gender group.
Specifically, while 42% to 53% of the transgender females had systolic blood pressure readings of at least 5 mm Hg lower than their baseline readings, up to 32% had increases of at least 5 mm Hg compared to baseline readings.
Likewise, whereas 41% to 59% of transgender males had increases of at least 5 mm Hg compared with baseline, up to 35% had levels that were at least 5 mm Hg lower than baseline.
“It was a surprise that over a quarter of individuals had changes opposite to the mean changes,” Dr. Irwig said.
The differing blood pressure changes underscore that “more research is needed to determine which formulations of estrogen, testosterone, and antiandrogens are optimal regarding blood pressure and cardiovascular health, especially in older individuals,” the authors note.
Gender-affirming hormone therapy formulations differ
Various formulations for gender-affirming hormone regimens are available, including oral, transdermal, sublingual, and intramuscular preparations.
In the study, 77% to 91% of transgender males were on intramuscular testosterone injections, with the rest on transdermal formulations, and 92% of transgender female patients were started on oral estradiol, with mean doses generally increasing over time.
The study’s results are consistent with evidence from other studies, with 7 of 8 involving transgender males showing mean increases in systolic blood pressure ranging from 1 to 14 mm Hg.
Previous research supports cardiovascular risk
As reported by this news organization, other emerging research on cardiovascular risks to transgender people include a recent study showing more than 10% of transgender males were found to have hematocrit levels that could put them at risk for blood clots.
And further research on transgender youth also shows concerning elevations in lipids and other cardiovascular risks.
The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
GENUINE improvements: Ublituximab plus ibrutinib for CLL
Chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) is a clinically heterogeneous disease associated with several known genetic abnormalities, including 17p deletion (del[17p]), 11q deletion (del[11q]), and TP53 gene mutations, which are adverse prognostic markers among patients treated with chemoimmunotherapy.
The Bruton tyrosine kinase (BTK) inhibitor ibrutinib is approved for patients with untreated, relapsed, or refractory disease, including those with del(17p). Clinicians will soon have the chance to pair it with ublituximab, a next-generation, glycoengineered, type I, anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody that binds to a unique epitope on CD20, differentiating it from rituximab, ofatumumab, and obinutuzumab. Results from the phase 3 GENUINE trial, which were recently published in The Lancet Haematology, showed that ublituximab plus ibrutinib was superior to ibrutinib alone for patients with relapsed or refractory high-risk CLL.
This news organization spoke with Jennifer R. Brown, MD, PhD, director of the CLL Center and institute physician at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, about the GENUINE trial and its potential impact on treatment choices going forward.
What type of patients were treated in the GENUINE trial?
Dr. Brown: This is a trial among relapsed/refractory CLL patients with 17p or 11q deletion or TP53 mutation. Patients aged 18 years or older with CLL who warranted treatment, as defined by International Workshop on CLL criteria, were eligible if they had previously received at least two cycles of at least one standard treatment regimen, had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 2 or lower, and had high-risk cytogenetics, defined as the presence of at least one of del(17p), del(11q), or TP53 mutation confirmed by a central laboratory with fluorescence in situ hybridization and/or next-generation sequencing.
What were the main outcomes of the trial?
Originally, the GENUINE trial had coprimary endpoints of progression-free survival (PFS) and overall response rate. Because of slow accrual, it was amended to have one primary endpoint of independent review committee (IRC)–assessed ORR.
IRC-assessed ORR was improved from 65% to 83% with the addition of ublituximab. PFS also improved significantly in the ublituximab group, with an even greater improvement when the analysis was limited to those with del(17p) or TP53 aberrancy, but this outcome was limited by the reduced sample size of the study as well as the relatively short PFS of the ibrutinib arm.
After a median follow-up of 41.6 months, the median IRC-assessed PFS in all treated patients was not reached in the ublituximab plus ibrutinib group after 15 PFS events but was 35.9 months in the ibrutinib group after 25 PFS events (hazard ratio, 0.46; 95% confidence interval, 0.24-0.87; P = .016).
Undetectable minimal residual disease was also seen in 42% of the combination arm, compared with 6% of the ibrutinib arm.
What types of adverse events were found in the trial?
The researchers found mostly mild and known side effects of ibrutinib. More atrial fibrillation and neutropenia were seen in the antibody group, but this was not marked.
Most adverse events were of grade 1 or 2. The most common grade 3 and 4 adverse events were neutropenia (11 [19%] patients in the ublituximab plus ibrutinib group and 7 [12%] in the ibrutinib group), anemia (5 [8%] and 5 [9%], respectively), and diarrhea (6 [10%] and 3 [5%], respectively).
What about serious adverse events?
Hospitalization from infection was seen, as expected. There were two cardiac arrests and an unexplained death, across both arms, which was concerning, given the known association of ibrutinib with ventricular arrhythmia and sudden death. There were also several hemorrhages, including one fatal one, which was again consistent with the known side effects of ibrutinib.
Are there treatments comparable with ublituximab plus ibrutinib that clinicians should perhaps first consider using?
In terms of other anti-CD20 antibodies, we have two randomized trials that have failed to show a benefit from adding rituximab to ibrutinib.
Obinutuzumab, like ublituximab, is also a next-generation glycoengineered antibody, and it is reasonably likely that it might lead to similar results. However, the only data we have on ibrutinib with obinutuzumab are from a single arm in a more heterogeneous, lower-risk patient population, and it is unlikely that a randomized comparison will ever be done.
On the basis of these trial results, how would you use the combination of ublituximab and ibrutinib for your patients?
I would consider the addition of ublituximab to a BTK inhibitor in high-risk patients (once ublituximab is approved). I already usually use a next-generation BTK inhibitor rather than ibrutinib.
Are there any other implications of the GENUINE trial?
I think this trial underscores the importance of studying genetic subgroups of patients separately. In this case, that was done in high-risk patients, but this observation likely also applies to low-risk patients.
Most trials to date have enrolled unselected patient populations, often without stratification, and their results therefore tend to obscure the outcomes in both the very high risk (as studied here) and in the low risk (patients with immunoglobulin heavy chain variable region gene mutations).
Dr. Brown has served as a consultant for AbbVie, Acerta/AstraZeneca, Beigene, Bristol-Myers Squibb/Juno/Celgene, Catapult, Genentech/Roche, Janssen, MEI Pharma, Morphosys, and Novartis, and has received research funding from Gilead, Loxo/Lilly, TG Therapeutics, Verastem/SecuraBio.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) is a clinically heterogeneous disease associated with several known genetic abnormalities, including 17p deletion (del[17p]), 11q deletion (del[11q]), and TP53 gene mutations, which are adverse prognostic markers among patients treated with chemoimmunotherapy.
The Bruton tyrosine kinase (BTK) inhibitor ibrutinib is approved for patients with untreated, relapsed, or refractory disease, including those with del(17p). Clinicians will soon have the chance to pair it with ublituximab, a next-generation, glycoengineered, type I, anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody that binds to a unique epitope on CD20, differentiating it from rituximab, ofatumumab, and obinutuzumab. Results from the phase 3 GENUINE trial, which were recently published in The Lancet Haematology, showed that ublituximab plus ibrutinib was superior to ibrutinib alone for patients with relapsed or refractory high-risk CLL.
This news organization spoke with Jennifer R. Brown, MD, PhD, director of the CLL Center and institute physician at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, about the GENUINE trial and its potential impact on treatment choices going forward.
What type of patients were treated in the GENUINE trial?
Dr. Brown: This is a trial among relapsed/refractory CLL patients with 17p or 11q deletion or TP53 mutation. Patients aged 18 years or older with CLL who warranted treatment, as defined by International Workshop on CLL criteria, were eligible if they had previously received at least two cycles of at least one standard treatment regimen, had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 2 or lower, and had high-risk cytogenetics, defined as the presence of at least one of del(17p), del(11q), or TP53 mutation confirmed by a central laboratory with fluorescence in situ hybridization and/or next-generation sequencing.
What were the main outcomes of the trial?
Originally, the GENUINE trial had coprimary endpoints of progression-free survival (PFS) and overall response rate. Because of slow accrual, it was amended to have one primary endpoint of independent review committee (IRC)–assessed ORR.
IRC-assessed ORR was improved from 65% to 83% with the addition of ublituximab. PFS also improved significantly in the ublituximab group, with an even greater improvement when the analysis was limited to those with del(17p) or TP53 aberrancy, but this outcome was limited by the reduced sample size of the study as well as the relatively short PFS of the ibrutinib arm.
After a median follow-up of 41.6 months, the median IRC-assessed PFS in all treated patients was not reached in the ublituximab plus ibrutinib group after 15 PFS events but was 35.9 months in the ibrutinib group after 25 PFS events (hazard ratio, 0.46; 95% confidence interval, 0.24-0.87; P = .016).
Undetectable minimal residual disease was also seen in 42% of the combination arm, compared with 6% of the ibrutinib arm.
What types of adverse events were found in the trial?
The researchers found mostly mild and known side effects of ibrutinib. More atrial fibrillation and neutropenia were seen in the antibody group, but this was not marked.
Most adverse events were of grade 1 or 2. The most common grade 3 and 4 adverse events were neutropenia (11 [19%] patients in the ublituximab plus ibrutinib group and 7 [12%] in the ibrutinib group), anemia (5 [8%] and 5 [9%], respectively), and diarrhea (6 [10%] and 3 [5%], respectively).
What about serious adverse events?
Hospitalization from infection was seen, as expected. There were two cardiac arrests and an unexplained death, across both arms, which was concerning, given the known association of ibrutinib with ventricular arrhythmia and sudden death. There were also several hemorrhages, including one fatal one, which was again consistent with the known side effects of ibrutinib.
Are there treatments comparable with ublituximab plus ibrutinib that clinicians should perhaps first consider using?
In terms of other anti-CD20 antibodies, we have two randomized trials that have failed to show a benefit from adding rituximab to ibrutinib.
Obinutuzumab, like ublituximab, is also a next-generation glycoengineered antibody, and it is reasonably likely that it might lead to similar results. However, the only data we have on ibrutinib with obinutuzumab are from a single arm in a more heterogeneous, lower-risk patient population, and it is unlikely that a randomized comparison will ever be done.
On the basis of these trial results, how would you use the combination of ublituximab and ibrutinib for your patients?
I would consider the addition of ublituximab to a BTK inhibitor in high-risk patients (once ublituximab is approved). I already usually use a next-generation BTK inhibitor rather than ibrutinib.
Are there any other implications of the GENUINE trial?
I think this trial underscores the importance of studying genetic subgroups of patients separately. In this case, that was done in high-risk patients, but this observation likely also applies to low-risk patients.
Most trials to date have enrolled unselected patient populations, often without stratification, and their results therefore tend to obscure the outcomes in both the very high risk (as studied here) and in the low risk (patients with immunoglobulin heavy chain variable region gene mutations).
Dr. Brown has served as a consultant for AbbVie, Acerta/AstraZeneca, Beigene, Bristol-Myers Squibb/Juno/Celgene, Catapult, Genentech/Roche, Janssen, MEI Pharma, Morphosys, and Novartis, and has received research funding from Gilead, Loxo/Lilly, TG Therapeutics, Verastem/SecuraBio.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) is a clinically heterogeneous disease associated with several known genetic abnormalities, including 17p deletion (del[17p]), 11q deletion (del[11q]), and TP53 gene mutations, which are adverse prognostic markers among patients treated with chemoimmunotherapy.
The Bruton tyrosine kinase (BTK) inhibitor ibrutinib is approved for patients with untreated, relapsed, or refractory disease, including those with del(17p). Clinicians will soon have the chance to pair it with ublituximab, a next-generation, glycoengineered, type I, anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody that binds to a unique epitope on CD20, differentiating it from rituximab, ofatumumab, and obinutuzumab. Results from the phase 3 GENUINE trial, which were recently published in The Lancet Haematology, showed that ublituximab plus ibrutinib was superior to ibrutinib alone for patients with relapsed or refractory high-risk CLL.
This news organization spoke with Jennifer R. Brown, MD, PhD, director of the CLL Center and institute physician at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, about the GENUINE trial and its potential impact on treatment choices going forward.
What type of patients were treated in the GENUINE trial?
Dr. Brown: This is a trial among relapsed/refractory CLL patients with 17p or 11q deletion or TP53 mutation. Patients aged 18 years or older with CLL who warranted treatment, as defined by International Workshop on CLL criteria, were eligible if they had previously received at least two cycles of at least one standard treatment regimen, had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 2 or lower, and had high-risk cytogenetics, defined as the presence of at least one of del(17p), del(11q), or TP53 mutation confirmed by a central laboratory with fluorescence in situ hybridization and/or next-generation sequencing.
What were the main outcomes of the trial?
Originally, the GENUINE trial had coprimary endpoints of progression-free survival (PFS) and overall response rate. Because of slow accrual, it was amended to have one primary endpoint of independent review committee (IRC)–assessed ORR.
IRC-assessed ORR was improved from 65% to 83% with the addition of ublituximab. PFS also improved significantly in the ublituximab group, with an even greater improvement when the analysis was limited to those with del(17p) or TP53 aberrancy, but this outcome was limited by the reduced sample size of the study as well as the relatively short PFS of the ibrutinib arm.
After a median follow-up of 41.6 months, the median IRC-assessed PFS in all treated patients was not reached in the ublituximab plus ibrutinib group after 15 PFS events but was 35.9 months in the ibrutinib group after 25 PFS events (hazard ratio, 0.46; 95% confidence interval, 0.24-0.87; P = .016).
Undetectable minimal residual disease was also seen in 42% of the combination arm, compared with 6% of the ibrutinib arm.
What types of adverse events were found in the trial?
The researchers found mostly mild and known side effects of ibrutinib. More atrial fibrillation and neutropenia were seen in the antibody group, but this was not marked.
Most adverse events were of grade 1 or 2. The most common grade 3 and 4 adverse events were neutropenia (11 [19%] patients in the ublituximab plus ibrutinib group and 7 [12%] in the ibrutinib group), anemia (5 [8%] and 5 [9%], respectively), and diarrhea (6 [10%] and 3 [5%], respectively).
What about serious adverse events?
Hospitalization from infection was seen, as expected. There were two cardiac arrests and an unexplained death, across both arms, which was concerning, given the known association of ibrutinib with ventricular arrhythmia and sudden death. There were also several hemorrhages, including one fatal one, which was again consistent with the known side effects of ibrutinib.
Are there treatments comparable with ublituximab plus ibrutinib that clinicians should perhaps first consider using?
In terms of other anti-CD20 antibodies, we have two randomized trials that have failed to show a benefit from adding rituximab to ibrutinib.
Obinutuzumab, like ublituximab, is also a next-generation glycoengineered antibody, and it is reasonably likely that it might lead to similar results. However, the only data we have on ibrutinib with obinutuzumab are from a single arm in a more heterogeneous, lower-risk patient population, and it is unlikely that a randomized comparison will ever be done.
On the basis of these trial results, how would you use the combination of ublituximab and ibrutinib for your patients?
I would consider the addition of ublituximab to a BTK inhibitor in high-risk patients (once ublituximab is approved). I already usually use a next-generation BTK inhibitor rather than ibrutinib.
Are there any other implications of the GENUINE trial?
I think this trial underscores the importance of studying genetic subgroups of patients separately. In this case, that was done in high-risk patients, but this observation likely also applies to low-risk patients.
Most trials to date have enrolled unselected patient populations, often without stratification, and their results therefore tend to obscure the outcomes in both the very high risk (as studied here) and in the low risk (patients with immunoglobulin heavy chain variable region gene mutations).
Dr. Brown has served as a consultant for AbbVie, Acerta/AstraZeneca, Beigene, Bristol-Myers Squibb/Juno/Celgene, Catapult, Genentech/Roche, Janssen, MEI Pharma, Morphosys, and Novartis, and has received research funding from Gilead, Loxo/Lilly, TG Therapeutics, Verastem/SecuraBio.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Study shows how COVID-19 disrupted RA meds
During the first 3 months of the COVID-19 pandemic last year, about one-third of people with rheumatoid arthritis in the United States made changes in their RA medications, and, before the American College of Rheumatology tweaked its guidelines midway through that period, they were about twice as likely to make medication changes on their own than before the pandemic, according to an analysis of data in FORWARD, the National Databank for Rheumatic Diseases.
The study, published in Arthritis Care & Research, also found that about 10% of RA patients on hydroxychloroquine lost access to the drug at a time it was drawing interest as a treatment for COVID-19. Another finding was that a high percentage of patients on non–tumor necrosis factor biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) and Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors canceled or postponed appointments.
“Our results show that persons with RA who had medication changes in the first 3 months of the COVID-19 pandemic in the U.S. were more likely to have worse disease activity and higher exposure to prior DMARDs, but no statistical difference was found in terms of comorbidities,” first author Kaleb Michaud, PhD, and coauthors wrote. Dr. Michaud is with the National Databank for Rheumatic Diseases, Wichita, Kan., and the University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha.
The study evaluated responses from 734 adults who participated in FORWARD, an observational, multidisease registry. They answered online surveys about COVID-19 in May 2020 and had provided data on their medication use before the pandemic. A total of 30% (n = 221) reported medication changes in that period.
Details on medication changes
Medication changers were more likely to use glucocorticoids (GCs) (32.6% vs. 18.1%) and less likely to use nonhydroxychloroquine conventional DMARDs (49.3% vs. 62%) pre-COVID. Changers also reported higher rates of economic hardship during the pandemic (22.6% vs. 14.6%).
In the midst of the study period, the ACR issued a clinical guideline for treatment of rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs), emphasizing the need to maintain DMARD therapy, control disease activity, and reduce prednisone/GC use. The guideline advised continuing hydroxychloroquine and interleukin-6 inhibitor biologics in people with suspected or confirmed COVID-19.
Dr. Michaud and coauthors acknowledged the ongoing lack of knowledge about real-world treatment patterns for RA during the pandemic. They set out with this study to fill those knowledge gaps.
They noted that patients on bDMARDs (17.6%) and JAK inhibitors (17.1%) were more than twice as likely to discontinue medications than were those on conventional DMARDs (8.2%).
Switching to telehealth was the most common pandemic-related behavior change among patients in all DMARD groups, with rates ranging from 31% to 47.1%, followed by canceling or postponing appointments, with rates ranging from 27.9% to 36.4% depending on the DMARD group.
The study also found that RA patients widely adopted the behavior changes that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommended during the pandemic, although the rates of restricting social contacts were significantly lower than the 90% reported in an early Italian study.
Dr. Michaud and coauthors also provided some explanation of why people on GCs and DMARDs were more likely than others to change medication patterns. “This may reflect efforts to reduce the perceived risk of infections due to GCs as well as the likely less-controlled disease activity associated with GC use,” they wrote. While the ACR’s early pandemic guidance followed the 2015 guidelines – that patients should continue on GCs at the “lowest possible dose” and not stop them “abruptly” – most U.S. rheumatologists reported cutting back on GC use during the pandemic.
The researchers acknowledged that evidence linking GC use with hospitalization for COVID-19, which emerged after they had surveyed study participants, was consistent their findings, but that the overall risk of COVID-19 in RA patients still isn’t known.
Pfizer funded the analysis, and a coauthor is an employee of Pfizer.
During the first 3 months of the COVID-19 pandemic last year, about one-third of people with rheumatoid arthritis in the United States made changes in their RA medications, and, before the American College of Rheumatology tweaked its guidelines midway through that period, they were about twice as likely to make medication changes on their own than before the pandemic, according to an analysis of data in FORWARD, the National Databank for Rheumatic Diseases.
The study, published in Arthritis Care & Research, also found that about 10% of RA patients on hydroxychloroquine lost access to the drug at a time it was drawing interest as a treatment for COVID-19. Another finding was that a high percentage of patients on non–tumor necrosis factor biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) and Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors canceled or postponed appointments.
“Our results show that persons with RA who had medication changes in the first 3 months of the COVID-19 pandemic in the U.S. were more likely to have worse disease activity and higher exposure to prior DMARDs, but no statistical difference was found in terms of comorbidities,” first author Kaleb Michaud, PhD, and coauthors wrote. Dr. Michaud is with the National Databank for Rheumatic Diseases, Wichita, Kan., and the University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha.
The study evaluated responses from 734 adults who participated in FORWARD, an observational, multidisease registry. They answered online surveys about COVID-19 in May 2020 and had provided data on their medication use before the pandemic. A total of 30% (n = 221) reported medication changes in that period.
Details on medication changes
Medication changers were more likely to use glucocorticoids (GCs) (32.6% vs. 18.1%) and less likely to use nonhydroxychloroquine conventional DMARDs (49.3% vs. 62%) pre-COVID. Changers also reported higher rates of economic hardship during the pandemic (22.6% vs. 14.6%).
In the midst of the study period, the ACR issued a clinical guideline for treatment of rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs), emphasizing the need to maintain DMARD therapy, control disease activity, and reduce prednisone/GC use. The guideline advised continuing hydroxychloroquine and interleukin-6 inhibitor biologics in people with suspected or confirmed COVID-19.
Dr. Michaud and coauthors acknowledged the ongoing lack of knowledge about real-world treatment patterns for RA during the pandemic. They set out with this study to fill those knowledge gaps.
They noted that patients on bDMARDs (17.6%) and JAK inhibitors (17.1%) were more than twice as likely to discontinue medications than were those on conventional DMARDs (8.2%).
Switching to telehealth was the most common pandemic-related behavior change among patients in all DMARD groups, with rates ranging from 31% to 47.1%, followed by canceling or postponing appointments, with rates ranging from 27.9% to 36.4% depending on the DMARD group.
The study also found that RA patients widely adopted the behavior changes that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommended during the pandemic, although the rates of restricting social contacts were significantly lower than the 90% reported in an early Italian study.
Dr. Michaud and coauthors also provided some explanation of why people on GCs and DMARDs were more likely than others to change medication patterns. “This may reflect efforts to reduce the perceived risk of infections due to GCs as well as the likely less-controlled disease activity associated with GC use,” they wrote. While the ACR’s early pandemic guidance followed the 2015 guidelines – that patients should continue on GCs at the “lowest possible dose” and not stop them “abruptly” – most U.S. rheumatologists reported cutting back on GC use during the pandemic.
The researchers acknowledged that evidence linking GC use with hospitalization for COVID-19, which emerged after they had surveyed study participants, was consistent their findings, but that the overall risk of COVID-19 in RA patients still isn’t known.
Pfizer funded the analysis, and a coauthor is an employee of Pfizer.
During the first 3 months of the COVID-19 pandemic last year, about one-third of people with rheumatoid arthritis in the United States made changes in their RA medications, and, before the American College of Rheumatology tweaked its guidelines midway through that period, they were about twice as likely to make medication changes on their own than before the pandemic, according to an analysis of data in FORWARD, the National Databank for Rheumatic Diseases.
The study, published in Arthritis Care & Research, also found that about 10% of RA patients on hydroxychloroquine lost access to the drug at a time it was drawing interest as a treatment for COVID-19. Another finding was that a high percentage of patients on non–tumor necrosis factor biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) and Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors canceled or postponed appointments.
“Our results show that persons with RA who had medication changes in the first 3 months of the COVID-19 pandemic in the U.S. were more likely to have worse disease activity and higher exposure to prior DMARDs, but no statistical difference was found in terms of comorbidities,” first author Kaleb Michaud, PhD, and coauthors wrote. Dr. Michaud is with the National Databank for Rheumatic Diseases, Wichita, Kan., and the University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha.
The study evaluated responses from 734 adults who participated in FORWARD, an observational, multidisease registry. They answered online surveys about COVID-19 in May 2020 and had provided data on their medication use before the pandemic. A total of 30% (n = 221) reported medication changes in that period.
Details on medication changes
Medication changers were more likely to use glucocorticoids (GCs) (32.6% vs. 18.1%) and less likely to use nonhydroxychloroquine conventional DMARDs (49.3% vs. 62%) pre-COVID. Changers also reported higher rates of economic hardship during the pandemic (22.6% vs. 14.6%).
In the midst of the study period, the ACR issued a clinical guideline for treatment of rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs), emphasizing the need to maintain DMARD therapy, control disease activity, and reduce prednisone/GC use. The guideline advised continuing hydroxychloroquine and interleukin-6 inhibitor biologics in people with suspected or confirmed COVID-19.
Dr. Michaud and coauthors acknowledged the ongoing lack of knowledge about real-world treatment patterns for RA during the pandemic. They set out with this study to fill those knowledge gaps.
They noted that patients on bDMARDs (17.6%) and JAK inhibitors (17.1%) were more than twice as likely to discontinue medications than were those on conventional DMARDs (8.2%).
Switching to telehealth was the most common pandemic-related behavior change among patients in all DMARD groups, with rates ranging from 31% to 47.1%, followed by canceling or postponing appointments, with rates ranging from 27.9% to 36.4% depending on the DMARD group.
The study also found that RA patients widely adopted the behavior changes that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommended during the pandemic, although the rates of restricting social contacts were significantly lower than the 90% reported in an early Italian study.
Dr. Michaud and coauthors also provided some explanation of why people on GCs and DMARDs were more likely than others to change medication patterns. “This may reflect efforts to reduce the perceived risk of infections due to GCs as well as the likely less-controlled disease activity associated with GC use,” they wrote. While the ACR’s early pandemic guidance followed the 2015 guidelines – that patients should continue on GCs at the “lowest possible dose” and not stop them “abruptly” – most U.S. rheumatologists reported cutting back on GC use during the pandemic.
The researchers acknowledged that evidence linking GC use with hospitalization for COVID-19, which emerged after they had surveyed study participants, was consistent their findings, but that the overall risk of COVID-19 in RA patients still isn’t known.
Pfizer funded the analysis, and a coauthor is an employee of Pfizer.
FROM ARTHRITIS CARE & RESEARCH
Survey finds Mohs surgeons favor nicotinamide for chemoprevention
, in a survey of members of the American College of Mohs Surgeons.
Although nicotinamide, a vitamin B3 derivative, has been shown to reduce keratinocyte carcinoma (KC) in high-risk patients, it is not approved by the Food and Drug Administration for chemoprevention, and no safe upper limit has been established in clinical trials to date, wrote Sheena Desai of Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, and colleagues.
The investigators emailed an anonymous 12-question survey to 1,500 members of the American College of Mohs Surgeons. Of the 170 who responded, 10 were excluded for discordant responses, leaving 160 participants whose replies were included in a multiple logistic regression analysis. The respondents were mainly U.S. board-certified dermatologists and Mohs surgeons (99.4% for both); 86.9% were in clinical practice, including 78.8% in private practice, according to the report of the results, published in Dermatologic Surgery.
Overall, 76.9% of the respondents said they recommended nicotinamide for preventing KC, and 20% said they had recommended nicotinamide to more than 100 patients in the past year. In addition, 45% of respondents reported patients who had been taking nicotinamide for 2 years or more. Overall, 63.8% of the respondents expressed no concerns about long-term safety of nicotinamide, compared with 28.1% who said they were uncertain about long-term safety. Those who expressed concern or uncertainty about long-term safety were significantly less likely to recommend nicotinamide for KC prevention in the past year (odds ratio, 0.30; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.13-0.71). Clinicians with more than 10 years in practice were significantly less likely to recommend nicotinamide for chemoprevention (OR, 0.20; 95% CI 0.05-0.82).
The study findings were limited by several factors, including the low number of responses and the potential lack of generalizability to clinicians other than Mohs surgeons, the researchers noted. “Additional studies on nicotinamide safety and use patterns, including cost-effectiveness analyses, are needed given the widespread use identified in this study,” they concluded.
Limited safety data highlight research gaps
The study is particularly important at this time because nicotinamide has been increasingly used for KC chemoprevention since a randomized, controlled trial published in 2015 in the New England Journal of Medicine showed benefits, corresponding author Rebecca I. Hartman, MD, of the department of dermatology, Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard University, Boston, said in an interview. That study of high-risk patients found that nicotinamide, 500 mg twice a day, was safe and effective in lowering the rates of new nonmelanoma skin cancers and AKs after 12 months .
“However, because this is not a prescription medication, but rather an OTC vitamin supplement, data on its use are not available,” she said.
Dr. Hartman said she was not surprised that nicotinamide is being used frequently by a majority of the survey respondents. “Most are using this if someone has two KCs over 2 years, which is a quite common occurrence,” she noted. However, “I was a bit surprised that nearly two-thirds had no safety concerns with long-term use, even though this has not been well-studied,” she added.
“Like anything we recommend, we must consider the risks and benefits,” Dr. Hartman said of nicotinamide. “Unfortunately, we don’t know the risks well, since this hasn’t been well-characterized with regular long-term use in these doses,” and more research is needed, she said. “The risks are likely low, as this is a vitamin that has been used for years in various OTC supplements,” she added. “However, there are some data showing slightly increased all-cause mortality with similar doses of a related medicine, niacin, in cardiovascular patients. For this reason, I recommend the medication when a patient’s KCs are really becoming burdensome – several KCs in a year or two – or when they are high-risk due to immunosuppression,” she explained.
“We also must consider the individual patient. For a healthy younger patient who has a public-facing job and as a result is very averse to developing any KCs on his or her face and very motivated to try prevention, it may make sense to try nicotinamide,” Dr. Hartman said. But for an older patient with cardiovascular comorbidities who is not bothered by a KC on his or her back or extremities, “this medication may not have a favorable risk-benefit profile.”
To address safety concerns, “researchers need to examine whether there are any harms in long-term regular nicotinamide use for KC prevention,” Dr. Hartman said. “This is something we hope to do in our patients; however, it is challenging to study in a retrospective way since the harm is likely small and there are so many other features that influence mortality as an outcome,” she noted.
The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.
, in a survey of members of the American College of Mohs Surgeons.
Although nicotinamide, a vitamin B3 derivative, has been shown to reduce keratinocyte carcinoma (KC) in high-risk patients, it is not approved by the Food and Drug Administration for chemoprevention, and no safe upper limit has been established in clinical trials to date, wrote Sheena Desai of Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, and colleagues.
The investigators emailed an anonymous 12-question survey to 1,500 members of the American College of Mohs Surgeons. Of the 170 who responded, 10 were excluded for discordant responses, leaving 160 participants whose replies were included in a multiple logistic regression analysis. The respondents were mainly U.S. board-certified dermatologists and Mohs surgeons (99.4% for both); 86.9% were in clinical practice, including 78.8% in private practice, according to the report of the results, published in Dermatologic Surgery.
Overall, 76.9% of the respondents said they recommended nicotinamide for preventing KC, and 20% said they had recommended nicotinamide to more than 100 patients in the past year. In addition, 45% of respondents reported patients who had been taking nicotinamide for 2 years or more. Overall, 63.8% of the respondents expressed no concerns about long-term safety of nicotinamide, compared with 28.1% who said they were uncertain about long-term safety. Those who expressed concern or uncertainty about long-term safety were significantly less likely to recommend nicotinamide for KC prevention in the past year (odds ratio, 0.30; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.13-0.71). Clinicians with more than 10 years in practice were significantly less likely to recommend nicotinamide for chemoprevention (OR, 0.20; 95% CI 0.05-0.82).
The study findings were limited by several factors, including the low number of responses and the potential lack of generalizability to clinicians other than Mohs surgeons, the researchers noted. “Additional studies on nicotinamide safety and use patterns, including cost-effectiveness analyses, are needed given the widespread use identified in this study,” they concluded.
Limited safety data highlight research gaps
The study is particularly important at this time because nicotinamide has been increasingly used for KC chemoprevention since a randomized, controlled trial published in 2015 in the New England Journal of Medicine showed benefits, corresponding author Rebecca I. Hartman, MD, of the department of dermatology, Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard University, Boston, said in an interview. That study of high-risk patients found that nicotinamide, 500 mg twice a day, was safe and effective in lowering the rates of new nonmelanoma skin cancers and AKs after 12 months .
“However, because this is not a prescription medication, but rather an OTC vitamin supplement, data on its use are not available,” she said.
Dr. Hartman said she was not surprised that nicotinamide is being used frequently by a majority of the survey respondents. “Most are using this if someone has two KCs over 2 years, which is a quite common occurrence,” she noted. However, “I was a bit surprised that nearly two-thirds had no safety concerns with long-term use, even though this has not been well-studied,” she added.
“Like anything we recommend, we must consider the risks and benefits,” Dr. Hartman said of nicotinamide. “Unfortunately, we don’t know the risks well, since this hasn’t been well-characterized with regular long-term use in these doses,” and more research is needed, she said. “The risks are likely low, as this is a vitamin that has been used for years in various OTC supplements,” she added. “However, there are some data showing slightly increased all-cause mortality with similar doses of a related medicine, niacin, in cardiovascular patients. For this reason, I recommend the medication when a patient’s KCs are really becoming burdensome – several KCs in a year or two – or when they are high-risk due to immunosuppression,” she explained.
“We also must consider the individual patient. For a healthy younger patient who has a public-facing job and as a result is very averse to developing any KCs on his or her face and very motivated to try prevention, it may make sense to try nicotinamide,” Dr. Hartman said. But for an older patient with cardiovascular comorbidities who is not bothered by a KC on his or her back or extremities, “this medication may not have a favorable risk-benefit profile.”
To address safety concerns, “researchers need to examine whether there are any harms in long-term regular nicotinamide use for KC prevention,” Dr. Hartman said. “This is something we hope to do in our patients; however, it is challenging to study in a retrospective way since the harm is likely small and there are so many other features that influence mortality as an outcome,” she noted.
The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.
, in a survey of members of the American College of Mohs Surgeons.
Although nicotinamide, a vitamin B3 derivative, has been shown to reduce keratinocyte carcinoma (KC) in high-risk patients, it is not approved by the Food and Drug Administration for chemoprevention, and no safe upper limit has been established in clinical trials to date, wrote Sheena Desai of Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, and colleagues.
The investigators emailed an anonymous 12-question survey to 1,500 members of the American College of Mohs Surgeons. Of the 170 who responded, 10 were excluded for discordant responses, leaving 160 participants whose replies were included in a multiple logistic regression analysis. The respondents were mainly U.S. board-certified dermatologists and Mohs surgeons (99.4% for both); 86.9% were in clinical practice, including 78.8% in private practice, according to the report of the results, published in Dermatologic Surgery.
Overall, 76.9% of the respondents said they recommended nicotinamide for preventing KC, and 20% said they had recommended nicotinamide to more than 100 patients in the past year. In addition, 45% of respondents reported patients who had been taking nicotinamide for 2 years or more. Overall, 63.8% of the respondents expressed no concerns about long-term safety of nicotinamide, compared with 28.1% who said they were uncertain about long-term safety. Those who expressed concern or uncertainty about long-term safety were significantly less likely to recommend nicotinamide for KC prevention in the past year (odds ratio, 0.30; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.13-0.71). Clinicians with more than 10 years in practice were significantly less likely to recommend nicotinamide for chemoprevention (OR, 0.20; 95% CI 0.05-0.82).
The study findings were limited by several factors, including the low number of responses and the potential lack of generalizability to clinicians other than Mohs surgeons, the researchers noted. “Additional studies on nicotinamide safety and use patterns, including cost-effectiveness analyses, are needed given the widespread use identified in this study,” they concluded.
Limited safety data highlight research gaps
The study is particularly important at this time because nicotinamide has been increasingly used for KC chemoprevention since a randomized, controlled trial published in 2015 in the New England Journal of Medicine showed benefits, corresponding author Rebecca I. Hartman, MD, of the department of dermatology, Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard University, Boston, said in an interview. That study of high-risk patients found that nicotinamide, 500 mg twice a day, was safe and effective in lowering the rates of new nonmelanoma skin cancers and AKs after 12 months .
“However, because this is not a prescription medication, but rather an OTC vitamin supplement, data on its use are not available,” she said.
Dr. Hartman said she was not surprised that nicotinamide is being used frequently by a majority of the survey respondents. “Most are using this if someone has two KCs over 2 years, which is a quite common occurrence,” she noted. However, “I was a bit surprised that nearly two-thirds had no safety concerns with long-term use, even though this has not been well-studied,” she added.
“Like anything we recommend, we must consider the risks and benefits,” Dr. Hartman said of nicotinamide. “Unfortunately, we don’t know the risks well, since this hasn’t been well-characterized with regular long-term use in these doses,” and more research is needed, she said. “The risks are likely low, as this is a vitamin that has been used for years in various OTC supplements,” she added. “However, there are some data showing slightly increased all-cause mortality with similar doses of a related medicine, niacin, in cardiovascular patients. For this reason, I recommend the medication when a patient’s KCs are really becoming burdensome – several KCs in a year or two – or when they are high-risk due to immunosuppression,” she explained.
“We also must consider the individual patient. For a healthy younger patient who has a public-facing job and as a result is very averse to developing any KCs on his or her face and very motivated to try prevention, it may make sense to try nicotinamide,” Dr. Hartman said. But for an older patient with cardiovascular comorbidities who is not bothered by a KC on his or her back or extremities, “this medication may not have a favorable risk-benefit profile.”
To address safety concerns, “researchers need to examine whether there are any harms in long-term regular nicotinamide use for KC prevention,” Dr. Hartman said. “This is something we hope to do in our patients; however, it is challenging to study in a retrospective way since the harm is likely small and there are so many other features that influence mortality as an outcome,” she noted.
The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.
FROM DERMATOLOGIC SURGERY
FDA approves frontline immunotherapy for gastric cancers
This is the first immunotherapy approved for the frontline treatment of gastric cancers, the agency says in a press release.
The approval comes after nivolumab received Priority Review and Orphan Drug designations for this indication. There are approximately 28,000 new diagnoses of gastric cancer annually in the United States, and overall survival is generally poor with currently available therapy, points out the FDA.
“Today’s approval is the first treatment in more than a decade to show a survival benefit for patients with advanced or metastatic gastric cancer who are being treated for the first time,” Richard Pazdur, MD, director of the FDA’s Oncology Center of Excellence and acting director of the Office of Oncologic Diseases in the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, states in an FDA press release.
Efficacy in the gastric cancer setting was demonstrated in the randomized, phase 3, open-label CheckMate 649 study of 1,518 untreated patients. Median survival was 13.8 months among those treated with nivolumab, compared with 11.6 months with chemotherapy alone (hazard ratio, 0.80; P = .0002).
Common side effects experienced by patients in the nivolumab group included peripheral neuropathy, nausea, fatigue, diarrhea, vomiting, decreased appetite, abdominal pain, constipation, and musculoskeletal pain.
Nivolumab is also approved for numerous other cancers. Other known adverse effects include immune-mediated inflammation of the lungs, colon, liver, endocrine glands, and kidneys.
“Patients should tell their health care providers if they have immune system problems, lung or breathing problems, liver problems, have had an organ transplant, or are pregnant or plan to become pregnant before starting treatment,” the FDA states.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
This is the first immunotherapy approved for the frontline treatment of gastric cancers, the agency says in a press release.
The approval comes after nivolumab received Priority Review and Orphan Drug designations for this indication. There are approximately 28,000 new diagnoses of gastric cancer annually in the United States, and overall survival is generally poor with currently available therapy, points out the FDA.
“Today’s approval is the first treatment in more than a decade to show a survival benefit for patients with advanced or metastatic gastric cancer who are being treated for the first time,” Richard Pazdur, MD, director of the FDA’s Oncology Center of Excellence and acting director of the Office of Oncologic Diseases in the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, states in an FDA press release.
Efficacy in the gastric cancer setting was demonstrated in the randomized, phase 3, open-label CheckMate 649 study of 1,518 untreated patients. Median survival was 13.8 months among those treated with nivolumab, compared with 11.6 months with chemotherapy alone (hazard ratio, 0.80; P = .0002).
Common side effects experienced by patients in the nivolumab group included peripheral neuropathy, nausea, fatigue, diarrhea, vomiting, decreased appetite, abdominal pain, constipation, and musculoskeletal pain.
Nivolumab is also approved for numerous other cancers. Other known adverse effects include immune-mediated inflammation of the lungs, colon, liver, endocrine glands, and kidneys.
“Patients should tell their health care providers if they have immune system problems, lung or breathing problems, liver problems, have had an organ transplant, or are pregnant or plan to become pregnant before starting treatment,” the FDA states.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
This is the first immunotherapy approved for the frontline treatment of gastric cancers, the agency says in a press release.
The approval comes after nivolumab received Priority Review and Orphan Drug designations for this indication. There are approximately 28,000 new diagnoses of gastric cancer annually in the United States, and overall survival is generally poor with currently available therapy, points out the FDA.
“Today’s approval is the first treatment in more than a decade to show a survival benefit for patients with advanced or metastatic gastric cancer who are being treated for the first time,” Richard Pazdur, MD, director of the FDA’s Oncology Center of Excellence and acting director of the Office of Oncologic Diseases in the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, states in an FDA press release.
Efficacy in the gastric cancer setting was demonstrated in the randomized, phase 3, open-label CheckMate 649 study of 1,518 untreated patients. Median survival was 13.8 months among those treated with nivolumab, compared with 11.6 months with chemotherapy alone (hazard ratio, 0.80; P = .0002).
Common side effects experienced by patients in the nivolumab group included peripheral neuropathy, nausea, fatigue, diarrhea, vomiting, decreased appetite, abdominal pain, constipation, and musculoskeletal pain.
Nivolumab is also approved for numerous other cancers. Other known adverse effects include immune-mediated inflammation of the lungs, colon, liver, endocrine glands, and kidneys.
“Patients should tell their health care providers if they have immune system problems, lung or breathing problems, liver problems, have had an organ transplant, or are pregnant or plan to become pregnant before starting treatment,” the FDA states.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
How some COVID-19 vaccines could cause rare blood clots
on April 14, 2021, after the CDC and Food and Drug Administration recommended that states hold off on using it pending a detailed review of six cases of the same kind of rare but serious event – a blood clot in the vessels that drain blood from the brain combined with a large drop in platelets, which increases the risk for bleeding.
This combination can lead to severe strokes that can lead to brain damage or death. Among the six cases reported, which came to light over the past 3 weeks, one person died, according to the CDC. All six were women and ranged in age from 18 to 48 years.
According to a report from the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), which is maintained by the Department of Health & Human Services, the woman who died was 45. She developed a gradually worsening headache about a week after receiving the Johnson & Johnson vaccine.
On March 17, the day she came to the hospital, she was dry heaving. Her headache had suddenly gotten much worse, and the left side of her body was weak, which are signs of a stroke. A CT scan revealed both bleeding in her brain and a clot in her cortical vein. She died the following day.
In addition to VAERS, which accepts reports from anyone, the CDC and FDA are monitoring at least eight other safety systems maintained by hospitals, research centers, long-term care facilities, and insurance companies for signs of trouble with the vaccines. VAERS data is searchable and open to the public. Most of these systems are not publicly available to protect patient privacy. It’s unclear which systems detected the six cases cited by federal regulators.
“These are very serious and potentially fatal problems occurring in a healthy young adult. It’s serious and we need to get to the bottom of it,” said Ed Belongia, MD, director of the Center for Clinical Epidemiology and Population Health at the Marshfield (Wis.) Clinic Research Institute. Dr. Belongia leads a research team that helps the CDC monitor vaccine safety and effectiveness.
“Safety is always the highest priority, and I think what we’ve seen here in the past 24 hours is our vaccine safety monitoring system is working,” he said.
Others agree. “I think what CDC and FDA have detected is a rare, but likely real adverse event associated with this vaccine,” said Paul Offit, MD, director of vaccine education at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia.
Although much is still unknown about these events, they follow a similar pattern of blood clots reported with the AstraZeneca vaccine in Europe. That vaccine is now sold under the brand name Vaxzevria.
This has experts questioning whether all vaccines of this type may cause these rare clots.
“I think it’s likely a class effect,” said Dr. Offit, who was a member of the FDA advisory committee that reviewed clinical trial data on the J&J vaccine before it was authorized for use.
Adenovirus vaccines scrutinized
Both the Johnson & Johnson and Vaxzevria vaccines use an adenovirus to ferry genetic instructions for making the coronaviruses spike protein into our cells.
Adenoviruses are common, relatively simple viruses that normally cause mild cold or flu symptoms. The ones used in the vaccine are disabled so they can’t make us sick. They’re more like Trojan horses.
Once inside our cells, they release the DNA instructions they carry to make the spike protein of the new coronavirus. Those cells then crank out copies of the spike protein, which then get displayed on the outer surface of the cell membrane where they are recognized by the immune system.
The immune system then makes antibodies and other defenses against the spike so that, when the real coronavirus comes along, our bodies are ready to fight the infection.
There’s no question the vaccine works. In clinical trials, the Johnson & Johnson vaccine was 66% percent effective at preventing against moderate to severe COVID-19 infection, and none of the patients who got COVID-19 after vaccination had to be admitted to the hospital or died.
The idea behind using adenoviruses in vaccines isn’t a new one. In a kind of fight-fire-with-fire approach, the idea is to use a virus, which is good at infecting us, to fight a different kind of virus.
Researchers have been working on the concept for about 10 years, but the COVID-19 vaccines that use this technology are some of the first adenovirus-vector vaccines deployed in humans.
Only one other adenovirus vaccine, for Ebola, has been approved for use in humans. It was approved in Europe last year. Before the Johnson & Johnson vaccine, no other adenovirus vector has been available for use in humans in the United States.
There are six adenovirus-vector vaccines for COVID-19. In addition to AstraZeneca and Johnson & Johnson, there’s the Russian-developed vaccine Sputnik V, along with CanSino from China, and the Covishield vaccine in India.
Adenovirus vaccines are more stable than the mRNA vaccines. That makes them easier to store and transport.
But they have a significant downside, too. Because adenoviruses infect humans out in the world, we already make antibodies against them. So there’s always a danger that our immune systems might recognize and react to the vaccine, rendering it ineffective. For that reason, scientists try to carefully select the adenovirus vectors, or carriers, they use.
The two vaccines under investigation for blood clots are slightly different. The Johnson & Johnson vaccine uses the vector AD26, because most of the population lacks preexisting immunity to it. Vaxzevria uses an adenovirus that infects chimpanzees, called ChAdOx1.
Vaxzevria has been widely used in Europe but has not yet been authorized in the United States.
On April 7, the European Medicines Agency, Europe’s counterpart to the FDA, ruled that unusual blood clots with low blood platelets should be listed as rare side effects on the Vaxzevria vaccine.
The decision came after reviewing 62 cases of cerebral venous sinus thrombosis (CVST) linked to the vaccine and 25 cases of another rare type of clot, called a splanchnic vein thrombosis. Splanchnic veins drain blood from the major organs in the digestive system, including the stomach, liver, and intestines; 18 of those events were fatal.
The reports were culled from reporting in Europe and the United Kingdom, where around 25 million people have received the Vaxzevria vaccine, making these clots exceptionally rare, but serious.
So far, six cases of CVST have been reported in the United States, after more than 7 million doses of the Johnson & Johnson vaccines have been administered.
A key question for U.S. regulators will be the background rate for these types of rare combinations of clots and deplenished platelets. The background rate is the number of events that would be expected to occur naturally in a population of unvaccinated people. On a press call on April 13, Peter Marks, MD, PhD, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, was asked about the frequency of this dangerous combination. He said the combination of low platelets and clots was so rare that it was hard to pinpoint, but might be somewhere between 2 and 14 cases per million people over the course of a year.
The first Johnson & Johnson doses were given in early March. That means the six cases came to light within the first few weeks of use of the vaccine in the United States, a very short amount of time.
“These were six cases per million people for 2 weeks, which is the same thing as 25 million per year, so it’s clearly above the background rate,” Dr. Offit said.
Studies suggest possible mechanism
On April 9, the New England Journal of Medicine published a detailed evaluation of the 11 patients in Germany and Austria who developed the rare clots after their Vaxzevria vaccines.
The study detected rare antibodies to a signaling protein called platelet factor 4, which helps to coordinate clot formation.
These same type of antibodies form in some people given the blood thinning drug heparin. In those reactions, which are also exceptionally rare, the same type of syndrome develops, leading to large, devastating clots that consume circulating platelets.
It’s not yet clear whether people who develop reactions to the vaccines already have some platelet factor 4 antibodies before they are vaccinated, or whether the vaccines somehow spur the body to make these antibodies, which then launch a kind of autoimmune attack.
The researchers on the paper gave the syndrome a name, vaccine-induced thrombotic thrombocytopenia (VITT).
It’s also not clear why more cases seem to be in women than in men. Andrew Eisenberger, MD, an associate professor of hematology and oncology at Columbia University, New York, said the most common causes of cerebral venous sinus thrombosis have to do with conditions that raise estrogen levels, like pregnancy and hormonal contraception.
“Estrogen naturally leads to changes in several clotting proteins in the blood that may predispose to abnormal blood clotting in a few different sites in the body,” he said. “The clotting changes we are encountering with some of COVID-19 vaccines are likely to be synergistic with the effects of estrogen on the blood.”
No matter the cause, the CDC on April 13 alerted doctors to keep a high index of suspicion for VITT in patients who have received the Johnson & Johnson vaccination within the last 2 weeks. In those patients, the usual course of treatment with blood thinning drugs like heparin may be harmful.
Symptoms to watch for include severe headache or backache, new neurologic symptoms, severe abdominal pain, shortness of breath, leg swelling, tiny red spots on the skin, or easy bruising.
Grappling with evidence
The CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices will meet today in an emergency session to review the cases and see if any changes are needed to use of the J&J vaccine in the United States.
Last week, for example, the United Kingdom restricted the use of the AstraZeneca vaccine in people aged younger than 30 years, saying the risks and benefits of vaccination are “more finely balanced” for this age group.
With cases of COVID-19 rising again in the United States, and the Johnson & Johnson vaccine currently the most convenient form of protection against the virus, the committee will have to weigh the risks of that infection against the risk of rare clots caused by vaccination.
They will also likely have to rule out whether any of the cases had COVID. At least one study has reported CVST clots in three patients with confirmed COVID infections. In Europe, COVID infection did not seem to play a role in the formation of the clots with low platelets.
Hilda Bastian, PhD, a clinical trials expert who cofounded the Cochrane Collaboration, said it won’t be an easy task. Much will depend on how certain the committee members feel they know about all the events linked to the vaccine.
“That’s the really, really hard issue from my point of view for them right this moment. Have we missed any? Or how many are we likely to have missed?” asked Dr. Bastian, who lives in Australia.
“In a country that size with that fragmented [of] a health care system, how sure can you be that you know them all? That’s going to be a really difficult situation for them to grapple with, the quality of information that they’ve got,” she said.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
on April 14, 2021, after the CDC and Food and Drug Administration recommended that states hold off on using it pending a detailed review of six cases of the same kind of rare but serious event – a blood clot in the vessels that drain blood from the brain combined with a large drop in platelets, which increases the risk for bleeding.
This combination can lead to severe strokes that can lead to brain damage or death. Among the six cases reported, which came to light over the past 3 weeks, one person died, according to the CDC. All six were women and ranged in age from 18 to 48 years.
According to a report from the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), which is maintained by the Department of Health & Human Services, the woman who died was 45. She developed a gradually worsening headache about a week after receiving the Johnson & Johnson vaccine.
On March 17, the day she came to the hospital, she was dry heaving. Her headache had suddenly gotten much worse, and the left side of her body was weak, which are signs of a stroke. A CT scan revealed both bleeding in her brain and a clot in her cortical vein. She died the following day.
In addition to VAERS, which accepts reports from anyone, the CDC and FDA are monitoring at least eight other safety systems maintained by hospitals, research centers, long-term care facilities, and insurance companies for signs of trouble with the vaccines. VAERS data is searchable and open to the public. Most of these systems are not publicly available to protect patient privacy. It’s unclear which systems detected the six cases cited by federal regulators.
“These are very serious and potentially fatal problems occurring in a healthy young adult. It’s serious and we need to get to the bottom of it,” said Ed Belongia, MD, director of the Center for Clinical Epidemiology and Population Health at the Marshfield (Wis.) Clinic Research Institute. Dr. Belongia leads a research team that helps the CDC monitor vaccine safety and effectiveness.
“Safety is always the highest priority, and I think what we’ve seen here in the past 24 hours is our vaccine safety monitoring system is working,” he said.
Others agree. “I think what CDC and FDA have detected is a rare, but likely real adverse event associated with this vaccine,” said Paul Offit, MD, director of vaccine education at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia.
Although much is still unknown about these events, they follow a similar pattern of blood clots reported with the AstraZeneca vaccine in Europe. That vaccine is now sold under the brand name Vaxzevria.
This has experts questioning whether all vaccines of this type may cause these rare clots.
“I think it’s likely a class effect,” said Dr. Offit, who was a member of the FDA advisory committee that reviewed clinical trial data on the J&J vaccine before it was authorized for use.
Adenovirus vaccines scrutinized
Both the Johnson & Johnson and Vaxzevria vaccines use an adenovirus to ferry genetic instructions for making the coronaviruses spike protein into our cells.
Adenoviruses are common, relatively simple viruses that normally cause mild cold or flu symptoms. The ones used in the vaccine are disabled so they can’t make us sick. They’re more like Trojan horses.
Once inside our cells, they release the DNA instructions they carry to make the spike protein of the new coronavirus. Those cells then crank out copies of the spike protein, which then get displayed on the outer surface of the cell membrane where they are recognized by the immune system.
The immune system then makes antibodies and other defenses against the spike so that, when the real coronavirus comes along, our bodies are ready to fight the infection.
There’s no question the vaccine works. In clinical trials, the Johnson & Johnson vaccine was 66% percent effective at preventing against moderate to severe COVID-19 infection, and none of the patients who got COVID-19 after vaccination had to be admitted to the hospital or died.
The idea behind using adenoviruses in vaccines isn’t a new one. In a kind of fight-fire-with-fire approach, the idea is to use a virus, which is good at infecting us, to fight a different kind of virus.
Researchers have been working on the concept for about 10 years, but the COVID-19 vaccines that use this technology are some of the first adenovirus-vector vaccines deployed in humans.
Only one other adenovirus vaccine, for Ebola, has been approved for use in humans. It was approved in Europe last year. Before the Johnson & Johnson vaccine, no other adenovirus vector has been available for use in humans in the United States.
There are six adenovirus-vector vaccines for COVID-19. In addition to AstraZeneca and Johnson & Johnson, there’s the Russian-developed vaccine Sputnik V, along with CanSino from China, and the Covishield vaccine in India.
Adenovirus vaccines are more stable than the mRNA vaccines. That makes them easier to store and transport.
But they have a significant downside, too. Because adenoviruses infect humans out in the world, we already make antibodies against them. So there’s always a danger that our immune systems might recognize and react to the vaccine, rendering it ineffective. For that reason, scientists try to carefully select the adenovirus vectors, or carriers, they use.
The two vaccines under investigation for blood clots are slightly different. The Johnson & Johnson vaccine uses the vector AD26, because most of the population lacks preexisting immunity to it. Vaxzevria uses an adenovirus that infects chimpanzees, called ChAdOx1.
Vaxzevria has been widely used in Europe but has not yet been authorized in the United States.
On April 7, the European Medicines Agency, Europe’s counterpart to the FDA, ruled that unusual blood clots with low blood platelets should be listed as rare side effects on the Vaxzevria vaccine.
The decision came after reviewing 62 cases of cerebral venous sinus thrombosis (CVST) linked to the vaccine and 25 cases of another rare type of clot, called a splanchnic vein thrombosis. Splanchnic veins drain blood from the major organs in the digestive system, including the stomach, liver, and intestines; 18 of those events were fatal.
The reports were culled from reporting in Europe and the United Kingdom, where around 25 million people have received the Vaxzevria vaccine, making these clots exceptionally rare, but serious.
So far, six cases of CVST have been reported in the United States, after more than 7 million doses of the Johnson & Johnson vaccines have been administered.
A key question for U.S. regulators will be the background rate for these types of rare combinations of clots and deplenished platelets. The background rate is the number of events that would be expected to occur naturally in a population of unvaccinated people. On a press call on April 13, Peter Marks, MD, PhD, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, was asked about the frequency of this dangerous combination. He said the combination of low platelets and clots was so rare that it was hard to pinpoint, but might be somewhere between 2 and 14 cases per million people over the course of a year.
The first Johnson & Johnson doses were given in early March. That means the six cases came to light within the first few weeks of use of the vaccine in the United States, a very short amount of time.
“These were six cases per million people for 2 weeks, which is the same thing as 25 million per year, so it’s clearly above the background rate,” Dr. Offit said.
Studies suggest possible mechanism
On April 9, the New England Journal of Medicine published a detailed evaluation of the 11 patients in Germany and Austria who developed the rare clots after their Vaxzevria vaccines.
The study detected rare antibodies to a signaling protein called platelet factor 4, which helps to coordinate clot formation.
These same type of antibodies form in some people given the blood thinning drug heparin. In those reactions, which are also exceptionally rare, the same type of syndrome develops, leading to large, devastating clots that consume circulating platelets.
It’s not yet clear whether people who develop reactions to the vaccines already have some platelet factor 4 antibodies before they are vaccinated, or whether the vaccines somehow spur the body to make these antibodies, which then launch a kind of autoimmune attack.
The researchers on the paper gave the syndrome a name, vaccine-induced thrombotic thrombocytopenia (VITT).
It’s also not clear why more cases seem to be in women than in men. Andrew Eisenberger, MD, an associate professor of hematology and oncology at Columbia University, New York, said the most common causes of cerebral venous sinus thrombosis have to do with conditions that raise estrogen levels, like pregnancy and hormonal contraception.
“Estrogen naturally leads to changes in several clotting proteins in the blood that may predispose to abnormal blood clotting in a few different sites in the body,” he said. “The clotting changes we are encountering with some of COVID-19 vaccines are likely to be synergistic with the effects of estrogen on the blood.”
No matter the cause, the CDC on April 13 alerted doctors to keep a high index of suspicion for VITT in patients who have received the Johnson & Johnson vaccination within the last 2 weeks. In those patients, the usual course of treatment with blood thinning drugs like heparin may be harmful.
Symptoms to watch for include severe headache or backache, new neurologic symptoms, severe abdominal pain, shortness of breath, leg swelling, tiny red spots on the skin, or easy bruising.
Grappling with evidence
The CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices will meet today in an emergency session to review the cases and see if any changes are needed to use of the J&J vaccine in the United States.
Last week, for example, the United Kingdom restricted the use of the AstraZeneca vaccine in people aged younger than 30 years, saying the risks and benefits of vaccination are “more finely balanced” for this age group.
With cases of COVID-19 rising again in the United States, and the Johnson & Johnson vaccine currently the most convenient form of protection against the virus, the committee will have to weigh the risks of that infection against the risk of rare clots caused by vaccination.
They will also likely have to rule out whether any of the cases had COVID. At least one study has reported CVST clots in three patients with confirmed COVID infections. In Europe, COVID infection did not seem to play a role in the formation of the clots with low platelets.
Hilda Bastian, PhD, a clinical trials expert who cofounded the Cochrane Collaboration, said it won’t be an easy task. Much will depend on how certain the committee members feel they know about all the events linked to the vaccine.
“That’s the really, really hard issue from my point of view for them right this moment. Have we missed any? Or how many are we likely to have missed?” asked Dr. Bastian, who lives in Australia.
“In a country that size with that fragmented [of] a health care system, how sure can you be that you know them all? That’s going to be a really difficult situation for them to grapple with, the quality of information that they’ve got,” she said.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
on April 14, 2021, after the CDC and Food and Drug Administration recommended that states hold off on using it pending a detailed review of six cases of the same kind of rare but serious event – a blood clot in the vessels that drain blood from the brain combined with a large drop in platelets, which increases the risk for bleeding.
This combination can lead to severe strokes that can lead to brain damage or death. Among the six cases reported, which came to light over the past 3 weeks, one person died, according to the CDC. All six were women and ranged in age from 18 to 48 years.
According to a report from the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), which is maintained by the Department of Health & Human Services, the woman who died was 45. She developed a gradually worsening headache about a week after receiving the Johnson & Johnson vaccine.
On March 17, the day she came to the hospital, she was dry heaving. Her headache had suddenly gotten much worse, and the left side of her body was weak, which are signs of a stroke. A CT scan revealed both bleeding in her brain and a clot in her cortical vein. She died the following day.
In addition to VAERS, which accepts reports from anyone, the CDC and FDA are monitoring at least eight other safety systems maintained by hospitals, research centers, long-term care facilities, and insurance companies for signs of trouble with the vaccines. VAERS data is searchable and open to the public. Most of these systems are not publicly available to protect patient privacy. It’s unclear which systems detected the six cases cited by federal regulators.
“These are very serious and potentially fatal problems occurring in a healthy young adult. It’s serious and we need to get to the bottom of it,” said Ed Belongia, MD, director of the Center for Clinical Epidemiology and Population Health at the Marshfield (Wis.) Clinic Research Institute. Dr. Belongia leads a research team that helps the CDC monitor vaccine safety and effectiveness.
“Safety is always the highest priority, and I think what we’ve seen here in the past 24 hours is our vaccine safety monitoring system is working,” he said.
Others agree. “I think what CDC and FDA have detected is a rare, but likely real adverse event associated with this vaccine,” said Paul Offit, MD, director of vaccine education at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia.
Although much is still unknown about these events, they follow a similar pattern of blood clots reported with the AstraZeneca vaccine in Europe. That vaccine is now sold under the brand name Vaxzevria.
This has experts questioning whether all vaccines of this type may cause these rare clots.
“I think it’s likely a class effect,” said Dr. Offit, who was a member of the FDA advisory committee that reviewed clinical trial data on the J&J vaccine before it was authorized for use.
Adenovirus vaccines scrutinized
Both the Johnson & Johnson and Vaxzevria vaccines use an adenovirus to ferry genetic instructions for making the coronaviruses spike protein into our cells.
Adenoviruses are common, relatively simple viruses that normally cause mild cold or flu symptoms. The ones used in the vaccine are disabled so they can’t make us sick. They’re more like Trojan horses.
Once inside our cells, they release the DNA instructions they carry to make the spike protein of the new coronavirus. Those cells then crank out copies of the spike protein, which then get displayed on the outer surface of the cell membrane where they are recognized by the immune system.
The immune system then makes antibodies and other defenses against the spike so that, when the real coronavirus comes along, our bodies are ready to fight the infection.
There’s no question the vaccine works. In clinical trials, the Johnson & Johnson vaccine was 66% percent effective at preventing against moderate to severe COVID-19 infection, and none of the patients who got COVID-19 after vaccination had to be admitted to the hospital or died.
The idea behind using adenoviruses in vaccines isn’t a new one. In a kind of fight-fire-with-fire approach, the idea is to use a virus, which is good at infecting us, to fight a different kind of virus.
Researchers have been working on the concept for about 10 years, but the COVID-19 vaccines that use this technology are some of the first adenovirus-vector vaccines deployed in humans.
Only one other adenovirus vaccine, for Ebola, has been approved for use in humans. It was approved in Europe last year. Before the Johnson & Johnson vaccine, no other adenovirus vector has been available for use in humans in the United States.
There are six adenovirus-vector vaccines for COVID-19. In addition to AstraZeneca and Johnson & Johnson, there’s the Russian-developed vaccine Sputnik V, along with CanSino from China, and the Covishield vaccine in India.
Adenovirus vaccines are more stable than the mRNA vaccines. That makes them easier to store and transport.
But they have a significant downside, too. Because adenoviruses infect humans out in the world, we already make antibodies against them. So there’s always a danger that our immune systems might recognize and react to the vaccine, rendering it ineffective. For that reason, scientists try to carefully select the adenovirus vectors, or carriers, they use.
The two vaccines under investigation for blood clots are slightly different. The Johnson & Johnson vaccine uses the vector AD26, because most of the population lacks preexisting immunity to it. Vaxzevria uses an adenovirus that infects chimpanzees, called ChAdOx1.
Vaxzevria has been widely used in Europe but has not yet been authorized in the United States.
On April 7, the European Medicines Agency, Europe’s counterpart to the FDA, ruled that unusual blood clots with low blood platelets should be listed as rare side effects on the Vaxzevria vaccine.
The decision came after reviewing 62 cases of cerebral venous sinus thrombosis (CVST) linked to the vaccine and 25 cases of another rare type of clot, called a splanchnic vein thrombosis. Splanchnic veins drain blood from the major organs in the digestive system, including the stomach, liver, and intestines; 18 of those events were fatal.
The reports were culled from reporting in Europe and the United Kingdom, where around 25 million people have received the Vaxzevria vaccine, making these clots exceptionally rare, but serious.
So far, six cases of CVST have been reported in the United States, after more than 7 million doses of the Johnson & Johnson vaccines have been administered.
A key question for U.S. regulators will be the background rate for these types of rare combinations of clots and deplenished platelets. The background rate is the number of events that would be expected to occur naturally in a population of unvaccinated people. On a press call on April 13, Peter Marks, MD, PhD, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, was asked about the frequency of this dangerous combination. He said the combination of low platelets and clots was so rare that it was hard to pinpoint, but might be somewhere between 2 and 14 cases per million people over the course of a year.
The first Johnson & Johnson doses were given in early March. That means the six cases came to light within the first few weeks of use of the vaccine in the United States, a very short amount of time.
“These were six cases per million people for 2 weeks, which is the same thing as 25 million per year, so it’s clearly above the background rate,” Dr. Offit said.
Studies suggest possible mechanism
On April 9, the New England Journal of Medicine published a detailed evaluation of the 11 patients in Germany and Austria who developed the rare clots after their Vaxzevria vaccines.
The study detected rare antibodies to a signaling protein called platelet factor 4, which helps to coordinate clot formation.
These same type of antibodies form in some people given the blood thinning drug heparin. In those reactions, which are also exceptionally rare, the same type of syndrome develops, leading to large, devastating clots that consume circulating platelets.
It’s not yet clear whether people who develop reactions to the vaccines already have some platelet factor 4 antibodies before they are vaccinated, or whether the vaccines somehow spur the body to make these antibodies, which then launch a kind of autoimmune attack.
The researchers on the paper gave the syndrome a name, vaccine-induced thrombotic thrombocytopenia (VITT).
It’s also not clear why more cases seem to be in women than in men. Andrew Eisenberger, MD, an associate professor of hematology and oncology at Columbia University, New York, said the most common causes of cerebral venous sinus thrombosis have to do with conditions that raise estrogen levels, like pregnancy and hormonal contraception.
“Estrogen naturally leads to changes in several clotting proteins in the blood that may predispose to abnormal blood clotting in a few different sites in the body,” he said. “The clotting changes we are encountering with some of COVID-19 vaccines are likely to be synergistic with the effects of estrogen on the blood.”
No matter the cause, the CDC on April 13 alerted doctors to keep a high index of suspicion for VITT in patients who have received the Johnson & Johnson vaccination within the last 2 weeks. In those patients, the usual course of treatment with blood thinning drugs like heparin may be harmful.
Symptoms to watch for include severe headache or backache, new neurologic symptoms, severe abdominal pain, shortness of breath, leg swelling, tiny red spots on the skin, or easy bruising.
Grappling with evidence
The CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices will meet today in an emergency session to review the cases and see if any changes are needed to use of the J&J vaccine in the United States.
Last week, for example, the United Kingdom restricted the use of the AstraZeneca vaccine in people aged younger than 30 years, saying the risks and benefits of vaccination are “more finely balanced” for this age group.
With cases of COVID-19 rising again in the United States, and the Johnson & Johnson vaccine currently the most convenient form of protection against the virus, the committee will have to weigh the risks of that infection against the risk of rare clots caused by vaccination.
They will also likely have to rule out whether any of the cases had COVID. At least one study has reported CVST clots in three patients with confirmed COVID infections. In Europe, COVID infection did not seem to play a role in the formation of the clots with low platelets.
Hilda Bastian, PhD, a clinical trials expert who cofounded the Cochrane Collaboration, said it won’t be an easy task. Much will depend on how certain the committee members feel they know about all the events linked to the vaccine.
“That’s the really, really hard issue from my point of view for them right this moment. Have we missed any? Or how many are we likely to have missed?” asked Dr. Bastian, who lives in Australia.
“In a country that size with that fragmented [of] a health care system, how sure can you be that you know them all? That’s going to be a really difficult situation for them to grapple with, the quality of information that they’ve got,” she said.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Adjunctive MDMA safe, effective for severe PTSD
Adding 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA) to integrative psychotherapy may significantly improve symptoms and well-being for patients with severe posttraumatic stress disorder, including those with the dissociative subtype, new research suggests.
MAPP1 is the first phase 3 randomized controlled trial of MDMA-assisted therapy in this population. Participants who received the active treatment showed greater improvement in PTSD symptoms, mood, and empathy in comparison with participants who received placebo.
MDMA was “extremely effective, particularly for a subpopulation that ordinarily does not respond well to conventional treatment,” study coinvestigator Bessel van der Kolk, MD, professor of psychiatry at Boston University School of Medicine, told delegates attending the virtual European Psychiatric Association (EPA) 2021 Congress.
Growing interest
, particularly because failure rates with most available evidence-based treatments have been relatively high.
As previously reported by this news organization, in 2017, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved the trial design of Dr. van der Kolk’s and colleagues’ MAPP1 study after granting MDMA breakthrough designation.
The MAPP1 investigators assessed 90 patients with PTSD (mean age, 41 years; 77% White; 66% women) from 50 sites. For the majority of patients (84%), trauma history was developmental. “In other words, trauma [occurred] very early in life, usually at the hands of their own caregivers,” Dr. van der Kolk noted.
In addition, 18% of the patients were veterans, and 12% had combat exposure. The average duration of PTSD before enrollment was 18 years. All patients underwent screening and three preparatory psychotherapy sessions at enrollment.
Participants were randomly assigned to receive MDMA 80 mg or 120 mg (n = 46) or placebo (n = 44) followed by three integrative psychotherapy sessions lasting a total of 8 hours. A supplemental dose of 40 or 60 mg of MDMA could be administered from 1.5 to 2 hours after the first dose.
The patients stayed in the laboratory on the evening of the treatment session and attended a debriefing the next morning. The session was repeated a month later and again a month after that. In between, patients had telephone contact with the raters, who were blinded to the treatment received.
Follow-up assessments were conducted 2 months after the third treatment session and again at 12 months. The primary outcome measure was change in Clinician Administered PTSD Scale for DSM 5 (CAPS-5) score from baseline.
‘Dramatic improvement’
Results showed that both the MDMA and placebo groups experienced a statistically significant improvement in PTSD symptoms, “but MDMA had a dramatically significant improvement, with an effect size of over 0.9,” Dr. van der Kolk said.
The MDMA group also reported enhanced mood and well-being, increased responsiveness to emotional and sensory stimuli, a greater sense of closeness to other people, and a greater feeling of empathy.
Patients also reported having heightened openness, “and clearly the issue of empathy for themselves and others was a very large part of the process,” said Dr. van der Kolk.
“But for me, the most interesting part of the study is that the Adverse Childhood Experiences scale had no effect,” he noted. In other words, “the amount of childhood adverse experiences did not predict outcomes, which was very surprising because usually those patients are very treatment resistant.”
Dr. van der Kolk added that the dissociative subtype of PTSD was first described in the DSM-5 and that patients are “notoriously unresponsive to most unconventional treatments.”
In the current study, 13 patients met the criteria for the subtype, and investigators found they “did better than people with classical PTSD,” Dr. van der Kolk said. He added that this is a “very, very important finding.”
Carefully controlled
Overall, 82% of patients reported a significant improvement by the end of the study; 56% reported that they no longer had PTSD.
In addition, 67% of patients no longer met diagnostic criteria for PTSD. These included patients who had crossed over to active treatment from the placebo group.
Eleven patients (12%) experienced relapse by 12 months; in nine of the cases, this was due to the presence of additional stressors.
There were “very few adverse side effects” during the study, Dr. van der Kolk noted. In addition, “there were really no serious mental side effects,” despite the patients’ “opening up so much very painful material,” he added.
The most common adverse events among the MDMA group were muscle tightness (63%), decreased appetite (52%), nausea (30%), hyperhidrosis (20%), and feeling cold (20%). These effects were “quite small [and] the sort of side effects you would expect in response to an amphetamine substance like MDMA,” said Dr. van der Kolk.
“An important reason why we think the side effect profile is so good is because the study was extremely carefully done, very carefully controlled,” he added. “There was a great deal of support, [and] we paid an enormous amount of attention to creating a very safe context in which this drug was being used.”
However, he expressed concern that “as people see the very good results, they may skimp a little bit on the creation of the context and not have as careful a psychotherapy protocol as we had here.”
‘On the right track’
Commenting on the findings for this news organization, David Nutt, MD, PhD, Edmond J. Safra Professor of Neuropsychopharmacology, Imperial College London, said the results are proof that the investigators’ “earlier smaller trials of MDMA were on the right track.”
“This larger and multicenter trial shows that MDMA therapy can be broadened into newer research groups, which augurs well for the much larger rollout that will be required once it gets a license,” said Dr. Nutt, who was not involved with the research.
He added, “the prior evidence of the safety of MDMA has [now] been confirmed.”
The study represents an “important step in the path to the clinical use of MDMA for PTSD,” Dr. Nutt said.
The study was sponsored by the Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies. The investigators and Dr. Nutt have reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Adding 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA) to integrative psychotherapy may significantly improve symptoms and well-being for patients with severe posttraumatic stress disorder, including those with the dissociative subtype, new research suggests.
MAPP1 is the first phase 3 randomized controlled trial of MDMA-assisted therapy in this population. Participants who received the active treatment showed greater improvement in PTSD symptoms, mood, and empathy in comparison with participants who received placebo.
MDMA was “extremely effective, particularly for a subpopulation that ordinarily does not respond well to conventional treatment,” study coinvestigator Bessel van der Kolk, MD, professor of psychiatry at Boston University School of Medicine, told delegates attending the virtual European Psychiatric Association (EPA) 2021 Congress.
Growing interest
, particularly because failure rates with most available evidence-based treatments have been relatively high.
As previously reported by this news organization, in 2017, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved the trial design of Dr. van der Kolk’s and colleagues’ MAPP1 study after granting MDMA breakthrough designation.
The MAPP1 investigators assessed 90 patients with PTSD (mean age, 41 years; 77% White; 66% women) from 50 sites. For the majority of patients (84%), trauma history was developmental. “In other words, trauma [occurred] very early in life, usually at the hands of their own caregivers,” Dr. van der Kolk noted.
In addition, 18% of the patients were veterans, and 12% had combat exposure. The average duration of PTSD before enrollment was 18 years. All patients underwent screening and three preparatory psychotherapy sessions at enrollment.
Participants were randomly assigned to receive MDMA 80 mg or 120 mg (n = 46) or placebo (n = 44) followed by three integrative psychotherapy sessions lasting a total of 8 hours. A supplemental dose of 40 or 60 mg of MDMA could be administered from 1.5 to 2 hours after the first dose.
The patients stayed in the laboratory on the evening of the treatment session and attended a debriefing the next morning. The session was repeated a month later and again a month after that. In between, patients had telephone contact with the raters, who were blinded to the treatment received.
Follow-up assessments were conducted 2 months after the third treatment session and again at 12 months. The primary outcome measure was change in Clinician Administered PTSD Scale for DSM 5 (CAPS-5) score from baseline.
‘Dramatic improvement’
Results showed that both the MDMA and placebo groups experienced a statistically significant improvement in PTSD symptoms, “but MDMA had a dramatically significant improvement, with an effect size of over 0.9,” Dr. van der Kolk said.
The MDMA group also reported enhanced mood and well-being, increased responsiveness to emotional and sensory stimuli, a greater sense of closeness to other people, and a greater feeling of empathy.
Patients also reported having heightened openness, “and clearly the issue of empathy for themselves and others was a very large part of the process,” said Dr. van der Kolk.
“But for me, the most interesting part of the study is that the Adverse Childhood Experiences scale had no effect,” he noted. In other words, “the amount of childhood adverse experiences did not predict outcomes, which was very surprising because usually those patients are very treatment resistant.”
Dr. van der Kolk added that the dissociative subtype of PTSD was first described in the DSM-5 and that patients are “notoriously unresponsive to most unconventional treatments.”
In the current study, 13 patients met the criteria for the subtype, and investigators found they “did better than people with classical PTSD,” Dr. van der Kolk said. He added that this is a “very, very important finding.”
Carefully controlled
Overall, 82% of patients reported a significant improvement by the end of the study; 56% reported that they no longer had PTSD.
In addition, 67% of patients no longer met diagnostic criteria for PTSD. These included patients who had crossed over to active treatment from the placebo group.
Eleven patients (12%) experienced relapse by 12 months; in nine of the cases, this was due to the presence of additional stressors.
There were “very few adverse side effects” during the study, Dr. van der Kolk noted. In addition, “there were really no serious mental side effects,” despite the patients’ “opening up so much very painful material,” he added.
The most common adverse events among the MDMA group were muscle tightness (63%), decreased appetite (52%), nausea (30%), hyperhidrosis (20%), and feeling cold (20%). These effects were “quite small [and] the sort of side effects you would expect in response to an amphetamine substance like MDMA,” said Dr. van der Kolk.
“An important reason why we think the side effect profile is so good is because the study was extremely carefully done, very carefully controlled,” he added. “There was a great deal of support, [and] we paid an enormous amount of attention to creating a very safe context in which this drug was being used.”
However, he expressed concern that “as people see the very good results, they may skimp a little bit on the creation of the context and not have as careful a psychotherapy protocol as we had here.”
‘On the right track’
Commenting on the findings for this news organization, David Nutt, MD, PhD, Edmond J. Safra Professor of Neuropsychopharmacology, Imperial College London, said the results are proof that the investigators’ “earlier smaller trials of MDMA were on the right track.”
“This larger and multicenter trial shows that MDMA therapy can be broadened into newer research groups, which augurs well for the much larger rollout that will be required once it gets a license,” said Dr. Nutt, who was not involved with the research.
He added, “the prior evidence of the safety of MDMA has [now] been confirmed.”
The study represents an “important step in the path to the clinical use of MDMA for PTSD,” Dr. Nutt said.
The study was sponsored by the Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies. The investigators and Dr. Nutt have reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Adding 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA) to integrative psychotherapy may significantly improve symptoms and well-being for patients with severe posttraumatic stress disorder, including those with the dissociative subtype, new research suggests.
MAPP1 is the first phase 3 randomized controlled trial of MDMA-assisted therapy in this population. Participants who received the active treatment showed greater improvement in PTSD symptoms, mood, and empathy in comparison with participants who received placebo.
MDMA was “extremely effective, particularly for a subpopulation that ordinarily does not respond well to conventional treatment,” study coinvestigator Bessel van der Kolk, MD, professor of psychiatry at Boston University School of Medicine, told delegates attending the virtual European Psychiatric Association (EPA) 2021 Congress.
Growing interest
, particularly because failure rates with most available evidence-based treatments have been relatively high.
As previously reported by this news organization, in 2017, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved the trial design of Dr. van der Kolk’s and colleagues’ MAPP1 study after granting MDMA breakthrough designation.
The MAPP1 investigators assessed 90 patients with PTSD (mean age, 41 years; 77% White; 66% women) from 50 sites. For the majority of patients (84%), trauma history was developmental. “In other words, trauma [occurred] very early in life, usually at the hands of their own caregivers,” Dr. van der Kolk noted.
In addition, 18% of the patients were veterans, and 12% had combat exposure. The average duration of PTSD before enrollment was 18 years. All patients underwent screening and three preparatory psychotherapy sessions at enrollment.
Participants were randomly assigned to receive MDMA 80 mg or 120 mg (n = 46) or placebo (n = 44) followed by three integrative psychotherapy sessions lasting a total of 8 hours. A supplemental dose of 40 or 60 mg of MDMA could be administered from 1.5 to 2 hours after the first dose.
The patients stayed in the laboratory on the evening of the treatment session and attended a debriefing the next morning. The session was repeated a month later and again a month after that. In between, patients had telephone contact with the raters, who were blinded to the treatment received.
Follow-up assessments were conducted 2 months after the third treatment session and again at 12 months. The primary outcome measure was change in Clinician Administered PTSD Scale for DSM 5 (CAPS-5) score from baseline.
‘Dramatic improvement’
Results showed that both the MDMA and placebo groups experienced a statistically significant improvement in PTSD symptoms, “but MDMA had a dramatically significant improvement, with an effect size of over 0.9,” Dr. van der Kolk said.
The MDMA group also reported enhanced mood and well-being, increased responsiveness to emotional and sensory stimuli, a greater sense of closeness to other people, and a greater feeling of empathy.
Patients also reported having heightened openness, “and clearly the issue of empathy for themselves and others was a very large part of the process,” said Dr. van der Kolk.
“But for me, the most interesting part of the study is that the Adverse Childhood Experiences scale had no effect,” he noted. In other words, “the amount of childhood adverse experiences did not predict outcomes, which was very surprising because usually those patients are very treatment resistant.”
Dr. van der Kolk added that the dissociative subtype of PTSD was first described in the DSM-5 and that patients are “notoriously unresponsive to most unconventional treatments.”
In the current study, 13 patients met the criteria for the subtype, and investigators found they “did better than people with classical PTSD,” Dr. van der Kolk said. He added that this is a “very, very important finding.”
Carefully controlled
Overall, 82% of patients reported a significant improvement by the end of the study; 56% reported that they no longer had PTSD.
In addition, 67% of patients no longer met diagnostic criteria for PTSD. These included patients who had crossed over to active treatment from the placebo group.
Eleven patients (12%) experienced relapse by 12 months; in nine of the cases, this was due to the presence of additional stressors.
There were “very few adverse side effects” during the study, Dr. van der Kolk noted. In addition, “there were really no serious mental side effects,” despite the patients’ “opening up so much very painful material,” he added.
The most common adverse events among the MDMA group were muscle tightness (63%), decreased appetite (52%), nausea (30%), hyperhidrosis (20%), and feeling cold (20%). These effects were “quite small [and] the sort of side effects you would expect in response to an amphetamine substance like MDMA,” said Dr. van der Kolk.
“An important reason why we think the side effect profile is so good is because the study was extremely carefully done, very carefully controlled,” he added. “There was a great deal of support, [and] we paid an enormous amount of attention to creating a very safe context in which this drug was being used.”
However, he expressed concern that “as people see the very good results, they may skimp a little bit on the creation of the context and not have as careful a psychotherapy protocol as we had here.”
‘On the right track’
Commenting on the findings for this news organization, David Nutt, MD, PhD, Edmond J. Safra Professor of Neuropsychopharmacology, Imperial College London, said the results are proof that the investigators’ “earlier smaller trials of MDMA were on the right track.”
“This larger and multicenter trial shows that MDMA therapy can be broadened into newer research groups, which augurs well for the much larger rollout that will be required once it gets a license,” said Dr. Nutt, who was not involved with the research.
He added, “the prior evidence of the safety of MDMA has [now] been confirmed.”
The study represents an “important step in the path to the clinical use of MDMA for PTSD,” Dr. Nutt said.
The study was sponsored by the Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies. The investigators and Dr. Nutt have reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
New guidelines on antibiotic prescribing focus on shorter courses
An antibiotic course of 5 days is usually just as effective as longer courses but with fewer side effects and decreased overall antibiotic exposure for a number of common bacterial conditions, according to new clinical guidelines published by the American College of Physicians.
The guidelines focus on treatment of uncomplicated cases involving pneumonia, urinary tract infections (UTIs), cellulitis, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) exacerbations, and acute bronchitis. The goal of the guidelines is to continue improving antibiotic stewardship given the increasing threat of antibiotic resistance and the adverse effects of antibiotics.
“Any use of antibiotics (including necessary use) has downstream effects outside of treating infection,” Dawn Nolt, MD, MPH, a professor of pediatric infection disease at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, said in an interview. Dr. Nolt was not involved in developing these guidelines. “Undesirable outcomes include allergic reactions, diarrhea, and antibiotic-resistant bacteria. When we reduce unnecessary antibiotic, we reduce undesirable outcomes,” she said.
According to background information in the paper, 1 in 10 patients receives an antibiotic prescription during visits, yet nearly a third of these (30%) are unnecessary and last too long, especially for sinusitis and bronchitis. Meanwhile, overuse of antibiotics, particularly broad-spectrum ones, leads to resistance and adverse effects in up to 20% of patients.
“Prescribing practices can vary based on the type of provider, the setting where the antibiotic is being prescribed, what geographic area you are looking at, the medical reason for which the antibiotic is being prescribed, the actual germ being targeted, and the type of patient,” Dr. Nolt said. “But this variability can be reduced when prescribing providers are aware and follow best practice standards as through this article.”
The new ACP guidelines are a distillation of recommendations from preexisting infectious disease organizations, Dr. Nolt said, but aimed specifically at those practicing internal medicine.
“We define appropriate antibiotic use as prescribing the right antibiotic at the right dose for the right duration for a specific condition,” Rachael A. Lee, MD, MSPH, of the University of Alabama at Birmingham, and colleagues wrote in the article detailing the new guidelines. “Despite evidence and guidelines supporting shorter durations of antibiotic use, many physicians do not prescribe short-course therapy, frequently defaulting to 10-day courses regardless of the condition.”
The reasons for this default response vary. Though some clinicians prescribe longer courses specifically to prevent antibiotic resistance, no evidence shows that continuing to take antibiotics after symptoms have resolved actually reduces likelihood of resistance, the authors noted.
“In fact, resistance is a documented side effect of prolonged antibiotic use due to natural selection pressure,” they wrote.
Another common reason is habit.
“This was the ‘conventional wisdom’ for so long, just trying to make sure all bacteria causing the infection were completely eradicated, with no stragglers that had been exposed to the antibiotic but were not gone and now could evolve into resistant organisms,” Jacqueline W. Fincher, MD, a primary care physician and president of the ACP, said in an interview. “While antibiotic stewardship has been very important for over a decade, we now have more recent head-to-head studies/data showing that, in these four conditions, shorter courses of treatment are just as efficacious with less side effects and adverse events.”
The researchers reviewed all existing clinical guidelines related to bronchitis with COPD exacerbations, community-acquired pneumonia, UTIs, and cellulitis, as well as any other relevant studies in the literature. Although they did not conduct a formal systematic review, they compiled the guidelines specifically for all internists, family physicians and other clinicians caring for patients with these conditions.
“Although most patients with these infections will be seen in the outpatient setting, these best-practice advice statements also apply to patients who present in the inpatient setting,” the authors wrote. They also note the importance of ensuring the patient has the correct diagnosis and appropriate corresponding antibiotic prescription. “If a patient is not improving with appropriate antibiotics, it is important for the clinician to reassess for other causes of symptoms rather than defaulting to a longer duration of antibiotic therapy,” they wrote, calling a longer course “the exception and not the rule.”
Acute bronchitis with COPD exacerbations
Antibiotic treatment for COPD exacerbations and acute uncomplicated bronchitis with signs of a bacterial infection should last no longer than 5 days. The authors define this condition as an acute respiratory infection with a normal chest x-ray, most often caused by a virus. Although patients with bronchitis do not automatically need antibiotics if there’s no evidence of pneumonia, the authors did advise antibiotics in cases involving COPD and a high likelihood of bacterial infection. Clinicians should base their choice of antibiotics on the most common bacterial etiology: Haemophilus influenzae, Streptococcus pneumoniae, and Moraxella catarrhalis. Ideal candidates for therapy may include aminopenicillin with clavulanic acid, a macrolide, or a tetracycline.
Community-acquired pneumonia
The initial course of antibiotics should be at least 5 days for pneumonia and only extended after considering validated evidence of the patient’s clinical stability, such as resuming normal vital signs, mental activity, and the ability to eat. Multiple randomized, controlled trials have shown no improved benefit from longer courses, though longer courses are linked to increased adverse events and mortality.
Again, antibiotics used should “cover common pathogens, such as S. pneumoniae, H. influenzae, Mycoplasma pneumoniae, and Staphylococcus aureus, and atypical pathogens, such as Legionella species,” the authors wrote. Options include “amoxicillin, doxycycline, or a macrolide for healthy adults or a beta-lactam with a macrolide or a respiratory fluoroquinolone in patients with comorbidities.”
UTIs: Uncomplicated cystitis and pyelonephritis
For women’s bacterial cystitis – 75% of which is caused by Escherichia coli – the guidelines recommend nitrofurantoin for 5 days, trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole for 3 days, or fosfomycin as a single dose. For uncomplicated pyelonephritis in both men and women, clinicians can consider fluoroquinolones for 5-7 days or trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole for 14 days, depending on antibiotic susceptibility.
This recommendation does not include UTIs in women who are pregnant or UTIs with other functional abnormalities present, such as obstruction. The authors also intentionally left out acute bacterial prostatitis because of its complexity and how long it can take to treat.
Cellulitis
MRSA, which has been increasing in prevalence, is a leading cause of skin and soft-tissue infections, such as necrotizing infections, cellulitis, and erysipelas. Unless the patient has penetrating trauma, evidence of MRSA infection elsewhere, injection drug use, nasal colonization of MRSA, or systemic inflammatory response syndrome, the guidelines recommend a 5- to 6-day course of cephalosporin, penicillin, or clindamycin, extended only if the infection has not improved in 5 days. Further research can narrow down the most appropriate treatment course.
This guidance does not apply to purulent cellulitis, such as conditions with abscesses, furuncles, or carbuncles that typically require incision and drainage.
Continuing to get the message out
Dr. Fincher emphasized the importance of continuing to disseminate messaging for clinicians about reducing unnecessary antibiotic use.
“In medicine we are constantly bombarded with new information. It is those patients and disease states that we see and treat every day that are especially important for us as physicians and other clinicians to keep our skills and knowledge base up to date when it comes to use of antibiotics,” Dr. Fincher said in an interview. “We just need to continue to educate and push out the data, guidelines, and recommendations.”
Dr. Nolt added that it’s important to emphasize how to translate these national recommendations into local practices since local guidance can also raise awareness and encourage local compliance.
Other strategies for reducing overuse of antibiotics “include restriction on antibiotics available at health care systems (formulary restriction), not allowing use of antibiotics unless there is discussion about the patient’s case (preauthorization), and reviewing cases of patients on antibiotics and advising on next steps (prospective audit and feedback),” she said.
The research was funded by the ACP. Dr. Lee has received personal fees from this news organization and Prime Education. Dr. Fincher owns stock in Johnson & Johnson and Procter and Gamble. Dr. Nolt and the article’s coauthors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
An antibiotic course of 5 days is usually just as effective as longer courses but with fewer side effects and decreased overall antibiotic exposure for a number of common bacterial conditions, according to new clinical guidelines published by the American College of Physicians.
The guidelines focus on treatment of uncomplicated cases involving pneumonia, urinary tract infections (UTIs), cellulitis, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) exacerbations, and acute bronchitis. The goal of the guidelines is to continue improving antibiotic stewardship given the increasing threat of antibiotic resistance and the adverse effects of antibiotics.
“Any use of antibiotics (including necessary use) has downstream effects outside of treating infection,” Dawn Nolt, MD, MPH, a professor of pediatric infection disease at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, said in an interview. Dr. Nolt was not involved in developing these guidelines. “Undesirable outcomes include allergic reactions, diarrhea, and antibiotic-resistant bacteria. When we reduce unnecessary antibiotic, we reduce undesirable outcomes,” she said.
According to background information in the paper, 1 in 10 patients receives an antibiotic prescription during visits, yet nearly a third of these (30%) are unnecessary and last too long, especially for sinusitis and bronchitis. Meanwhile, overuse of antibiotics, particularly broad-spectrum ones, leads to resistance and adverse effects in up to 20% of patients.
“Prescribing practices can vary based on the type of provider, the setting where the antibiotic is being prescribed, what geographic area you are looking at, the medical reason for which the antibiotic is being prescribed, the actual germ being targeted, and the type of patient,” Dr. Nolt said. “But this variability can be reduced when prescribing providers are aware and follow best practice standards as through this article.”
The new ACP guidelines are a distillation of recommendations from preexisting infectious disease organizations, Dr. Nolt said, but aimed specifically at those practicing internal medicine.
“We define appropriate antibiotic use as prescribing the right antibiotic at the right dose for the right duration for a specific condition,” Rachael A. Lee, MD, MSPH, of the University of Alabama at Birmingham, and colleagues wrote in the article detailing the new guidelines. “Despite evidence and guidelines supporting shorter durations of antibiotic use, many physicians do not prescribe short-course therapy, frequently defaulting to 10-day courses regardless of the condition.”
The reasons for this default response vary. Though some clinicians prescribe longer courses specifically to prevent antibiotic resistance, no evidence shows that continuing to take antibiotics after symptoms have resolved actually reduces likelihood of resistance, the authors noted.
“In fact, resistance is a documented side effect of prolonged antibiotic use due to natural selection pressure,” they wrote.
Another common reason is habit.
“This was the ‘conventional wisdom’ for so long, just trying to make sure all bacteria causing the infection were completely eradicated, with no stragglers that had been exposed to the antibiotic but were not gone and now could evolve into resistant organisms,” Jacqueline W. Fincher, MD, a primary care physician and president of the ACP, said in an interview. “While antibiotic stewardship has been very important for over a decade, we now have more recent head-to-head studies/data showing that, in these four conditions, shorter courses of treatment are just as efficacious with less side effects and adverse events.”
The researchers reviewed all existing clinical guidelines related to bronchitis with COPD exacerbations, community-acquired pneumonia, UTIs, and cellulitis, as well as any other relevant studies in the literature. Although they did not conduct a formal systematic review, they compiled the guidelines specifically for all internists, family physicians and other clinicians caring for patients with these conditions.
“Although most patients with these infections will be seen in the outpatient setting, these best-practice advice statements also apply to patients who present in the inpatient setting,” the authors wrote. They also note the importance of ensuring the patient has the correct diagnosis and appropriate corresponding antibiotic prescription. “If a patient is not improving with appropriate antibiotics, it is important for the clinician to reassess for other causes of symptoms rather than defaulting to a longer duration of antibiotic therapy,” they wrote, calling a longer course “the exception and not the rule.”
Acute bronchitis with COPD exacerbations
Antibiotic treatment for COPD exacerbations and acute uncomplicated bronchitis with signs of a bacterial infection should last no longer than 5 days. The authors define this condition as an acute respiratory infection with a normal chest x-ray, most often caused by a virus. Although patients with bronchitis do not automatically need antibiotics if there’s no evidence of pneumonia, the authors did advise antibiotics in cases involving COPD and a high likelihood of bacterial infection. Clinicians should base their choice of antibiotics on the most common bacterial etiology: Haemophilus influenzae, Streptococcus pneumoniae, and Moraxella catarrhalis. Ideal candidates for therapy may include aminopenicillin with clavulanic acid, a macrolide, or a tetracycline.
Community-acquired pneumonia
The initial course of antibiotics should be at least 5 days for pneumonia and only extended after considering validated evidence of the patient’s clinical stability, such as resuming normal vital signs, mental activity, and the ability to eat. Multiple randomized, controlled trials have shown no improved benefit from longer courses, though longer courses are linked to increased adverse events and mortality.
Again, antibiotics used should “cover common pathogens, such as S. pneumoniae, H. influenzae, Mycoplasma pneumoniae, and Staphylococcus aureus, and atypical pathogens, such as Legionella species,” the authors wrote. Options include “amoxicillin, doxycycline, or a macrolide for healthy adults or a beta-lactam with a macrolide or a respiratory fluoroquinolone in patients with comorbidities.”
UTIs: Uncomplicated cystitis and pyelonephritis
For women’s bacterial cystitis – 75% of which is caused by Escherichia coli – the guidelines recommend nitrofurantoin for 5 days, trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole for 3 days, or fosfomycin as a single dose. For uncomplicated pyelonephritis in both men and women, clinicians can consider fluoroquinolones for 5-7 days or trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole for 14 days, depending on antibiotic susceptibility.
This recommendation does not include UTIs in women who are pregnant or UTIs with other functional abnormalities present, such as obstruction. The authors also intentionally left out acute bacterial prostatitis because of its complexity and how long it can take to treat.
Cellulitis
MRSA, which has been increasing in prevalence, is a leading cause of skin and soft-tissue infections, such as necrotizing infections, cellulitis, and erysipelas. Unless the patient has penetrating trauma, evidence of MRSA infection elsewhere, injection drug use, nasal colonization of MRSA, or systemic inflammatory response syndrome, the guidelines recommend a 5- to 6-day course of cephalosporin, penicillin, or clindamycin, extended only if the infection has not improved in 5 days. Further research can narrow down the most appropriate treatment course.
This guidance does not apply to purulent cellulitis, such as conditions with abscesses, furuncles, or carbuncles that typically require incision and drainage.
Continuing to get the message out
Dr. Fincher emphasized the importance of continuing to disseminate messaging for clinicians about reducing unnecessary antibiotic use.
“In medicine we are constantly bombarded with new information. It is those patients and disease states that we see and treat every day that are especially important for us as physicians and other clinicians to keep our skills and knowledge base up to date when it comes to use of antibiotics,” Dr. Fincher said in an interview. “We just need to continue to educate and push out the data, guidelines, and recommendations.”
Dr. Nolt added that it’s important to emphasize how to translate these national recommendations into local practices since local guidance can also raise awareness and encourage local compliance.
Other strategies for reducing overuse of antibiotics “include restriction on antibiotics available at health care systems (formulary restriction), not allowing use of antibiotics unless there is discussion about the patient’s case (preauthorization), and reviewing cases of patients on antibiotics and advising on next steps (prospective audit and feedback),” she said.
The research was funded by the ACP. Dr. Lee has received personal fees from this news organization and Prime Education. Dr. Fincher owns stock in Johnson & Johnson and Procter and Gamble. Dr. Nolt and the article’s coauthors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
An antibiotic course of 5 days is usually just as effective as longer courses but with fewer side effects and decreased overall antibiotic exposure for a number of common bacterial conditions, according to new clinical guidelines published by the American College of Physicians.
The guidelines focus on treatment of uncomplicated cases involving pneumonia, urinary tract infections (UTIs), cellulitis, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) exacerbations, and acute bronchitis. The goal of the guidelines is to continue improving antibiotic stewardship given the increasing threat of antibiotic resistance and the adverse effects of antibiotics.
“Any use of antibiotics (including necessary use) has downstream effects outside of treating infection,” Dawn Nolt, MD, MPH, a professor of pediatric infection disease at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, said in an interview. Dr. Nolt was not involved in developing these guidelines. “Undesirable outcomes include allergic reactions, diarrhea, and antibiotic-resistant bacteria. When we reduce unnecessary antibiotic, we reduce undesirable outcomes,” she said.
According to background information in the paper, 1 in 10 patients receives an antibiotic prescription during visits, yet nearly a third of these (30%) are unnecessary and last too long, especially for sinusitis and bronchitis. Meanwhile, overuse of antibiotics, particularly broad-spectrum ones, leads to resistance and adverse effects in up to 20% of patients.
“Prescribing practices can vary based on the type of provider, the setting where the antibiotic is being prescribed, what geographic area you are looking at, the medical reason for which the antibiotic is being prescribed, the actual germ being targeted, and the type of patient,” Dr. Nolt said. “But this variability can be reduced when prescribing providers are aware and follow best practice standards as through this article.”
The new ACP guidelines are a distillation of recommendations from preexisting infectious disease organizations, Dr. Nolt said, but aimed specifically at those practicing internal medicine.
“We define appropriate antibiotic use as prescribing the right antibiotic at the right dose for the right duration for a specific condition,” Rachael A. Lee, MD, MSPH, of the University of Alabama at Birmingham, and colleagues wrote in the article detailing the new guidelines. “Despite evidence and guidelines supporting shorter durations of antibiotic use, many physicians do not prescribe short-course therapy, frequently defaulting to 10-day courses regardless of the condition.”
The reasons for this default response vary. Though some clinicians prescribe longer courses specifically to prevent antibiotic resistance, no evidence shows that continuing to take antibiotics after symptoms have resolved actually reduces likelihood of resistance, the authors noted.
“In fact, resistance is a documented side effect of prolonged antibiotic use due to natural selection pressure,” they wrote.
Another common reason is habit.
“This was the ‘conventional wisdom’ for so long, just trying to make sure all bacteria causing the infection were completely eradicated, with no stragglers that had been exposed to the antibiotic but were not gone and now could evolve into resistant organisms,” Jacqueline W. Fincher, MD, a primary care physician and president of the ACP, said in an interview. “While antibiotic stewardship has been very important for over a decade, we now have more recent head-to-head studies/data showing that, in these four conditions, shorter courses of treatment are just as efficacious with less side effects and adverse events.”
The researchers reviewed all existing clinical guidelines related to bronchitis with COPD exacerbations, community-acquired pneumonia, UTIs, and cellulitis, as well as any other relevant studies in the literature. Although they did not conduct a formal systematic review, they compiled the guidelines specifically for all internists, family physicians and other clinicians caring for patients with these conditions.
“Although most patients with these infections will be seen in the outpatient setting, these best-practice advice statements also apply to patients who present in the inpatient setting,” the authors wrote. They also note the importance of ensuring the patient has the correct diagnosis and appropriate corresponding antibiotic prescription. “If a patient is not improving with appropriate antibiotics, it is important for the clinician to reassess for other causes of symptoms rather than defaulting to a longer duration of antibiotic therapy,” they wrote, calling a longer course “the exception and not the rule.”
Acute bronchitis with COPD exacerbations
Antibiotic treatment for COPD exacerbations and acute uncomplicated bronchitis with signs of a bacterial infection should last no longer than 5 days. The authors define this condition as an acute respiratory infection with a normal chest x-ray, most often caused by a virus. Although patients with bronchitis do not automatically need antibiotics if there’s no evidence of pneumonia, the authors did advise antibiotics in cases involving COPD and a high likelihood of bacterial infection. Clinicians should base their choice of antibiotics on the most common bacterial etiology: Haemophilus influenzae, Streptococcus pneumoniae, and Moraxella catarrhalis. Ideal candidates for therapy may include aminopenicillin with clavulanic acid, a macrolide, or a tetracycline.
Community-acquired pneumonia
The initial course of antibiotics should be at least 5 days for pneumonia and only extended after considering validated evidence of the patient’s clinical stability, such as resuming normal vital signs, mental activity, and the ability to eat. Multiple randomized, controlled trials have shown no improved benefit from longer courses, though longer courses are linked to increased adverse events and mortality.
Again, antibiotics used should “cover common pathogens, such as S. pneumoniae, H. influenzae, Mycoplasma pneumoniae, and Staphylococcus aureus, and atypical pathogens, such as Legionella species,” the authors wrote. Options include “amoxicillin, doxycycline, or a macrolide for healthy adults or a beta-lactam with a macrolide or a respiratory fluoroquinolone in patients with comorbidities.”
UTIs: Uncomplicated cystitis and pyelonephritis
For women’s bacterial cystitis – 75% of which is caused by Escherichia coli – the guidelines recommend nitrofurantoin for 5 days, trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole for 3 days, or fosfomycin as a single dose. For uncomplicated pyelonephritis in both men and women, clinicians can consider fluoroquinolones for 5-7 days or trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole for 14 days, depending on antibiotic susceptibility.
This recommendation does not include UTIs in women who are pregnant or UTIs with other functional abnormalities present, such as obstruction. The authors also intentionally left out acute bacterial prostatitis because of its complexity and how long it can take to treat.
Cellulitis
MRSA, which has been increasing in prevalence, is a leading cause of skin and soft-tissue infections, such as necrotizing infections, cellulitis, and erysipelas. Unless the patient has penetrating trauma, evidence of MRSA infection elsewhere, injection drug use, nasal colonization of MRSA, or systemic inflammatory response syndrome, the guidelines recommend a 5- to 6-day course of cephalosporin, penicillin, or clindamycin, extended only if the infection has not improved in 5 days. Further research can narrow down the most appropriate treatment course.
This guidance does not apply to purulent cellulitis, such as conditions with abscesses, furuncles, or carbuncles that typically require incision and drainage.
Continuing to get the message out
Dr. Fincher emphasized the importance of continuing to disseminate messaging for clinicians about reducing unnecessary antibiotic use.
“In medicine we are constantly bombarded with new information. It is those patients and disease states that we see and treat every day that are especially important for us as physicians and other clinicians to keep our skills and knowledge base up to date when it comes to use of antibiotics,” Dr. Fincher said in an interview. “We just need to continue to educate and push out the data, guidelines, and recommendations.”
Dr. Nolt added that it’s important to emphasize how to translate these national recommendations into local practices since local guidance can also raise awareness and encourage local compliance.
Other strategies for reducing overuse of antibiotics “include restriction on antibiotics available at health care systems (formulary restriction), not allowing use of antibiotics unless there is discussion about the patient’s case (preauthorization), and reviewing cases of patients on antibiotics and advising on next steps (prospective audit and feedback),” she said.
The research was funded by the ACP. Dr. Lee has received personal fees from this news organization and Prime Education. Dr. Fincher owns stock in Johnson & Johnson and Procter and Gamble. Dr. Nolt and the article’s coauthors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Researchers stress importance of second COVID-19 vaccine dose for infliximab users
Patients being treated with infliximab had weakened immune responses to the first dose of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (Oxford/AstraZeneca) and BNT162b2 (Pfizer/BioNTech) vaccines, compared with patients on vedolizumab (Entyvio), although a very significant number of patients from both groups seroconverted after their second dose, according to a new U.K. study of patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD).
“Antibody testing and adapted vaccine schedules should be considered to protect these at-risk patients,” Nicholas A. Kennedy, PhD, MBBS, of the University of Exeter (England) and colleagues wrote in a preprint published March 29 on MedRxiv.
Infliximab is an anti–tumor necrosis factor (anti-TNF) monoclonal antibody that’s approved to treat adult and pediatric Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis, as well as rheumatoid arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, psoriatic arthritis, and plaque psoriasis, whereas vedolizumab, a gut selective anti-integrin alpha4beta7 monoclonal antibody that is not associated with impaired systemic immune responses, is approved to treat Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis in adults.
A previous study from Kennedy and colleagues revealed that IBD patients on infliximab showed a weakened COVID-19 antibody response compared with patients on vedolizumab. To determine if treatment with anti-TNF drugs impacted the efficacy of the first shot of these two-dose COVID-19 vaccines, the researchers used data from the CLARITY IBD study to assess 865 infliximab- and 428 vedolizumab-treated participants without evidence of prior SARS-CoV-2 infection who had received uninterrupted biologic therapy since being recruited between Sept. 22 and Dec. 23, 2020.
In the 3-10 weeks after initial vaccination, geometric mean concentrations for SARS-CoV-2 anti-spike protein receptor-binding protein antibodies were lower in patients on infliximab, compared with patients on vedolizumab for both the Pfizer (6.0 U/mL [5.9] versus 28.8 U/mL [5.4], P < .0001) and AstraZeneca (4.7 U/mL [4.9] versus 13.8 U/mL [5.9]; P < .0001) vaccines. The researchers’ multivariable models reinforced those findings, with antibody concentrations lower in infliximab-treated patients for both the Pfizer (fold change, 0.29; 95% confidence interval, 0.21-0.40; P < .0001) and AstraZeneca (FC, 0.39; 95% CI, 0.30-0.51; P < .0001) vaccines.
After second doses of the two-dose Pfizer vaccine, 85% of patients on infliximab and 86% of patients on vedolizumab seroconverted (P = .68); similarly high seroconversion rates were seen in patients who had been infected with SARS-CoV-2 prior to receiving either vaccine. Several patient characteristics were associated with lower antibody concentrations regardless of vaccine type: being 60 years or older, use of immunomodulators, having Crohn’s disease, and being a smoker. Alternatively, non-White ethnicity was associated with higher antibody concentrations.
Evidence has ‘unclear clinical significance’
“These data, which require peer review, do not change my opinion on the safety and efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines in patients taking TNF inhibitors such as infliximab as monotherapy for the treatment of psoriatic disease,” Joel M. Gelfand MD, director of the psoriasis and phototherapy treatment center at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said in an interview.
“First, two peer-reviewed studies found good antibody response in patients on TNF inhibitors receiving COVID-19 vaccines (doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2021-220289; 10.1136/annrheumdis-2021-220272). Second, antibody responses were robust in the small cohort that received the second dose of a COVID-19 vaccine. We already know that, for the two messenger RNA-based vaccines available under emergency use authorization in the U.S., a second dose is required for optimal efficacy. Thus, evidence of a reduced antibody response after just one dose is of unclear clinical significance. Third, antibody responses are only a surrogate marker, and a low antibody response doesn’t necessarily mean the patient will not be protected by the vaccine.”
Focus on the second dose of a two-dose regimen
“Tell me about the response in people who got both doses of a vaccine that you’re supposed to get both doses of,” Jeffrey Curtis, MD, professor of medicine in the division of clinical immunology and rheumatology at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, said in an interview. “The number of patients in that subset was small [n = 27] but in my opinion that’s the most clinically relevant analysis and the one that patients and clinicians want answered.”
He also emphasized the uncertainty around what ‘protection’ means in these early days of studying COVID-19 vaccine responses. “You can define seroprotection or seroconversion as some absolute level of an antibody response, but if you want to say ‘Mrs. Smith, your antibody level was X,’ on whatever arbitrary scale with whoever’s arbitrary lab test, nobody actually knows that Mrs. Smith is now protected from SARS-CoV-2, or how protected,” he said.
“What is not terribly controversial is: If you can’t detect antibodies, the vaccine didn’t ‘take,’ if you will. But if I tell you that the mean antibody level was X with one drug and then 2X with another drug, does that mean that you’re twice as protected? We don’t know that. I’m fearful that people are looking at these studies and thinking that more is better. It might be, but we don’t know that to be true.”
Debating the cause of weakened immune responses
“The biological plausibility of being on an anti-TNF affecting your immune reaction to a messenger RNA or even a replication-deficient viral vector vaccine doesn’t make sense,” David T. Rubin, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Chicago and chair of the National Scientific Advisory Committee of the Crohn’s and Colitis Foundation, said in an interview.
“I’m sure immunologists may differ with me on this, but given what we have come to appreciate about these vaccine mechanisms, this finding doesn’t make intuitive sense. So we need to make sure that, when this happens, we look to the next studies and try to understand, was there any other confounder that may have resulted in these findings that was not adequately adjusted for or addressed in some other way?
“When you have a study of this size, you argue, ‘Because it’s so large, any effect that was seen must be real,’ ” he added. “Alternatively, to have a study of this size, by its very nature you are limited in being able to control for certain other factors or differences between the groups.”
That said, he commended the authors for their study and acknowledged the potential questions it raises about the single-shot Johnson & Johnson vaccine. “If you only get one and you’re on infliximab, this study implies that maybe that’s not enough,” he said. “Despite the fact that Johnson & Johnson was approved as a single dose, it may be necessary to think about it as the first of two, or maybe it’s not the preferred vaccine in this group of patients.”
The study was supported by the Royal Devon and Exeter and Hull University Hospital Foundation NHS Trusts and unrestricted educational grants from Biogen (Switzerland), Celltrion Healthcare (South Korea), Galapagos NV (Belgium), and F. Hoffmann-La Roche (Switzerland). The authors acknowledged numerous potential conflicts of interest, including receiving grants, personal fees, and nonfinancial support from various pharmaceutical companies.
Patients being treated with infliximab had weakened immune responses to the first dose of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (Oxford/AstraZeneca) and BNT162b2 (Pfizer/BioNTech) vaccines, compared with patients on vedolizumab (Entyvio), although a very significant number of patients from both groups seroconverted after their second dose, according to a new U.K. study of patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD).
“Antibody testing and adapted vaccine schedules should be considered to protect these at-risk patients,” Nicholas A. Kennedy, PhD, MBBS, of the University of Exeter (England) and colleagues wrote in a preprint published March 29 on MedRxiv.
Infliximab is an anti–tumor necrosis factor (anti-TNF) monoclonal antibody that’s approved to treat adult and pediatric Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis, as well as rheumatoid arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, psoriatic arthritis, and plaque psoriasis, whereas vedolizumab, a gut selective anti-integrin alpha4beta7 monoclonal antibody that is not associated with impaired systemic immune responses, is approved to treat Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis in adults.
A previous study from Kennedy and colleagues revealed that IBD patients on infliximab showed a weakened COVID-19 antibody response compared with patients on vedolizumab. To determine if treatment with anti-TNF drugs impacted the efficacy of the first shot of these two-dose COVID-19 vaccines, the researchers used data from the CLARITY IBD study to assess 865 infliximab- and 428 vedolizumab-treated participants without evidence of prior SARS-CoV-2 infection who had received uninterrupted biologic therapy since being recruited between Sept. 22 and Dec. 23, 2020.
In the 3-10 weeks after initial vaccination, geometric mean concentrations for SARS-CoV-2 anti-spike protein receptor-binding protein antibodies were lower in patients on infliximab, compared with patients on vedolizumab for both the Pfizer (6.0 U/mL [5.9] versus 28.8 U/mL [5.4], P < .0001) and AstraZeneca (4.7 U/mL [4.9] versus 13.8 U/mL [5.9]; P < .0001) vaccines. The researchers’ multivariable models reinforced those findings, with antibody concentrations lower in infliximab-treated patients for both the Pfizer (fold change, 0.29; 95% confidence interval, 0.21-0.40; P < .0001) and AstraZeneca (FC, 0.39; 95% CI, 0.30-0.51; P < .0001) vaccines.
After second doses of the two-dose Pfizer vaccine, 85% of patients on infliximab and 86% of patients on vedolizumab seroconverted (P = .68); similarly high seroconversion rates were seen in patients who had been infected with SARS-CoV-2 prior to receiving either vaccine. Several patient characteristics were associated with lower antibody concentrations regardless of vaccine type: being 60 years or older, use of immunomodulators, having Crohn’s disease, and being a smoker. Alternatively, non-White ethnicity was associated with higher antibody concentrations.
Evidence has ‘unclear clinical significance’
“These data, which require peer review, do not change my opinion on the safety and efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines in patients taking TNF inhibitors such as infliximab as monotherapy for the treatment of psoriatic disease,” Joel M. Gelfand MD, director of the psoriasis and phototherapy treatment center at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said in an interview.
“First, two peer-reviewed studies found good antibody response in patients on TNF inhibitors receiving COVID-19 vaccines (doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2021-220289; 10.1136/annrheumdis-2021-220272). Second, antibody responses were robust in the small cohort that received the second dose of a COVID-19 vaccine. We already know that, for the two messenger RNA-based vaccines available under emergency use authorization in the U.S., a second dose is required for optimal efficacy. Thus, evidence of a reduced antibody response after just one dose is of unclear clinical significance. Third, antibody responses are only a surrogate marker, and a low antibody response doesn’t necessarily mean the patient will not be protected by the vaccine.”
Focus on the second dose of a two-dose regimen
“Tell me about the response in people who got both doses of a vaccine that you’re supposed to get both doses of,” Jeffrey Curtis, MD, professor of medicine in the division of clinical immunology and rheumatology at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, said in an interview. “The number of patients in that subset was small [n = 27] but in my opinion that’s the most clinically relevant analysis and the one that patients and clinicians want answered.”
He also emphasized the uncertainty around what ‘protection’ means in these early days of studying COVID-19 vaccine responses. “You can define seroprotection or seroconversion as some absolute level of an antibody response, but if you want to say ‘Mrs. Smith, your antibody level was X,’ on whatever arbitrary scale with whoever’s arbitrary lab test, nobody actually knows that Mrs. Smith is now protected from SARS-CoV-2, or how protected,” he said.
“What is not terribly controversial is: If you can’t detect antibodies, the vaccine didn’t ‘take,’ if you will. But if I tell you that the mean antibody level was X with one drug and then 2X with another drug, does that mean that you’re twice as protected? We don’t know that. I’m fearful that people are looking at these studies and thinking that more is better. It might be, but we don’t know that to be true.”
Debating the cause of weakened immune responses
“The biological plausibility of being on an anti-TNF affecting your immune reaction to a messenger RNA or even a replication-deficient viral vector vaccine doesn’t make sense,” David T. Rubin, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Chicago and chair of the National Scientific Advisory Committee of the Crohn’s and Colitis Foundation, said in an interview.
“I’m sure immunologists may differ with me on this, but given what we have come to appreciate about these vaccine mechanisms, this finding doesn’t make intuitive sense. So we need to make sure that, when this happens, we look to the next studies and try to understand, was there any other confounder that may have resulted in these findings that was not adequately adjusted for or addressed in some other way?
“When you have a study of this size, you argue, ‘Because it’s so large, any effect that was seen must be real,’ ” he added. “Alternatively, to have a study of this size, by its very nature you are limited in being able to control for certain other factors or differences between the groups.”
That said, he commended the authors for their study and acknowledged the potential questions it raises about the single-shot Johnson & Johnson vaccine. “If you only get one and you’re on infliximab, this study implies that maybe that’s not enough,” he said. “Despite the fact that Johnson & Johnson was approved as a single dose, it may be necessary to think about it as the first of two, or maybe it’s not the preferred vaccine in this group of patients.”
The study was supported by the Royal Devon and Exeter and Hull University Hospital Foundation NHS Trusts and unrestricted educational grants from Biogen (Switzerland), Celltrion Healthcare (South Korea), Galapagos NV (Belgium), and F. Hoffmann-La Roche (Switzerland). The authors acknowledged numerous potential conflicts of interest, including receiving grants, personal fees, and nonfinancial support from various pharmaceutical companies.
Patients being treated with infliximab had weakened immune responses to the first dose of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (Oxford/AstraZeneca) and BNT162b2 (Pfizer/BioNTech) vaccines, compared with patients on vedolizumab (Entyvio), although a very significant number of patients from both groups seroconverted after their second dose, according to a new U.K. study of patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD).
“Antibody testing and adapted vaccine schedules should be considered to protect these at-risk patients,” Nicholas A. Kennedy, PhD, MBBS, of the University of Exeter (England) and colleagues wrote in a preprint published March 29 on MedRxiv.
Infliximab is an anti–tumor necrosis factor (anti-TNF) monoclonal antibody that’s approved to treat adult and pediatric Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis, as well as rheumatoid arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, psoriatic arthritis, and plaque psoriasis, whereas vedolizumab, a gut selective anti-integrin alpha4beta7 monoclonal antibody that is not associated with impaired systemic immune responses, is approved to treat Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis in adults.
A previous study from Kennedy and colleagues revealed that IBD patients on infliximab showed a weakened COVID-19 antibody response compared with patients on vedolizumab. To determine if treatment with anti-TNF drugs impacted the efficacy of the first shot of these two-dose COVID-19 vaccines, the researchers used data from the CLARITY IBD study to assess 865 infliximab- and 428 vedolizumab-treated participants without evidence of prior SARS-CoV-2 infection who had received uninterrupted biologic therapy since being recruited between Sept. 22 and Dec. 23, 2020.
In the 3-10 weeks after initial vaccination, geometric mean concentrations for SARS-CoV-2 anti-spike protein receptor-binding protein antibodies were lower in patients on infliximab, compared with patients on vedolizumab for both the Pfizer (6.0 U/mL [5.9] versus 28.8 U/mL [5.4], P < .0001) and AstraZeneca (4.7 U/mL [4.9] versus 13.8 U/mL [5.9]; P < .0001) vaccines. The researchers’ multivariable models reinforced those findings, with antibody concentrations lower in infliximab-treated patients for both the Pfizer (fold change, 0.29; 95% confidence interval, 0.21-0.40; P < .0001) and AstraZeneca (FC, 0.39; 95% CI, 0.30-0.51; P < .0001) vaccines.
After second doses of the two-dose Pfizer vaccine, 85% of patients on infliximab and 86% of patients on vedolizumab seroconverted (P = .68); similarly high seroconversion rates were seen in patients who had been infected with SARS-CoV-2 prior to receiving either vaccine. Several patient characteristics were associated with lower antibody concentrations regardless of vaccine type: being 60 years or older, use of immunomodulators, having Crohn’s disease, and being a smoker. Alternatively, non-White ethnicity was associated with higher antibody concentrations.
Evidence has ‘unclear clinical significance’
“These data, which require peer review, do not change my opinion on the safety and efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines in patients taking TNF inhibitors such as infliximab as monotherapy for the treatment of psoriatic disease,” Joel M. Gelfand MD, director of the psoriasis and phototherapy treatment center at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said in an interview.
“First, two peer-reviewed studies found good antibody response in patients on TNF inhibitors receiving COVID-19 vaccines (doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2021-220289; 10.1136/annrheumdis-2021-220272). Second, antibody responses were robust in the small cohort that received the second dose of a COVID-19 vaccine. We already know that, for the two messenger RNA-based vaccines available under emergency use authorization in the U.S., a second dose is required for optimal efficacy. Thus, evidence of a reduced antibody response after just one dose is of unclear clinical significance. Third, antibody responses are only a surrogate marker, and a low antibody response doesn’t necessarily mean the patient will not be protected by the vaccine.”
Focus on the second dose of a two-dose regimen
“Tell me about the response in people who got both doses of a vaccine that you’re supposed to get both doses of,” Jeffrey Curtis, MD, professor of medicine in the division of clinical immunology and rheumatology at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, said in an interview. “The number of patients in that subset was small [n = 27] but in my opinion that’s the most clinically relevant analysis and the one that patients and clinicians want answered.”
He also emphasized the uncertainty around what ‘protection’ means in these early days of studying COVID-19 vaccine responses. “You can define seroprotection or seroconversion as some absolute level of an antibody response, but if you want to say ‘Mrs. Smith, your antibody level was X,’ on whatever arbitrary scale with whoever’s arbitrary lab test, nobody actually knows that Mrs. Smith is now protected from SARS-CoV-2, or how protected,” he said.
“What is not terribly controversial is: If you can’t detect antibodies, the vaccine didn’t ‘take,’ if you will. But if I tell you that the mean antibody level was X with one drug and then 2X with another drug, does that mean that you’re twice as protected? We don’t know that. I’m fearful that people are looking at these studies and thinking that more is better. It might be, but we don’t know that to be true.”
Debating the cause of weakened immune responses
“The biological plausibility of being on an anti-TNF affecting your immune reaction to a messenger RNA or even a replication-deficient viral vector vaccine doesn’t make sense,” David T. Rubin, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Chicago and chair of the National Scientific Advisory Committee of the Crohn’s and Colitis Foundation, said in an interview.
“I’m sure immunologists may differ with me on this, but given what we have come to appreciate about these vaccine mechanisms, this finding doesn’t make intuitive sense. So we need to make sure that, when this happens, we look to the next studies and try to understand, was there any other confounder that may have resulted in these findings that was not adequately adjusted for or addressed in some other way?
“When you have a study of this size, you argue, ‘Because it’s so large, any effect that was seen must be real,’ ” he added. “Alternatively, to have a study of this size, by its very nature you are limited in being able to control for certain other factors or differences between the groups.”
That said, he commended the authors for their study and acknowledged the potential questions it raises about the single-shot Johnson & Johnson vaccine. “If you only get one and you’re on infliximab, this study implies that maybe that’s not enough,” he said. “Despite the fact that Johnson & Johnson was approved as a single dose, it may be necessary to think about it as the first of two, or maybe it’s not the preferred vaccine in this group of patients.”
The study was supported by the Royal Devon and Exeter and Hull University Hospital Foundation NHS Trusts and unrestricted educational grants from Biogen (Switzerland), Celltrion Healthcare (South Korea), Galapagos NV (Belgium), and F. Hoffmann-La Roche (Switzerland). The authors acknowledged numerous potential conflicts of interest, including receiving grants, personal fees, and nonfinancial support from various pharmaceutical companies.
FROM MEDRXIV