User login
Far too few with treatment-resistant hypertension get hormone test
despite guidelines that call for such an approach, according to findings from the first reported large-scale, multicenter study of PA testing practices.
Researchers ran a retrospective review of PA testing among 269,010 patients who met the definition as having treatment-resistant hypertension and were managed at any one of 130 Veterans Health Administration (VHA) medical centers from 2000 to 2017.
The results showed that, despite the fact that primary aldosteronism is highly prevalent among patients with treatment-resistant hypertension, only 4,277 (1.6%) underwent assessment for PA during a median of 3.3 years’ follow-up after they first met the defining criteria, Jordana B. Cohen, MD, and her associates reported in a study published in Annals of Internal Medicine on December 28.
“Testing rates also did not change meaningfully over nearly 2 decades ... despite an increasing number of guidelines recommending testing for primary aldosteronism in this population,” including the most recent recommendations from the Endocrine Society, issued in 2016, noted Dr. Cohen, a nephrologist and hypertension researcher at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, and colleagues.
Most patients in the study (almost 90%) were seen by a primary care practitioner (PCP).
The small percentage of patients seen by a nephrologist or endocrinologist were more than twice as likely to be tested for PA than those seen by a PCP or cardiologist.
Those clinicians who did order a test for PA were much more likely to treat patients with the appropriate medication, a mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist (MRA). In addition, therapy was started sooner, the researchers found.
“Our results corroborate” earlier reports from smaller health systems and suggest that dramatic underuse of PA assessment “is an issue across the US,” Dr. Cohen said in an interview.
The VHA experience “is very representative of what we think goes on across U.S. practice” and contrasts with the VHA’s reputation for “doing a pretty good job managing hypertension” in general, she noted.
Missed diagnosis, missed treatment
Dr. Cohen believes a number of factors likely help drive the abysmally low rate of PA testing they observed in the VHA system. She believes rates of PA testing are low elsewhere as well.
First, optimal hypertension management “is often taken for granted” but is challenging in busy primary care practices, so many of patients likely fall through the cracks, she said.
Dr. Cohen cited efforts at her institution, as well as by the VHA system, to better employ electronic health records to flag patients with treatment-resistant hypertension – defined as patients whose systolic or diastolic blood pressure remains at or above 140/90 mm Hg on at least two successive measurements at least a month apart while the patient is undergoing treatment with three conventional antihypertensive drugs – and to guide clinicians to order the right tests and treatments for these patients.
Many care providers mistakenly “see treatment-resistant hypertension as a disease of noncompliance,” although it is much more often the result of a missed diagnosis and inadequate intervention, she explained.
Physicians in denial; side effects of MRAs may deter prescribing
A second big cause of low PA testing rates is that doctors make the mistake of thinking a PA test result won’t change how they manage these patients.
The established treatment for most patients with treatment-resistant hypertension as well as PA is adding an MRA, either spironolactone or eplerenone (Inspra).
Many providers cling to the belief that they will start an MRA in these patients without first determining their PA status, says Dr. Cohen, but the data she and her colleagues collected show the opposite.
Overall, about 13% of all patients in the study began treatment with an MRA during follow-up. The likelihood of starting treatment with this drug class was fourfold higher among the patients tested for PA compared with those who were not tested.
PA testing also hastened the start of MRA use by more than a year, compared with untested patients.
“Providers think they prescribe an MRA” to treatment-resistant patients, “but it’s part of their denial. They are not using the evidence-based treatments [spironolactone or eplerenone], perhaps because of concerns about MRA side effects, although those have been pretty well overcome during the past 20 years,” she observed.
Dr. Cohen says gynecomastia is one adverse effect that gives pause to VHA clinicians who see a heavily male patient population. “It’s probably the biggest concern and why PA testing and MRA use is low” in the VHA system, she said.
“You can use a lower dosage of spironolactone, and the incidence is less common with eplerenone,” although using eplerenone does not completely eliminate all gynecomastia cases, she noted.
At the University of Pennsylvania hospitals, men often start on spironolactone first because it retains a significant price advantage, even though eplerenone is now generic, but “if there is a hint of gynecomastia, we quickly switch to eplerenone, which is usually well tolerated,” she explained.
And while eplerenone has a reputation of being less effective than spironolactone, “I’ve prescribed a lot of eplerenone and have had good results,” Dr. Cohen said. “Even if the blood pressure lowering is not as great compared with spironolactone, it still blunts the toxic effects of aldosterone on target organs.”
Hyperkalemia is the other big concern about spironolactone and eplerenone. Both agents cause it at roughly the same rate, although the rate is lower in patients without chronic kidney disease.
A new, nonsteroidal MRA, finerenone, caused substantially less hyperkalemia in a recent phase 3 trial, FIDELIO-DKD, and as a nonsteroidal MRA, it does not cause gynecomastia. Finerenone has promise as a potentially safer option for treating PA and treatment-resistant hypertension, noted Cohen, but so far, no advanced clinical trials have been launched to examine its efficacy for these indications.
PA testing allows a surgical option
A third reason to test patients with treatment-resistant hypertension for PA is that jumping straight to MRA treatment denies the patient assessment for a unilateral adrenal adenoma as the cause of excess aldosterone.
When unilateral adenomas exist, patients are candidates for adrenalectomy. Despite the potential advantage this gives patients to eliminate the cause of their PA without the need for additional drug treatment, some clinicians don’t see this as a compelling rationale to test for PA because they have a bias against surgery or have seen too many cases in which surgery failed to produce full hypertension resolution.
“It’s all about setting expectations appropriately” for the impact of this surgery, Dr. Cohen said.
“Adrenalectomy is not a cure; it just gets rid of the source of excess aldosterone.” But in patients with long-standing PA and hypertension, this is often not enough to completely resolve entrenched cardiovascular pathology.
PCPs, cardiologists in rural locations least likely to order PA testing
Of the 269,010 patients analyzed by Dr. Cohen and her coauthors, the average age was 65 years; 96% were men; half were obese; and 40% had diabetes. The researchers excluded patients who had already been tested for PA, as well as those who were already receiving treatment with an MRA.
For 88% of the patients, the main physician overseeing care was a PCP. A cardiologist was the main physician for 10%; a nephrologist, for 1%; and an endocrinologist, for fewer than 1%.
The rate of testing for PA varied across the 130 VHA centers that contributed data, ranging from 0% to 6%. The testing data showed that endocrinologists were most likely to order PA testing, doing it 2.48-fold more often than PCPs. Nephrologists were roughly twice as likely to order PA testing than PCPs, and cardiologists ordered testing at about the same rate as PCPs.
Patients managed at VHA centers in rural locations were nearly half as likely to undergo testing as patients managed at nonrural centers. The number of patients with treatment-resistant hypertension seen by a physician or at a center had no significant relationship to PA testing frequency.
The study received no commercial funding. Dr. Cohen has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this story first appeared on Medscape.com.
despite guidelines that call for such an approach, according to findings from the first reported large-scale, multicenter study of PA testing practices.
Researchers ran a retrospective review of PA testing among 269,010 patients who met the definition as having treatment-resistant hypertension and were managed at any one of 130 Veterans Health Administration (VHA) medical centers from 2000 to 2017.
The results showed that, despite the fact that primary aldosteronism is highly prevalent among patients with treatment-resistant hypertension, only 4,277 (1.6%) underwent assessment for PA during a median of 3.3 years’ follow-up after they first met the defining criteria, Jordana B. Cohen, MD, and her associates reported in a study published in Annals of Internal Medicine on December 28.
“Testing rates also did not change meaningfully over nearly 2 decades ... despite an increasing number of guidelines recommending testing for primary aldosteronism in this population,” including the most recent recommendations from the Endocrine Society, issued in 2016, noted Dr. Cohen, a nephrologist and hypertension researcher at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, and colleagues.
Most patients in the study (almost 90%) were seen by a primary care practitioner (PCP).
The small percentage of patients seen by a nephrologist or endocrinologist were more than twice as likely to be tested for PA than those seen by a PCP or cardiologist.
Those clinicians who did order a test for PA were much more likely to treat patients with the appropriate medication, a mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist (MRA). In addition, therapy was started sooner, the researchers found.
“Our results corroborate” earlier reports from smaller health systems and suggest that dramatic underuse of PA assessment “is an issue across the US,” Dr. Cohen said in an interview.
The VHA experience “is very representative of what we think goes on across U.S. practice” and contrasts with the VHA’s reputation for “doing a pretty good job managing hypertension” in general, she noted.
Missed diagnosis, missed treatment
Dr. Cohen believes a number of factors likely help drive the abysmally low rate of PA testing they observed in the VHA system. She believes rates of PA testing are low elsewhere as well.
First, optimal hypertension management “is often taken for granted” but is challenging in busy primary care practices, so many of patients likely fall through the cracks, she said.
Dr. Cohen cited efforts at her institution, as well as by the VHA system, to better employ electronic health records to flag patients with treatment-resistant hypertension – defined as patients whose systolic or diastolic blood pressure remains at or above 140/90 mm Hg on at least two successive measurements at least a month apart while the patient is undergoing treatment with three conventional antihypertensive drugs – and to guide clinicians to order the right tests and treatments for these patients.
Many care providers mistakenly “see treatment-resistant hypertension as a disease of noncompliance,” although it is much more often the result of a missed diagnosis and inadequate intervention, she explained.
Physicians in denial; side effects of MRAs may deter prescribing
A second big cause of low PA testing rates is that doctors make the mistake of thinking a PA test result won’t change how they manage these patients.
The established treatment for most patients with treatment-resistant hypertension as well as PA is adding an MRA, either spironolactone or eplerenone (Inspra).
Many providers cling to the belief that they will start an MRA in these patients without first determining their PA status, says Dr. Cohen, but the data she and her colleagues collected show the opposite.
Overall, about 13% of all patients in the study began treatment with an MRA during follow-up. The likelihood of starting treatment with this drug class was fourfold higher among the patients tested for PA compared with those who were not tested.
PA testing also hastened the start of MRA use by more than a year, compared with untested patients.
“Providers think they prescribe an MRA” to treatment-resistant patients, “but it’s part of their denial. They are not using the evidence-based treatments [spironolactone or eplerenone], perhaps because of concerns about MRA side effects, although those have been pretty well overcome during the past 20 years,” she observed.
Dr. Cohen says gynecomastia is one adverse effect that gives pause to VHA clinicians who see a heavily male patient population. “It’s probably the biggest concern and why PA testing and MRA use is low” in the VHA system, she said.
“You can use a lower dosage of spironolactone, and the incidence is less common with eplerenone,” although using eplerenone does not completely eliminate all gynecomastia cases, she noted.
At the University of Pennsylvania hospitals, men often start on spironolactone first because it retains a significant price advantage, even though eplerenone is now generic, but “if there is a hint of gynecomastia, we quickly switch to eplerenone, which is usually well tolerated,” she explained.
And while eplerenone has a reputation of being less effective than spironolactone, “I’ve prescribed a lot of eplerenone and have had good results,” Dr. Cohen said. “Even if the blood pressure lowering is not as great compared with spironolactone, it still blunts the toxic effects of aldosterone on target organs.”
Hyperkalemia is the other big concern about spironolactone and eplerenone. Both agents cause it at roughly the same rate, although the rate is lower in patients without chronic kidney disease.
A new, nonsteroidal MRA, finerenone, caused substantially less hyperkalemia in a recent phase 3 trial, FIDELIO-DKD, and as a nonsteroidal MRA, it does not cause gynecomastia. Finerenone has promise as a potentially safer option for treating PA and treatment-resistant hypertension, noted Cohen, but so far, no advanced clinical trials have been launched to examine its efficacy for these indications.
PA testing allows a surgical option
A third reason to test patients with treatment-resistant hypertension for PA is that jumping straight to MRA treatment denies the patient assessment for a unilateral adrenal adenoma as the cause of excess aldosterone.
When unilateral adenomas exist, patients are candidates for adrenalectomy. Despite the potential advantage this gives patients to eliminate the cause of their PA without the need for additional drug treatment, some clinicians don’t see this as a compelling rationale to test for PA because they have a bias against surgery or have seen too many cases in which surgery failed to produce full hypertension resolution.
“It’s all about setting expectations appropriately” for the impact of this surgery, Dr. Cohen said.
“Adrenalectomy is not a cure; it just gets rid of the source of excess aldosterone.” But in patients with long-standing PA and hypertension, this is often not enough to completely resolve entrenched cardiovascular pathology.
PCPs, cardiologists in rural locations least likely to order PA testing
Of the 269,010 patients analyzed by Dr. Cohen and her coauthors, the average age was 65 years; 96% were men; half were obese; and 40% had diabetes. The researchers excluded patients who had already been tested for PA, as well as those who were already receiving treatment with an MRA.
For 88% of the patients, the main physician overseeing care was a PCP. A cardiologist was the main physician for 10%; a nephrologist, for 1%; and an endocrinologist, for fewer than 1%.
The rate of testing for PA varied across the 130 VHA centers that contributed data, ranging from 0% to 6%. The testing data showed that endocrinologists were most likely to order PA testing, doing it 2.48-fold more often than PCPs. Nephrologists were roughly twice as likely to order PA testing than PCPs, and cardiologists ordered testing at about the same rate as PCPs.
Patients managed at VHA centers in rural locations were nearly half as likely to undergo testing as patients managed at nonrural centers. The number of patients with treatment-resistant hypertension seen by a physician or at a center had no significant relationship to PA testing frequency.
The study received no commercial funding. Dr. Cohen has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this story first appeared on Medscape.com.
despite guidelines that call for such an approach, according to findings from the first reported large-scale, multicenter study of PA testing practices.
Researchers ran a retrospective review of PA testing among 269,010 patients who met the definition as having treatment-resistant hypertension and were managed at any one of 130 Veterans Health Administration (VHA) medical centers from 2000 to 2017.
The results showed that, despite the fact that primary aldosteronism is highly prevalent among patients with treatment-resistant hypertension, only 4,277 (1.6%) underwent assessment for PA during a median of 3.3 years’ follow-up after they first met the defining criteria, Jordana B. Cohen, MD, and her associates reported in a study published in Annals of Internal Medicine on December 28.
“Testing rates also did not change meaningfully over nearly 2 decades ... despite an increasing number of guidelines recommending testing for primary aldosteronism in this population,” including the most recent recommendations from the Endocrine Society, issued in 2016, noted Dr. Cohen, a nephrologist and hypertension researcher at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, and colleagues.
Most patients in the study (almost 90%) were seen by a primary care practitioner (PCP).
The small percentage of patients seen by a nephrologist or endocrinologist were more than twice as likely to be tested for PA than those seen by a PCP or cardiologist.
Those clinicians who did order a test for PA were much more likely to treat patients with the appropriate medication, a mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist (MRA). In addition, therapy was started sooner, the researchers found.
“Our results corroborate” earlier reports from smaller health systems and suggest that dramatic underuse of PA assessment “is an issue across the US,” Dr. Cohen said in an interview.
The VHA experience “is very representative of what we think goes on across U.S. practice” and contrasts with the VHA’s reputation for “doing a pretty good job managing hypertension” in general, she noted.
Missed diagnosis, missed treatment
Dr. Cohen believes a number of factors likely help drive the abysmally low rate of PA testing they observed in the VHA system. She believes rates of PA testing are low elsewhere as well.
First, optimal hypertension management “is often taken for granted” but is challenging in busy primary care practices, so many of patients likely fall through the cracks, she said.
Dr. Cohen cited efforts at her institution, as well as by the VHA system, to better employ electronic health records to flag patients with treatment-resistant hypertension – defined as patients whose systolic or diastolic blood pressure remains at or above 140/90 mm Hg on at least two successive measurements at least a month apart while the patient is undergoing treatment with three conventional antihypertensive drugs – and to guide clinicians to order the right tests and treatments for these patients.
Many care providers mistakenly “see treatment-resistant hypertension as a disease of noncompliance,” although it is much more often the result of a missed diagnosis and inadequate intervention, she explained.
Physicians in denial; side effects of MRAs may deter prescribing
A second big cause of low PA testing rates is that doctors make the mistake of thinking a PA test result won’t change how they manage these patients.
The established treatment for most patients with treatment-resistant hypertension as well as PA is adding an MRA, either spironolactone or eplerenone (Inspra).
Many providers cling to the belief that they will start an MRA in these patients without first determining their PA status, says Dr. Cohen, but the data she and her colleagues collected show the opposite.
Overall, about 13% of all patients in the study began treatment with an MRA during follow-up. The likelihood of starting treatment with this drug class was fourfold higher among the patients tested for PA compared with those who were not tested.
PA testing also hastened the start of MRA use by more than a year, compared with untested patients.
“Providers think they prescribe an MRA” to treatment-resistant patients, “but it’s part of their denial. They are not using the evidence-based treatments [spironolactone or eplerenone], perhaps because of concerns about MRA side effects, although those have been pretty well overcome during the past 20 years,” she observed.
Dr. Cohen says gynecomastia is one adverse effect that gives pause to VHA clinicians who see a heavily male patient population. “It’s probably the biggest concern and why PA testing and MRA use is low” in the VHA system, she said.
“You can use a lower dosage of spironolactone, and the incidence is less common with eplerenone,” although using eplerenone does not completely eliminate all gynecomastia cases, she noted.
At the University of Pennsylvania hospitals, men often start on spironolactone first because it retains a significant price advantage, even though eplerenone is now generic, but “if there is a hint of gynecomastia, we quickly switch to eplerenone, which is usually well tolerated,” she explained.
And while eplerenone has a reputation of being less effective than spironolactone, “I’ve prescribed a lot of eplerenone and have had good results,” Dr. Cohen said. “Even if the blood pressure lowering is not as great compared with spironolactone, it still blunts the toxic effects of aldosterone on target organs.”
Hyperkalemia is the other big concern about spironolactone and eplerenone. Both agents cause it at roughly the same rate, although the rate is lower in patients without chronic kidney disease.
A new, nonsteroidal MRA, finerenone, caused substantially less hyperkalemia in a recent phase 3 trial, FIDELIO-DKD, and as a nonsteroidal MRA, it does not cause gynecomastia. Finerenone has promise as a potentially safer option for treating PA and treatment-resistant hypertension, noted Cohen, but so far, no advanced clinical trials have been launched to examine its efficacy for these indications.
PA testing allows a surgical option
A third reason to test patients with treatment-resistant hypertension for PA is that jumping straight to MRA treatment denies the patient assessment for a unilateral adrenal adenoma as the cause of excess aldosterone.
When unilateral adenomas exist, patients are candidates for adrenalectomy. Despite the potential advantage this gives patients to eliminate the cause of their PA without the need for additional drug treatment, some clinicians don’t see this as a compelling rationale to test for PA because they have a bias against surgery or have seen too many cases in which surgery failed to produce full hypertension resolution.
“It’s all about setting expectations appropriately” for the impact of this surgery, Dr. Cohen said.
“Adrenalectomy is not a cure; it just gets rid of the source of excess aldosterone.” But in patients with long-standing PA and hypertension, this is often not enough to completely resolve entrenched cardiovascular pathology.
PCPs, cardiologists in rural locations least likely to order PA testing
Of the 269,010 patients analyzed by Dr. Cohen and her coauthors, the average age was 65 years; 96% were men; half were obese; and 40% had diabetes. The researchers excluded patients who had already been tested for PA, as well as those who were already receiving treatment with an MRA.
For 88% of the patients, the main physician overseeing care was a PCP. A cardiologist was the main physician for 10%; a nephrologist, for 1%; and an endocrinologist, for fewer than 1%.
The rate of testing for PA varied across the 130 VHA centers that contributed data, ranging from 0% to 6%. The testing data showed that endocrinologists were most likely to order PA testing, doing it 2.48-fold more often than PCPs. Nephrologists were roughly twice as likely to order PA testing than PCPs, and cardiologists ordered testing at about the same rate as PCPs.
Patients managed at VHA centers in rural locations were nearly half as likely to undergo testing as patients managed at nonrural centers. The number of patients with treatment-resistant hypertension seen by a physician or at a center had no significant relationship to PA testing frequency.
The study received no commercial funding. Dr. Cohen has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this story first appeared on Medscape.com.
FDA okays first generic injected glucagon for hypoglycemia
The FDA determined that Amphastar’s Glucagon for Injection Emergency Kit, 1 mg, a synthetic peptide product, is bioequivalent and therapeutically equivalent to Eli Lilly’s recombinant DNA Glucagon Emergency Kit for Low Blood Sugar.
Both require a multistep mixing process that means they are complicated to use.
In 2019, FDA approved two branded, easier-to-use formulations of glucagon – one nasally administered (Baqsimi, Eli Lilly & Co) and the other a prefilled pen or syringe (Gvoke HypoPen and Gvoke PFS, respectively, Xeris Pharmaceuticals).
The new generic will have the advantage of lower cost, Amphastar spokesman Dan Dischner said in an interview.
“Our generic glucagon will be priced as a generic product so that patients will benefit from a lower price. As we are just at the beginning of the commercialization of the product, we are unable to discuss our specific product price,” he wrote.
As with the branded Lilly injectable glucagon, the new generic is also indicated as a diagnostic aid in gastrointestinal radiologic imaging, as glucagon slows gastric motility.
According to an FDA statement, glucagon is a “complex product” that has been difficult to manufacture generically despite the lifting of patent protection. This approval was the result of the FDA’s efforts to encourage the development and submission of applications for such drugs.
Amphastar specializes in “developing, manufacturing, marketing, and selling technically-challenging generic and proprietary injectable, inhalation, and intranasal products,” the company website says.
Mr. Dischner said, “Glucagon is a complex product that requires R&D and manufacturing capabilities to develop a highly purified synthetic peptide product bioequivalent and therapeutically equivalent to the recombinant DNA origin Glucagon. Given that this product has been through various review cycles, its complexity, and the technological capabilities required to manufacture, it is no surprise that there hasn’t been a generic of glucagon until now.”
Side effects of injected glucagon include nausea, vomiting, transient increase in heart rate, and redness/swelling of the injection site.
Mr. Dischner added, “We are confident that our generic to Lilly’s time-tested glucagon will provide a favorable option, at a reasonable price, to patients who rely on this product.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The FDA determined that Amphastar’s Glucagon for Injection Emergency Kit, 1 mg, a synthetic peptide product, is bioequivalent and therapeutically equivalent to Eli Lilly’s recombinant DNA Glucagon Emergency Kit for Low Blood Sugar.
Both require a multistep mixing process that means they are complicated to use.
In 2019, FDA approved two branded, easier-to-use formulations of glucagon – one nasally administered (Baqsimi, Eli Lilly & Co) and the other a prefilled pen or syringe (Gvoke HypoPen and Gvoke PFS, respectively, Xeris Pharmaceuticals).
The new generic will have the advantage of lower cost, Amphastar spokesman Dan Dischner said in an interview.
“Our generic glucagon will be priced as a generic product so that patients will benefit from a lower price. As we are just at the beginning of the commercialization of the product, we are unable to discuss our specific product price,” he wrote.
As with the branded Lilly injectable glucagon, the new generic is also indicated as a diagnostic aid in gastrointestinal radiologic imaging, as glucagon slows gastric motility.
According to an FDA statement, glucagon is a “complex product” that has been difficult to manufacture generically despite the lifting of patent protection. This approval was the result of the FDA’s efforts to encourage the development and submission of applications for such drugs.
Amphastar specializes in “developing, manufacturing, marketing, and selling technically-challenging generic and proprietary injectable, inhalation, and intranasal products,” the company website says.
Mr. Dischner said, “Glucagon is a complex product that requires R&D and manufacturing capabilities to develop a highly purified synthetic peptide product bioequivalent and therapeutically equivalent to the recombinant DNA origin Glucagon. Given that this product has been through various review cycles, its complexity, and the technological capabilities required to manufacture, it is no surprise that there hasn’t been a generic of glucagon until now.”
Side effects of injected glucagon include nausea, vomiting, transient increase in heart rate, and redness/swelling of the injection site.
Mr. Dischner added, “We are confident that our generic to Lilly’s time-tested glucagon will provide a favorable option, at a reasonable price, to patients who rely on this product.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The FDA determined that Amphastar’s Glucagon for Injection Emergency Kit, 1 mg, a synthetic peptide product, is bioequivalent and therapeutically equivalent to Eli Lilly’s recombinant DNA Glucagon Emergency Kit for Low Blood Sugar.
Both require a multistep mixing process that means they are complicated to use.
In 2019, FDA approved two branded, easier-to-use formulations of glucagon – one nasally administered (Baqsimi, Eli Lilly & Co) and the other a prefilled pen or syringe (Gvoke HypoPen and Gvoke PFS, respectively, Xeris Pharmaceuticals).
The new generic will have the advantage of lower cost, Amphastar spokesman Dan Dischner said in an interview.
“Our generic glucagon will be priced as a generic product so that patients will benefit from a lower price. As we are just at the beginning of the commercialization of the product, we are unable to discuss our specific product price,” he wrote.
As with the branded Lilly injectable glucagon, the new generic is also indicated as a diagnostic aid in gastrointestinal radiologic imaging, as glucagon slows gastric motility.
According to an FDA statement, glucagon is a “complex product” that has been difficult to manufacture generically despite the lifting of patent protection. This approval was the result of the FDA’s efforts to encourage the development and submission of applications for such drugs.
Amphastar specializes in “developing, manufacturing, marketing, and selling technically-challenging generic and proprietary injectable, inhalation, and intranasal products,” the company website says.
Mr. Dischner said, “Glucagon is a complex product that requires R&D and manufacturing capabilities to develop a highly purified synthetic peptide product bioequivalent and therapeutically equivalent to the recombinant DNA origin Glucagon. Given that this product has been through various review cycles, its complexity, and the technological capabilities required to manufacture, it is no surprise that there hasn’t been a generic of glucagon until now.”
Side effects of injected glucagon include nausea, vomiting, transient increase in heart rate, and redness/swelling of the injection site.
Mr. Dischner added, “We are confident that our generic to Lilly’s time-tested glucagon will provide a favorable option, at a reasonable price, to patients who rely on this product.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Temper enthusiasm for long-term treatment with bisphosphonates?
Women treated with oral bisphosphonate drugs for osteoporosis for 5 years get no additional benefit – in terms of hip fracture risk – if the treatment is extended for another 5 years, new research shows.
“We found that hip fracture risk in women did not differ if women stopped bisphosphonate use after 5 years or stayed on the medication for 10 years,” coauthor Joan C. Lo, MD, Kaiser Permanente Northern California, Oakland, said in an interview.
The new study, published Dec. 7 in JAMA Network Open, did show a small benefit in continuing the treatment through 7 years vs. 5 years, but it wasn’t clear if this was significant.
“Whether there is a benefit to staying on the drug for 7 years needs to be further studied in randomized trials,” Dr. Lo stressed.
It is well established that oral bisphosphonates are effective in reducing the risk for fracture within the first 3-5 years of treatment; however, evidence on the effects of treatment beyond 5 years is lacking.
The most recent guidance from the American Society of Bone and Mineral Research (ASBMR) on the issue, which were released in 2015, recommends continuation of bisphosphonates beyond 5 years for high-risk patients, but it recommends a “drug holiday” for low-risk patients.
Study adds important new evidence
However, that guidance acknowledges that data are limited regarding long-term use. This large new study adds important new evidence to the discussion, Robert A. Adler, MD, who was a member of the ASBMR Task Force for the recent guidance, said in an interview.
“[With the lack of recent research,] this new study from Kaiser Permanente is of great interest,” said Dr. Adler, chief of endocrinology and metabolism at Central Virginia Veterans Affairs Health Care System and professor of internal medicine and of epidemiology at Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond.
“It is new data and suggests we might temper our enthusiasm for long-term treatment with bisphosphonates,” he said.
“Importantly, it is the first large observational trial and is closer to a real-world setting than a randomized controlled trial,” he said.
But, Dr. Adler emphasized: “The take-home message is that while this suggests that patients can probably be given a drug holiday for a couple of years ... they should be retested, and if they appear to be at an increased risk of fracture, they probably should restart again.
“Osteoporosis is a chronic disorder,” he emphasized. “It isn’t cured by any of our treatments, and as people get older, they are at a higher fracture risk.
“So we really need to follow our patients for a lifetime and reassess their fracture risk every couple of years – whether they are still on therapy or on a drug holiday.”
Possible that 7 years is better than 5 but remains to be proven
The new study involved data from Kaiser Permanente Northern and Southern California on 29,685 women who had completed 5 years of treatment with oral bisphosphonates, including alendronate, risedronate, or ibandronate, between 2002 and 2014.
Among the women, 11,105 (37%) continued taking the drugs beyond 5 years to 7 years, and 2,725 (9.2%) completed a total of 10 years of treatment.
Their median age was 71. Among those for whom bone mineral density data were available, 37% had osteoporosis after the first 5 years of treatment.
During these 5 years of treatment, 507 hip fractures occurred.
The cumulative incidence of hip fracture among for those who discontinued study therapy at entry, i.e., those who underwent treatment for 5 years, was 23.0 per 1,000 individuals.
After 7 years of treatment, the rate was 20.8 per 1000. For those who continued therapy for 10 years, the rate was 26.8 per 1000 individuals.
The rate in the 7-year treatment group was based on patients taking a 6-month drug holiday after the initial 5 years, but the results are hard to interpret, Dr. Lo said.
“It’s possible that 7 years is better than 5, but this is not a randomized trial, and some of the data analyses done in the study suggest more research should be done to look at a benefit after 7 years.
“At the end of the day, doctors and women need to decide at 5 years what an individual woman’s risk fracture risk is and determine if she should stay on the drug longer,” Dr. Lo emphasized.
Limitations: Subgroups not identified, adherence hard to assess
The uncertainty of any benefit of treatment with bisphosphonates beyond 5 years is further reflected in U.S. recommendations – the Food and Drug Administration has concluded on the basis of pooled data from the extension phase of major clinical trials that any advantages of treatment beyond 3-5 years are unclear.
Key limitations of the current study include the fact that the incidence of hip fracture was not evaluated in low-risk vs. high-risk subgroups; therefore, “these findings may not be applicable to older women at higher risk of osteoporotic fracture,” the authors wrote.
Furthermore, the study did not assess outcomes of fractures other than hip fractures, such as vertebral fractures, they noted.
Dr. Adler pointed out that another limitation is that adherence in the trial was defined as taking 60% of prescribed pills.
“I think this is the biggest weakness with the study,” he said. “Particularly with medications like oral bisphosphonates that don’t really make patients feel any different, it’s a real challenge to make sure patients continue to take these drugs properly.”
The findings should give some reassurance for patients who take a break from the drugs after 5 years. However, reassessment of their risk is critical, Dr. Adler reiterated.
The study was supported by a grant from the National Institute on Aging and the National Institute of Arthritis, Musculoskeletal, and Skin Diseases of the National Institutes of Health. The authors and Adler have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Women treated with oral bisphosphonate drugs for osteoporosis for 5 years get no additional benefit – in terms of hip fracture risk – if the treatment is extended for another 5 years, new research shows.
“We found that hip fracture risk in women did not differ if women stopped bisphosphonate use after 5 years or stayed on the medication for 10 years,” coauthor Joan C. Lo, MD, Kaiser Permanente Northern California, Oakland, said in an interview.
The new study, published Dec. 7 in JAMA Network Open, did show a small benefit in continuing the treatment through 7 years vs. 5 years, but it wasn’t clear if this was significant.
“Whether there is a benefit to staying on the drug for 7 years needs to be further studied in randomized trials,” Dr. Lo stressed.
It is well established that oral bisphosphonates are effective in reducing the risk for fracture within the first 3-5 years of treatment; however, evidence on the effects of treatment beyond 5 years is lacking.
The most recent guidance from the American Society of Bone and Mineral Research (ASBMR) on the issue, which were released in 2015, recommends continuation of bisphosphonates beyond 5 years for high-risk patients, but it recommends a “drug holiday” for low-risk patients.
Study adds important new evidence
However, that guidance acknowledges that data are limited regarding long-term use. This large new study adds important new evidence to the discussion, Robert A. Adler, MD, who was a member of the ASBMR Task Force for the recent guidance, said in an interview.
“[With the lack of recent research,] this new study from Kaiser Permanente is of great interest,” said Dr. Adler, chief of endocrinology and metabolism at Central Virginia Veterans Affairs Health Care System and professor of internal medicine and of epidemiology at Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond.
“It is new data and suggests we might temper our enthusiasm for long-term treatment with bisphosphonates,” he said.
“Importantly, it is the first large observational trial and is closer to a real-world setting than a randomized controlled trial,” he said.
But, Dr. Adler emphasized: “The take-home message is that while this suggests that patients can probably be given a drug holiday for a couple of years ... they should be retested, and if they appear to be at an increased risk of fracture, they probably should restart again.
“Osteoporosis is a chronic disorder,” he emphasized. “It isn’t cured by any of our treatments, and as people get older, they are at a higher fracture risk.
“So we really need to follow our patients for a lifetime and reassess their fracture risk every couple of years – whether they are still on therapy or on a drug holiday.”
Possible that 7 years is better than 5 but remains to be proven
The new study involved data from Kaiser Permanente Northern and Southern California on 29,685 women who had completed 5 years of treatment with oral bisphosphonates, including alendronate, risedronate, or ibandronate, between 2002 and 2014.
Among the women, 11,105 (37%) continued taking the drugs beyond 5 years to 7 years, and 2,725 (9.2%) completed a total of 10 years of treatment.
Their median age was 71. Among those for whom bone mineral density data were available, 37% had osteoporosis after the first 5 years of treatment.
During these 5 years of treatment, 507 hip fractures occurred.
The cumulative incidence of hip fracture among for those who discontinued study therapy at entry, i.e., those who underwent treatment for 5 years, was 23.0 per 1,000 individuals.
After 7 years of treatment, the rate was 20.8 per 1000. For those who continued therapy for 10 years, the rate was 26.8 per 1000 individuals.
The rate in the 7-year treatment group was based on patients taking a 6-month drug holiday after the initial 5 years, but the results are hard to interpret, Dr. Lo said.
“It’s possible that 7 years is better than 5, but this is not a randomized trial, and some of the data analyses done in the study suggest more research should be done to look at a benefit after 7 years.
“At the end of the day, doctors and women need to decide at 5 years what an individual woman’s risk fracture risk is and determine if she should stay on the drug longer,” Dr. Lo emphasized.
Limitations: Subgroups not identified, adherence hard to assess
The uncertainty of any benefit of treatment with bisphosphonates beyond 5 years is further reflected in U.S. recommendations – the Food and Drug Administration has concluded on the basis of pooled data from the extension phase of major clinical trials that any advantages of treatment beyond 3-5 years are unclear.
Key limitations of the current study include the fact that the incidence of hip fracture was not evaluated in low-risk vs. high-risk subgroups; therefore, “these findings may not be applicable to older women at higher risk of osteoporotic fracture,” the authors wrote.
Furthermore, the study did not assess outcomes of fractures other than hip fractures, such as vertebral fractures, they noted.
Dr. Adler pointed out that another limitation is that adherence in the trial was defined as taking 60% of prescribed pills.
“I think this is the biggest weakness with the study,” he said. “Particularly with medications like oral bisphosphonates that don’t really make patients feel any different, it’s a real challenge to make sure patients continue to take these drugs properly.”
The findings should give some reassurance for patients who take a break from the drugs after 5 years. However, reassessment of their risk is critical, Dr. Adler reiterated.
The study was supported by a grant from the National Institute on Aging and the National Institute of Arthritis, Musculoskeletal, and Skin Diseases of the National Institutes of Health. The authors and Adler have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Women treated with oral bisphosphonate drugs for osteoporosis for 5 years get no additional benefit – in terms of hip fracture risk – if the treatment is extended for another 5 years, new research shows.
“We found that hip fracture risk in women did not differ if women stopped bisphosphonate use after 5 years or stayed on the medication for 10 years,” coauthor Joan C. Lo, MD, Kaiser Permanente Northern California, Oakland, said in an interview.
The new study, published Dec. 7 in JAMA Network Open, did show a small benefit in continuing the treatment through 7 years vs. 5 years, but it wasn’t clear if this was significant.
“Whether there is a benefit to staying on the drug for 7 years needs to be further studied in randomized trials,” Dr. Lo stressed.
It is well established that oral bisphosphonates are effective in reducing the risk for fracture within the first 3-5 years of treatment; however, evidence on the effects of treatment beyond 5 years is lacking.
The most recent guidance from the American Society of Bone and Mineral Research (ASBMR) on the issue, which were released in 2015, recommends continuation of bisphosphonates beyond 5 years for high-risk patients, but it recommends a “drug holiday” for low-risk patients.
Study adds important new evidence
However, that guidance acknowledges that data are limited regarding long-term use. This large new study adds important new evidence to the discussion, Robert A. Adler, MD, who was a member of the ASBMR Task Force for the recent guidance, said in an interview.
“[With the lack of recent research,] this new study from Kaiser Permanente is of great interest,” said Dr. Adler, chief of endocrinology and metabolism at Central Virginia Veterans Affairs Health Care System and professor of internal medicine and of epidemiology at Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond.
“It is new data and suggests we might temper our enthusiasm for long-term treatment with bisphosphonates,” he said.
“Importantly, it is the first large observational trial and is closer to a real-world setting than a randomized controlled trial,” he said.
But, Dr. Adler emphasized: “The take-home message is that while this suggests that patients can probably be given a drug holiday for a couple of years ... they should be retested, and if they appear to be at an increased risk of fracture, they probably should restart again.
“Osteoporosis is a chronic disorder,” he emphasized. “It isn’t cured by any of our treatments, and as people get older, they are at a higher fracture risk.
“So we really need to follow our patients for a lifetime and reassess their fracture risk every couple of years – whether they are still on therapy or on a drug holiday.”
Possible that 7 years is better than 5 but remains to be proven
The new study involved data from Kaiser Permanente Northern and Southern California on 29,685 women who had completed 5 years of treatment with oral bisphosphonates, including alendronate, risedronate, or ibandronate, between 2002 and 2014.
Among the women, 11,105 (37%) continued taking the drugs beyond 5 years to 7 years, and 2,725 (9.2%) completed a total of 10 years of treatment.
Their median age was 71. Among those for whom bone mineral density data were available, 37% had osteoporosis after the first 5 years of treatment.
During these 5 years of treatment, 507 hip fractures occurred.
The cumulative incidence of hip fracture among for those who discontinued study therapy at entry, i.e., those who underwent treatment for 5 years, was 23.0 per 1,000 individuals.
After 7 years of treatment, the rate was 20.8 per 1000. For those who continued therapy for 10 years, the rate was 26.8 per 1000 individuals.
The rate in the 7-year treatment group was based on patients taking a 6-month drug holiday after the initial 5 years, but the results are hard to interpret, Dr. Lo said.
“It’s possible that 7 years is better than 5, but this is not a randomized trial, and some of the data analyses done in the study suggest more research should be done to look at a benefit after 7 years.
“At the end of the day, doctors and women need to decide at 5 years what an individual woman’s risk fracture risk is and determine if she should stay on the drug longer,” Dr. Lo emphasized.
Limitations: Subgroups not identified, adherence hard to assess
The uncertainty of any benefit of treatment with bisphosphonates beyond 5 years is further reflected in U.S. recommendations – the Food and Drug Administration has concluded on the basis of pooled data from the extension phase of major clinical trials that any advantages of treatment beyond 3-5 years are unclear.
Key limitations of the current study include the fact that the incidence of hip fracture was not evaluated in low-risk vs. high-risk subgroups; therefore, “these findings may not be applicable to older women at higher risk of osteoporotic fracture,” the authors wrote.
Furthermore, the study did not assess outcomes of fractures other than hip fractures, such as vertebral fractures, they noted.
Dr. Adler pointed out that another limitation is that adherence in the trial was defined as taking 60% of prescribed pills.
“I think this is the biggest weakness with the study,” he said. “Particularly with medications like oral bisphosphonates that don’t really make patients feel any different, it’s a real challenge to make sure patients continue to take these drugs properly.”
The findings should give some reassurance for patients who take a break from the drugs after 5 years. However, reassessment of their risk is critical, Dr. Adler reiterated.
The study was supported by a grant from the National Institute on Aging and the National Institute of Arthritis, Musculoskeletal, and Skin Diseases of the National Institutes of Health. The authors and Adler have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Dexamethasone may ‘jeopardize’ benefit of immunotherapy in glioblastoma
Dexamethasone can have a detrimental effect on survival in patients with glioblastoma who are receiving immunotherapy, according to a study published in Clinical Cancer Research.
Investigators found that baseline dexamethasone use was associated with poor overall survival (OS) in glioblastoma patients receiving anti–PD-1 or anti–PD-L1 therapy. In fact, in a multivariable analysis, baseline dexamethasone use was the strongest predictor of poor survival.
These results “support accumulating concerns that corticosteroids can be detrimental to immunotherapy for oncology patients,” wrote senior study author David Reardon, MD, of Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston and colleagues.
The concerns are particularly relevant for glioblastoma patients because dexamethasone is a cornerstone of glioblastoma therapy, being used to reduce tumor-associated edema. Patients often receive dexamethasone early on and in significant doses for a protracted period of time to stay ahead of evolving symptoms.
However, the current study suggests dexamethasone and other corticosteroids may be contraindicated in glioblastoma patients on immunotherapy. Therefore, Dr. Reardon and colleagues recommended “careful evaluation of dexamethasone use” in these patients.
“If a glioblastoma patient requires corticosteroids, and they often do for debilitating symptoms, only use these drugs if the patient really needs them,” Dr. Reardon advised. “Start at a low dose and use the shortest treatment interval possible.”
Preclinical and clinical results
Dr. Reardon and colleagues initially evaluated the effects of dexamethasone when administered with PD-1 blockade and/or radiotherapy in an immunocompetent syngeneic mouse model.
Most mice that received anti–PD-1 monotherapy were cured, but the benefit of anti–PD-1 therapy was significantly diminished, in a dose-dependent manner, when dexamethasone was added.
At 100 days, the OS rate was about 76% in the anti–PD-1 monotherapy group, 47% when dexamethasone was given at 1 mg/kg, 31% with dexamethasone at 2.5 mg/kg, and 27% with dexamethasone at 10 mg/kg.
A mechanistic study, including analysis of immune cells in the spleen, showed that dexamethasone decreased intratumoral T cells and systemic levels of T cells, natural killer cells, and myeloid cells, while qualitatively impairing lymphocyte function. The mechanism of T-cell depletion included induction of apoptosis, which was noted as soon as 1 hour after the dexamethasone dose, Dr. Reardon said.
The researchers also evaluated 181 consecutive glioblastoma patients treated with PD-1– or PD-L1–targeted therapy. The study included a multivariable statistical analysis that accounted for age, performance status, extent of resection, size of tumor, bulk tumor burden, and MGMT promoter methylation status.
In an initial unadjusted analysis, baseline dexamethasone decreased the median OS to 8.1 months when it was given at less than 2 mg daily and 6.3 months when given at 2 mg or more daily. The median OS was 13.1 months for patients who did not receive dexamethasone.
After multivariable adjustment, baseline dexamethasone eliminated the survival benefit of immunotherapy, the researchers said. The hazard ratio was 2.16 (P = .003) when dexamethasone was given at less than 2 mg daily and 1.97 (P = .005) with dexamethasone at 2 mg or more daily, compared with no baseline dexamethasone.
In fact, the strongest negative risk factor for OS was the use of dexamethasone at initiation of checkpoint inhibitor therapy.
Implications: Use corticosteroids ‘very judiciously’
The results of this research suggest “corticosteroids can be detrimental when used along with checkpoint inhibitors,” Dr. Reardon said. He added that this effect could extend to other immunotherapies, such as vaccines, cellular therapies, and oncolytic viruses.
“We need to understand what is driving the inflammatory response,” Dr. Reardon said. “Other targets in the downstream pathway may be regulated to avoid the detrimental effect of corticosteroids.”
Ongoing prospective clinical trials need to build in whether concurrent use of corticosteroids leads to poorer outcomes, according to Dr. Reardon.
“We are validating this prospectively in ongoing clinical trials to evaluate differences in outcome in glioblastoma patients and exploring different types of immunotherapies,” he said.
Though questions remain, Dr. Reardon advises judicious use of corticosteroids or even substituting corticosteroids with bevacizumab in glioblastoma patients.
“If a glioblastoma patient develops debilitating symptoms due to swelling in the brain and is a candidate for immunotherapy, then consider using bevacizumab to avoid using corticosteroids,” Dr. Reardon said, adding that this is being tested prospectively in a clinical trial as well.
“We know corticosteroids have a host of side effects. An additional side effect may be limiting immune function in brain cancer patients and jeopardizing the potential benefits of immunotherapy going forward. I implore practicing oncologists to use corticosteroids very judiciously and as little as possible for as little time as possible,” Dr. Reardon said.
This research was funded by grants from the National Institutes of Health and support from various foundations and institutions. The researchers disclosed relationships with many pharmaceutical companies.
SOURCE: Iorgulescu JB et al. Clin Cancer Res. 2020 Nov 25. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-20-2291.
Dexamethasone can have a detrimental effect on survival in patients with glioblastoma who are receiving immunotherapy, according to a study published in Clinical Cancer Research.
Investigators found that baseline dexamethasone use was associated with poor overall survival (OS) in glioblastoma patients receiving anti–PD-1 or anti–PD-L1 therapy. In fact, in a multivariable analysis, baseline dexamethasone use was the strongest predictor of poor survival.
These results “support accumulating concerns that corticosteroids can be detrimental to immunotherapy for oncology patients,” wrote senior study author David Reardon, MD, of Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston and colleagues.
The concerns are particularly relevant for glioblastoma patients because dexamethasone is a cornerstone of glioblastoma therapy, being used to reduce tumor-associated edema. Patients often receive dexamethasone early on and in significant doses for a protracted period of time to stay ahead of evolving symptoms.
However, the current study suggests dexamethasone and other corticosteroids may be contraindicated in glioblastoma patients on immunotherapy. Therefore, Dr. Reardon and colleagues recommended “careful evaluation of dexamethasone use” in these patients.
“If a glioblastoma patient requires corticosteroids, and they often do for debilitating symptoms, only use these drugs if the patient really needs them,” Dr. Reardon advised. “Start at a low dose and use the shortest treatment interval possible.”
Preclinical and clinical results
Dr. Reardon and colleagues initially evaluated the effects of dexamethasone when administered with PD-1 blockade and/or radiotherapy in an immunocompetent syngeneic mouse model.
Most mice that received anti–PD-1 monotherapy were cured, but the benefit of anti–PD-1 therapy was significantly diminished, in a dose-dependent manner, when dexamethasone was added.
At 100 days, the OS rate was about 76% in the anti–PD-1 monotherapy group, 47% when dexamethasone was given at 1 mg/kg, 31% with dexamethasone at 2.5 mg/kg, and 27% with dexamethasone at 10 mg/kg.
A mechanistic study, including analysis of immune cells in the spleen, showed that dexamethasone decreased intratumoral T cells and systemic levels of T cells, natural killer cells, and myeloid cells, while qualitatively impairing lymphocyte function. The mechanism of T-cell depletion included induction of apoptosis, which was noted as soon as 1 hour after the dexamethasone dose, Dr. Reardon said.
The researchers also evaluated 181 consecutive glioblastoma patients treated with PD-1– or PD-L1–targeted therapy. The study included a multivariable statistical analysis that accounted for age, performance status, extent of resection, size of tumor, bulk tumor burden, and MGMT promoter methylation status.
In an initial unadjusted analysis, baseline dexamethasone decreased the median OS to 8.1 months when it was given at less than 2 mg daily and 6.3 months when given at 2 mg or more daily. The median OS was 13.1 months for patients who did not receive dexamethasone.
After multivariable adjustment, baseline dexamethasone eliminated the survival benefit of immunotherapy, the researchers said. The hazard ratio was 2.16 (P = .003) when dexamethasone was given at less than 2 mg daily and 1.97 (P = .005) with dexamethasone at 2 mg or more daily, compared with no baseline dexamethasone.
In fact, the strongest negative risk factor for OS was the use of dexamethasone at initiation of checkpoint inhibitor therapy.
Implications: Use corticosteroids ‘very judiciously’
The results of this research suggest “corticosteroids can be detrimental when used along with checkpoint inhibitors,” Dr. Reardon said. He added that this effect could extend to other immunotherapies, such as vaccines, cellular therapies, and oncolytic viruses.
“We need to understand what is driving the inflammatory response,” Dr. Reardon said. “Other targets in the downstream pathway may be regulated to avoid the detrimental effect of corticosteroids.”
Ongoing prospective clinical trials need to build in whether concurrent use of corticosteroids leads to poorer outcomes, according to Dr. Reardon.
“We are validating this prospectively in ongoing clinical trials to evaluate differences in outcome in glioblastoma patients and exploring different types of immunotherapies,” he said.
Though questions remain, Dr. Reardon advises judicious use of corticosteroids or even substituting corticosteroids with bevacizumab in glioblastoma patients.
“If a glioblastoma patient develops debilitating symptoms due to swelling in the brain and is a candidate for immunotherapy, then consider using bevacizumab to avoid using corticosteroids,” Dr. Reardon said, adding that this is being tested prospectively in a clinical trial as well.
“We know corticosteroids have a host of side effects. An additional side effect may be limiting immune function in brain cancer patients and jeopardizing the potential benefits of immunotherapy going forward. I implore practicing oncologists to use corticosteroids very judiciously and as little as possible for as little time as possible,” Dr. Reardon said.
This research was funded by grants from the National Institutes of Health and support from various foundations and institutions. The researchers disclosed relationships with many pharmaceutical companies.
SOURCE: Iorgulescu JB et al. Clin Cancer Res. 2020 Nov 25. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-20-2291.
Dexamethasone can have a detrimental effect on survival in patients with glioblastoma who are receiving immunotherapy, according to a study published in Clinical Cancer Research.
Investigators found that baseline dexamethasone use was associated with poor overall survival (OS) in glioblastoma patients receiving anti–PD-1 or anti–PD-L1 therapy. In fact, in a multivariable analysis, baseline dexamethasone use was the strongest predictor of poor survival.
These results “support accumulating concerns that corticosteroids can be detrimental to immunotherapy for oncology patients,” wrote senior study author David Reardon, MD, of Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston and colleagues.
The concerns are particularly relevant for glioblastoma patients because dexamethasone is a cornerstone of glioblastoma therapy, being used to reduce tumor-associated edema. Patients often receive dexamethasone early on and in significant doses for a protracted period of time to stay ahead of evolving symptoms.
However, the current study suggests dexamethasone and other corticosteroids may be contraindicated in glioblastoma patients on immunotherapy. Therefore, Dr. Reardon and colleagues recommended “careful evaluation of dexamethasone use” in these patients.
“If a glioblastoma patient requires corticosteroids, and they often do for debilitating symptoms, only use these drugs if the patient really needs them,” Dr. Reardon advised. “Start at a low dose and use the shortest treatment interval possible.”
Preclinical and clinical results
Dr. Reardon and colleagues initially evaluated the effects of dexamethasone when administered with PD-1 blockade and/or radiotherapy in an immunocompetent syngeneic mouse model.
Most mice that received anti–PD-1 monotherapy were cured, but the benefit of anti–PD-1 therapy was significantly diminished, in a dose-dependent manner, when dexamethasone was added.
At 100 days, the OS rate was about 76% in the anti–PD-1 monotherapy group, 47% when dexamethasone was given at 1 mg/kg, 31% with dexamethasone at 2.5 mg/kg, and 27% with dexamethasone at 10 mg/kg.
A mechanistic study, including analysis of immune cells in the spleen, showed that dexamethasone decreased intratumoral T cells and systemic levels of T cells, natural killer cells, and myeloid cells, while qualitatively impairing lymphocyte function. The mechanism of T-cell depletion included induction of apoptosis, which was noted as soon as 1 hour after the dexamethasone dose, Dr. Reardon said.
The researchers also evaluated 181 consecutive glioblastoma patients treated with PD-1– or PD-L1–targeted therapy. The study included a multivariable statistical analysis that accounted for age, performance status, extent of resection, size of tumor, bulk tumor burden, and MGMT promoter methylation status.
In an initial unadjusted analysis, baseline dexamethasone decreased the median OS to 8.1 months when it was given at less than 2 mg daily and 6.3 months when given at 2 mg or more daily. The median OS was 13.1 months for patients who did not receive dexamethasone.
After multivariable adjustment, baseline dexamethasone eliminated the survival benefit of immunotherapy, the researchers said. The hazard ratio was 2.16 (P = .003) when dexamethasone was given at less than 2 mg daily and 1.97 (P = .005) with dexamethasone at 2 mg or more daily, compared with no baseline dexamethasone.
In fact, the strongest negative risk factor for OS was the use of dexamethasone at initiation of checkpoint inhibitor therapy.
Implications: Use corticosteroids ‘very judiciously’
The results of this research suggest “corticosteroids can be detrimental when used along with checkpoint inhibitors,” Dr. Reardon said. He added that this effect could extend to other immunotherapies, such as vaccines, cellular therapies, and oncolytic viruses.
“We need to understand what is driving the inflammatory response,” Dr. Reardon said. “Other targets in the downstream pathway may be regulated to avoid the detrimental effect of corticosteroids.”
Ongoing prospective clinical trials need to build in whether concurrent use of corticosteroids leads to poorer outcomes, according to Dr. Reardon.
“We are validating this prospectively in ongoing clinical trials to evaluate differences in outcome in glioblastoma patients and exploring different types of immunotherapies,” he said.
Though questions remain, Dr. Reardon advises judicious use of corticosteroids or even substituting corticosteroids with bevacizumab in glioblastoma patients.
“If a glioblastoma patient develops debilitating symptoms due to swelling in the brain and is a candidate for immunotherapy, then consider using bevacizumab to avoid using corticosteroids,” Dr. Reardon said, adding that this is being tested prospectively in a clinical trial as well.
“We know corticosteroids have a host of side effects. An additional side effect may be limiting immune function in brain cancer patients and jeopardizing the potential benefits of immunotherapy going forward. I implore practicing oncologists to use corticosteroids very judiciously and as little as possible for as little time as possible,” Dr. Reardon said.
This research was funded by grants from the National Institutes of Health and support from various foundations and institutions. The researchers disclosed relationships with many pharmaceutical companies.
SOURCE: Iorgulescu JB et al. Clin Cancer Res. 2020 Nov 25. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-20-2291.
FROM CLINICAL CANCER RESEARCH
IBD patients more likely to stick with vedolizumab than anti-TNF drugs
Adults with inflammatory bowel disease were more likely to continue using vedolizumab, compared with anti–tumor necrosis factor (TNF) drugs over 3 years, based on data from a retrospective study of nearly 16,000 patients.
Patient persistence with prescribed therapy is essential to managing chronic inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), but data on the persistence of patients with treatments are limited, wrote Ulf Helwig, MD, of the Practice for Internal Medicine, Oldenburg, Germany, and colleagues. “With the advent of vedolizumab, physicians for the first time had the choice between biologicals with different modes of action,” they wrote.
In a study published in the Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology, the researchers used a national prescription database to identify 15,984 adults aged 18 years and older who were treatment-naive to biologics and received prescriptions between July 2014 and March 2017. Treatment persistence was defined as continuous treatment time of at least 90 days without prescription.
A total of 2,076 vedolizumab patients were matched with 2,076 adalimumab patients; 716 vedolizumab patients were matched with 716 golimumab patients; and 2,055 vedolizumab patients were matched with 2,055 infliximab patients.
Within 3 years after the first prescription, the overall persistence rates were 35.9% for vedolizumab, 27.8% for adalimumab, 20.7% for golimumab, and 29.8% for infliximab.
In matched-pair analysis, 35.2% of vedolizumab patients were persistent, compared with 28.9% of adalimumab patients over a 3-year period; the difference was statistically significant. In addition, 30.5% of vedolizumab patients persisted, compared with 25.4% of golimumab patients, also statistically significant. A matched-pair comparison between vedolizumab and infliximab (35.7% vs. 30.2%) was not statistically significant (P = 0.119).
In addition, vedolizumab patients were significantly less likely to discontinue therapy, compared with both adalimumab and golimumab patients, with hazard ratios of 0.86 and 0.60, respectively, in the matched pair analysis; discontinuation, compared with infliximab, was not statistically significant.
“Several reasons may account for significant rates of discontinuation reported for all biological treatments in IBD,” the researchers noted. “These comprise differences in health care systems in the concerned countries, including differences in availability of biologicals, access to reimbursed drugs, or different patient care settings,” they wrote.
The study findings were limited by several factors including the lack of data on specific IBD diagnoses, IBD severity, disease course, and dose escalation, they noted.
However, the study was strengthened by the large sample size and use of a real-world setting, they said.
“Further studies are needed to identify the reasons for persistence differences between vedolizumab and anti-TNF drugs,” they concluded.
Comparisons inform choices
“There are multiple biologic options for therapy of inflammatory bowel disease, and response to therapy tends to drop off over time in many patients for a variety of reasons including development of antibodies and escape from the mechanism of the action of the drug,” said Kim L. Isaacs, MD, of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, in an interview.
“Intolerance or side effects of medication also may lead to discontinuation of therapy,” said Dr. Isaacs. “This trial looks at therapy discontinuation among four biologics used for inflammatory bowel disease over a 3-year period after initiation of therapy in patients who were previous biologically naive. Reasons for discontinuation cannot be assessed with this data set,” she noted. “There are very few comparative trials with the different biologic therapies in IBD. This trial is important because it compares the two distinct biologic mechanisms of action and continuation of therapy in biologically naive patients,” she said.
Dr. Isaacs said she was not surprised by the study findings. “Discontinuation of anti-TNF therapy was more common, compared to vedolizumab and golimumab. There was no statistical difference in terms of therapy discontinuation with infliximab,” she said. “In general, vedolizumab is felt to be less systemically immunosuppressant with targeting of white blood cell trafficking to the gut, whereas anti-TNF therapy is more systemically immunosuppressant and may be associated with more systemic side effects,” she explained.
The study design does not allow for comment on comparative efficacy, “although the findings are intriguing,” said Dr. Isaacs. “If the discontinuations were caused by lack of efficacy, the findings in this study may help in positioning biologic therapy in the biologic-naive patients,” she said.
The study is “a ‘real-world’ experiment that suggests there is a difference between different biologic therapies for inflammatory bowel disease,” said Dr. Isaacs. “More controlled comparative efficacy trials are needed that can look at reasons for drug discontinuation between different populations. To date, the VARSITY trial comparing vedolizumab to adalimumab in ulcerative colitis is the only published trial to do this,” she added.
The study received no outside funding. Lead author Dr. Helwig disclosed lecture and consulting fees from AbbVie, Amgen, Biogen, Celltrion, Hexal, MSD, Ferring, Falk Foundation, Takeda, Mundipharma, Pfizer, Hospira, and Vifor Pharma. Dr. Isaacs disclosed serving on the Data and Safety Monitoring Board (DSMB) for Janssen.
Help your patients better understand their IBD treatment options by sharing AGA’s patient education, “Living with IBD,” in the AGA GI Patient Center at www.gastro.org/IBD.
SOURCE: Helwig U et al. J Clin Gastroenterol. 2021 Jan. doi: 10.1097/MCG.0000000000001323
Story updated Jan. 5, 2021.
Adults with inflammatory bowel disease were more likely to continue using vedolizumab, compared with anti–tumor necrosis factor (TNF) drugs over 3 years, based on data from a retrospective study of nearly 16,000 patients.
Patient persistence with prescribed therapy is essential to managing chronic inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), but data on the persistence of patients with treatments are limited, wrote Ulf Helwig, MD, of the Practice for Internal Medicine, Oldenburg, Germany, and colleagues. “With the advent of vedolizumab, physicians for the first time had the choice between biologicals with different modes of action,” they wrote.
In a study published in the Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology, the researchers used a national prescription database to identify 15,984 adults aged 18 years and older who were treatment-naive to biologics and received prescriptions between July 2014 and March 2017. Treatment persistence was defined as continuous treatment time of at least 90 days without prescription.
A total of 2,076 vedolizumab patients were matched with 2,076 adalimumab patients; 716 vedolizumab patients were matched with 716 golimumab patients; and 2,055 vedolizumab patients were matched with 2,055 infliximab patients.
Within 3 years after the first prescription, the overall persistence rates were 35.9% for vedolizumab, 27.8% for adalimumab, 20.7% for golimumab, and 29.8% for infliximab.
In matched-pair analysis, 35.2% of vedolizumab patients were persistent, compared with 28.9% of adalimumab patients over a 3-year period; the difference was statistically significant. In addition, 30.5% of vedolizumab patients persisted, compared with 25.4% of golimumab patients, also statistically significant. A matched-pair comparison between vedolizumab and infliximab (35.7% vs. 30.2%) was not statistically significant (P = 0.119).
In addition, vedolizumab patients were significantly less likely to discontinue therapy, compared with both adalimumab and golimumab patients, with hazard ratios of 0.86 and 0.60, respectively, in the matched pair analysis; discontinuation, compared with infliximab, was not statistically significant.
“Several reasons may account for significant rates of discontinuation reported for all biological treatments in IBD,” the researchers noted. “These comprise differences in health care systems in the concerned countries, including differences in availability of biologicals, access to reimbursed drugs, or different patient care settings,” they wrote.
The study findings were limited by several factors including the lack of data on specific IBD diagnoses, IBD severity, disease course, and dose escalation, they noted.
However, the study was strengthened by the large sample size and use of a real-world setting, they said.
“Further studies are needed to identify the reasons for persistence differences between vedolizumab and anti-TNF drugs,” they concluded.
Comparisons inform choices
“There are multiple biologic options for therapy of inflammatory bowel disease, and response to therapy tends to drop off over time in many patients for a variety of reasons including development of antibodies and escape from the mechanism of the action of the drug,” said Kim L. Isaacs, MD, of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, in an interview.
“Intolerance or side effects of medication also may lead to discontinuation of therapy,” said Dr. Isaacs. “This trial looks at therapy discontinuation among four biologics used for inflammatory bowel disease over a 3-year period after initiation of therapy in patients who were previous biologically naive. Reasons for discontinuation cannot be assessed with this data set,” she noted. “There are very few comparative trials with the different biologic therapies in IBD. This trial is important because it compares the two distinct biologic mechanisms of action and continuation of therapy in biologically naive patients,” she said.
Dr. Isaacs said she was not surprised by the study findings. “Discontinuation of anti-TNF therapy was more common, compared to vedolizumab and golimumab. There was no statistical difference in terms of therapy discontinuation with infliximab,” she said. “In general, vedolizumab is felt to be less systemically immunosuppressant with targeting of white blood cell trafficking to the gut, whereas anti-TNF therapy is more systemically immunosuppressant and may be associated with more systemic side effects,” she explained.
The study design does not allow for comment on comparative efficacy, “although the findings are intriguing,” said Dr. Isaacs. “If the discontinuations were caused by lack of efficacy, the findings in this study may help in positioning biologic therapy in the biologic-naive patients,” she said.
The study is “a ‘real-world’ experiment that suggests there is a difference between different biologic therapies for inflammatory bowel disease,” said Dr. Isaacs. “More controlled comparative efficacy trials are needed that can look at reasons for drug discontinuation between different populations. To date, the VARSITY trial comparing vedolizumab to adalimumab in ulcerative colitis is the only published trial to do this,” she added.
The study received no outside funding. Lead author Dr. Helwig disclosed lecture and consulting fees from AbbVie, Amgen, Biogen, Celltrion, Hexal, MSD, Ferring, Falk Foundation, Takeda, Mundipharma, Pfizer, Hospira, and Vifor Pharma. Dr. Isaacs disclosed serving on the Data and Safety Monitoring Board (DSMB) for Janssen.
Help your patients better understand their IBD treatment options by sharing AGA’s patient education, “Living with IBD,” in the AGA GI Patient Center at www.gastro.org/IBD.
SOURCE: Helwig U et al. J Clin Gastroenterol. 2021 Jan. doi: 10.1097/MCG.0000000000001323
Story updated Jan. 5, 2021.
Adults with inflammatory bowel disease were more likely to continue using vedolizumab, compared with anti–tumor necrosis factor (TNF) drugs over 3 years, based on data from a retrospective study of nearly 16,000 patients.
Patient persistence with prescribed therapy is essential to managing chronic inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), but data on the persistence of patients with treatments are limited, wrote Ulf Helwig, MD, of the Practice for Internal Medicine, Oldenburg, Germany, and colleagues. “With the advent of vedolizumab, physicians for the first time had the choice between biologicals with different modes of action,” they wrote.
In a study published in the Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology, the researchers used a national prescription database to identify 15,984 adults aged 18 years and older who were treatment-naive to biologics and received prescriptions between July 2014 and March 2017. Treatment persistence was defined as continuous treatment time of at least 90 days without prescription.
A total of 2,076 vedolizumab patients were matched with 2,076 adalimumab patients; 716 vedolizumab patients were matched with 716 golimumab patients; and 2,055 vedolizumab patients were matched with 2,055 infliximab patients.
Within 3 years after the first prescription, the overall persistence rates were 35.9% for vedolizumab, 27.8% for adalimumab, 20.7% for golimumab, and 29.8% for infliximab.
In matched-pair analysis, 35.2% of vedolizumab patients were persistent, compared with 28.9% of adalimumab patients over a 3-year period; the difference was statistically significant. In addition, 30.5% of vedolizumab patients persisted, compared with 25.4% of golimumab patients, also statistically significant. A matched-pair comparison between vedolizumab and infliximab (35.7% vs. 30.2%) was not statistically significant (P = 0.119).
In addition, vedolizumab patients were significantly less likely to discontinue therapy, compared with both adalimumab and golimumab patients, with hazard ratios of 0.86 and 0.60, respectively, in the matched pair analysis; discontinuation, compared with infliximab, was not statistically significant.
“Several reasons may account for significant rates of discontinuation reported for all biological treatments in IBD,” the researchers noted. “These comprise differences in health care systems in the concerned countries, including differences in availability of biologicals, access to reimbursed drugs, or different patient care settings,” they wrote.
The study findings were limited by several factors including the lack of data on specific IBD diagnoses, IBD severity, disease course, and dose escalation, they noted.
However, the study was strengthened by the large sample size and use of a real-world setting, they said.
“Further studies are needed to identify the reasons for persistence differences between vedolizumab and anti-TNF drugs,” they concluded.
Comparisons inform choices
“There are multiple biologic options for therapy of inflammatory bowel disease, and response to therapy tends to drop off over time in many patients for a variety of reasons including development of antibodies and escape from the mechanism of the action of the drug,” said Kim L. Isaacs, MD, of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, in an interview.
“Intolerance or side effects of medication also may lead to discontinuation of therapy,” said Dr. Isaacs. “This trial looks at therapy discontinuation among four biologics used for inflammatory bowel disease over a 3-year period after initiation of therapy in patients who were previous biologically naive. Reasons for discontinuation cannot be assessed with this data set,” she noted. “There are very few comparative trials with the different biologic therapies in IBD. This trial is important because it compares the two distinct biologic mechanisms of action and continuation of therapy in biologically naive patients,” she said.
Dr. Isaacs said she was not surprised by the study findings. “Discontinuation of anti-TNF therapy was more common, compared to vedolizumab and golimumab. There was no statistical difference in terms of therapy discontinuation with infliximab,” she said. “In general, vedolizumab is felt to be less systemically immunosuppressant with targeting of white blood cell trafficking to the gut, whereas anti-TNF therapy is more systemically immunosuppressant and may be associated with more systemic side effects,” she explained.
The study design does not allow for comment on comparative efficacy, “although the findings are intriguing,” said Dr. Isaacs. “If the discontinuations were caused by lack of efficacy, the findings in this study may help in positioning biologic therapy in the biologic-naive patients,” she said.
The study is “a ‘real-world’ experiment that suggests there is a difference between different biologic therapies for inflammatory bowel disease,” said Dr. Isaacs. “More controlled comparative efficacy trials are needed that can look at reasons for drug discontinuation between different populations. To date, the VARSITY trial comparing vedolizumab to adalimumab in ulcerative colitis is the only published trial to do this,” she added.
The study received no outside funding. Lead author Dr. Helwig disclosed lecture and consulting fees from AbbVie, Amgen, Biogen, Celltrion, Hexal, MSD, Ferring, Falk Foundation, Takeda, Mundipharma, Pfizer, Hospira, and Vifor Pharma. Dr. Isaacs disclosed serving on the Data and Safety Monitoring Board (DSMB) for Janssen.
Help your patients better understand their IBD treatment options by sharing AGA’s patient education, “Living with IBD,” in the AGA GI Patient Center at www.gastro.org/IBD.
SOURCE: Helwig U et al. J Clin Gastroenterol. 2021 Jan. doi: 10.1097/MCG.0000000000001323
Story updated Jan. 5, 2021.
FROM THE JOURNAL OF CLINICAL GASTROENTEROLOGY
FDA OKs osimertinib as first adjuvant drug for NSCLC
Osimertinib was first approved in the US in 2018 for the first-line treatment of patients with metastatic EGFR-mutated NSCLC.
With this new indication, “patients may be treated with this targeted therapy in an earlier and potentially more curative stage of non-small cell lung cancer,” 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, said in a news release.
The expanded indication is based on results of the ADAURA clinical trial, which compared osimertinib with placebo following complete resection of localized or locally advanced NSCLC with negative margins.
In the trial, adjuvant osimertinib reduced the relative risk of disease recurrence or death by 83% in patients with stage II and IIIA disease (hazard ratio [HR], 0.17; 95% CI, 0.12 - 0.23; P < .0001).
Disease-free survival (DFS) in the overall trial population of patients with stage IB-IIIA disease showed osimertinib reduced the risk of disease recurrence or death by 80% (HR, 0.20; 95% CI, 0.15 - 0.27; P < .0001).
At 2 years, 89% of patients treated with the targeted agent remained alive and disease free vs 52% on placebo after surgery. The safety and tolerability of osimertinib in the adjuvant setting was consistent with previous trials in the metastatic setting.
The trial of 682 patients was unblinded early and halted on the recommendation of the independent data-monitoring committee, because of the efficacy of osimertinib.
“If I were on the committee, I would have done the same thing. These are extraordinary results,” study investigator Roy S. Herbst, MD, PhD, chief of medical oncology at the Yale Cancer Center, New Haven, Connecticut, said at a press briefing prior to the study presentation at the American Society of Clinical Oncology’s (ASCO) virtual scientific program last spring.
In a Medscape commentary, Mark Kris, MD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City, said the data with osimertinib in the adjuvant setting are “important and practice-changing.”
“The potential for this drug to improve outcomes has been there for a long time. This phase 3 randomized trial presented at the plenary session of ASCO showed a more than doubling of disease-free survival at 2 years. It shows that we can use therapies in the earlier stages of disease,” Kris noted.
“This approval dispels the notion that treatment is over after surgery and chemotherapy, as the ADAURA results show that Tagrisso can dramatically change the course of this disease,” Dave Fredrickson, executive vice president, AstraZeneca oncology business unit, said in a news release.
Osimertinib had orphan drug status and breakthrough therapy designation for treatment of EGFR mutation-positive NSCLC.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Osimertinib was first approved in the US in 2018 for the first-line treatment of patients with metastatic EGFR-mutated NSCLC.
With this new indication, “patients may be treated with this targeted therapy in an earlier and potentially more curative stage of non-small cell lung cancer,” 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, said in a news release.
The expanded indication is based on results of the ADAURA clinical trial, which compared osimertinib with placebo following complete resection of localized or locally advanced NSCLC with negative margins.
In the trial, adjuvant osimertinib reduced the relative risk of disease recurrence or death by 83% in patients with stage II and IIIA disease (hazard ratio [HR], 0.17; 95% CI, 0.12 - 0.23; P < .0001).
Disease-free survival (DFS) in the overall trial population of patients with stage IB-IIIA disease showed osimertinib reduced the risk of disease recurrence or death by 80% (HR, 0.20; 95% CI, 0.15 - 0.27; P < .0001).
At 2 years, 89% of patients treated with the targeted agent remained alive and disease free vs 52% on placebo after surgery. The safety and tolerability of osimertinib in the adjuvant setting was consistent with previous trials in the metastatic setting.
The trial of 682 patients was unblinded early and halted on the recommendation of the independent data-monitoring committee, because of the efficacy of osimertinib.
“If I were on the committee, I would have done the same thing. These are extraordinary results,” study investigator Roy S. Herbst, MD, PhD, chief of medical oncology at the Yale Cancer Center, New Haven, Connecticut, said at a press briefing prior to the study presentation at the American Society of Clinical Oncology’s (ASCO) virtual scientific program last spring.
In a Medscape commentary, Mark Kris, MD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City, said the data with osimertinib in the adjuvant setting are “important and practice-changing.”
“The potential for this drug to improve outcomes has been there for a long time. This phase 3 randomized trial presented at the plenary session of ASCO showed a more than doubling of disease-free survival at 2 years. It shows that we can use therapies in the earlier stages of disease,” Kris noted.
“This approval dispels the notion that treatment is over after surgery and chemotherapy, as the ADAURA results show that Tagrisso can dramatically change the course of this disease,” Dave Fredrickson, executive vice president, AstraZeneca oncology business unit, said in a news release.
Osimertinib had orphan drug status and breakthrough therapy designation for treatment of EGFR mutation-positive NSCLC.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Osimertinib was first approved in the US in 2018 for the first-line treatment of patients with metastatic EGFR-mutated NSCLC.
With this new indication, “patients may be treated with this targeted therapy in an earlier and potentially more curative stage of non-small cell lung cancer,” 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, said in a news release.
The expanded indication is based on results of the ADAURA clinical trial, which compared osimertinib with placebo following complete resection of localized or locally advanced NSCLC with negative margins.
In the trial, adjuvant osimertinib reduced the relative risk of disease recurrence or death by 83% in patients with stage II and IIIA disease (hazard ratio [HR], 0.17; 95% CI, 0.12 - 0.23; P < .0001).
Disease-free survival (DFS) in the overall trial population of patients with stage IB-IIIA disease showed osimertinib reduced the risk of disease recurrence or death by 80% (HR, 0.20; 95% CI, 0.15 - 0.27; P < .0001).
At 2 years, 89% of patients treated with the targeted agent remained alive and disease free vs 52% on placebo after surgery. The safety and tolerability of osimertinib in the adjuvant setting was consistent with previous trials in the metastatic setting.
The trial of 682 patients was unblinded early and halted on the recommendation of the independent data-monitoring committee, because of the efficacy of osimertinib.
“If I were on the committee, I would have done the same thing. These are extraordinary results,” study investigator Roy S. Herbst, MD, PhD, chief of medical oncology at the Yale Cancer Center, New Haven, Connecticut, said at a press briefing prior to the study presentation at the American Society of Clinical Oncology’s (ASCO) virtual scientific program last spring.
In a Medscape commentary, Mark Kris, MD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City, said the data with osimertinib in the adjuvant setting are “important and practice-changing.”
“The potential for this drug to improve outcomes has been there for a long time. This phase 3 randomized trial presented at the plenary session of ASCO showed a more than doubling of disease-free survival at 2 years. It shows that we can use therapies in the earlier stages of disease,” Kris noted.
“This approval dispels the notion that treatment is over after surgery and chemotherapy, as the ADAURA results show that Tagrisso can dramatically change the course of this disease,” Dave Fredrickson, executive vice president, AstraZeneca oncology business unit, said in a news release.
Osimertinib had orphan drug status and breakthrough therapy designation for treatment of EGFR mutation-positive NSCLC.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
No benefit of cannabis on depression in pregnant women with OUD
Cannabis is ineffective at alleviating depression in pregnant women undergoing opioid agonist therapy (OAT), new research shows.
A study of more than 120 pregnant women undergoing treatment of opioid use disorder (OUD) showed that those who used cannabis to alleviate their depressive symptoms while undergoing OAT continued to have high depression scores at the end of opioid treatment.
In addition, depression scores improved for those who abstained from cannabis use after their first positive screen. Interestingly, cannabis use did not affect patient retention in treatment for OUD, the investigators note.
“To our knowledge, this is the first time looking at the impact of cannabis on the specific population of pregnant women with opioid use disorder, who are very vulnerable to depression,” lead author Abigail Richison, MD, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, said in an interview.
The findings were presented at the American Academy of Addiction Psychiatry (AAAP) 31st Annual Meeting, which was held online this year because of the COVID-19 pandemic.
A safer alternative?
Data from the National Survey on Drug Use and Health show that perinatal cannabis use increased by 62% between 2002 and 2014. Many women try to ameliorate their depression symptoms by using cannabis in the mistaken belief that it will help their depression, the investigators noted.
In addition, many women consider cannabis safer during pregnancy than prescribed medications for improving mood, said Dr. Richison. She said that cannabis does not alleviate depression and may even worsen it.
Dr. Richison noted that at her center, which has a women’s health program that treats pregnant women with OUDs, she was seeing a lot of patients who reported using cannabis to improve their mood.
“However, it didn’t seem like it was really helping, so I started researching about cannabis and depression,” Dr. Richison said.
“ and can be accused of perinatal substance use. I think it is very important to screen for depression as well as cannabis use in this population,” she added.
To shed some light on the impact of cannabis use by pregnant patients with OUD, the investigators conducted a retrospective chart review of 121 pregnant women with OUD who attended outpatient OAT. All were prescribed buprenorphine.
At each visit, Beck Depression Inventory (BDI) scores were obtained and urine drug screens were administered. The primary outcome was BDI score. Other measures included retention, urinary drug screen results, and antidepressant use.
The women were divided into two groups. The first comprised cannabis users, defined as having more than one urine drug screen that was positive for cannabis (n = 35). The other group comprised nonusers, defined as having urine drug screens that were negative for cannabis (n = 86).
Cannabis users were a little younger (mean age, 27 years) than non–cannabis users (mean age, 29.5 years; P = .006). Most of the participants were White (80.2%). Roughly half were on Medicaid, and most of the other participants had private insurance; a small number of women had no insurance.
Results showed that cannabis users had significantly higher BDI scores than non–cannabis users (mean scores, 16 vs. 9.3; P < .001).
Cannabis use continued to be associated with elevated scores for depression when controlling for opioid misuse and antidepressant use. There were no significant differences in retention or lapse to opioid misuse between the two groups.
More evidence of risk
Commenting on the findings in an interview, Carla Marienfeld, MD, professor of psychiatry at the University of California, San Diego, said there is a growing body of evidence about risks from cannabis use during pregnancy, “a time where we already know the endocannabinoid system is very active in the developing fetus.”
She noted that the current study’s design makes it hard to know whether marijuana use causes worse depression.
However, “it clearly is not associated with helping to improve mood the way people who are using it believe or hope for,” said Dr. Marienfeld, who was not part of the research.
“The risk for harm in terms of worse mood for the pregnant woman or risks for harm to the developing fetus are being better understood with many new studies,” she added.
Yet as more and more states legalize medical marijuana, cannabis use during pregnancy is only going to rise, experts fear.
Cornel Stanciu, MD, of Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, N.H., who was asked for comment, noted that public endorsement for potential benefits of the marijuana plant is at an all-time high.
“To date, 33 states and the District of Columbia have responded by legalizing medical marijuana, with 10 states also having legalized recreational use of marijuana. The current practice is said to be ahead of science, as robust research has been hindered by strict regulations – and most epidemiological studies point toward harmful associations,” Dr. Stanciu said in an interview.
“Given the decreased perception of harm by the general public, women are certainly compelled to seek what they perceive as more natural self-management remedies,” he said.
A harmful habit
Dr. Stanciu cited a recent study conducted in Colorado in which researchers contacted cannabis dispensaries, identified themselves as being pregnant, and asked for guidance in managing pregnancy-related symptoms.
Almost 70% of dispensaries recommended products to treat symptoms, particularly in the vulnerable first trimester; 36% of them also provided reassurance of the safety profile. Very few encouraged a discussion with the physician.
“Consumption of cannabis during pregnancy results in cannabinoid placental crossing and accumulation in the fetal brain, as well as other organs, where it interferes with neurodevelopment and the endocannabinoid system,” he said.
In addition, retrospective studies have shown an association between prenatal cannabis ingestion and anemia in the mothers, low birth weight, greater risk for preterm and stillbirths, and increased need for neonatal ICU admissions.
“Children born to mothers who used cannabis during pregnancy have higher rates of impulsivity, delinquency, learning and memory impairment, as well as executive function deficits. There is also an increased association with proneness to psychosis during middle childhood,” Dr. Stanciu said.
When used during pregnancy, cannabis has been associated with increased anxiety in mothers, as well as increased risk for depressive disorders, incidence of suicidal ideations and behavior, and symptoms of mania and psychosis among those with bipolar and schizophrenia spectrum conditions. Cannabis has also been linked to coingestion of other substances and with alcohol use.
“So cannabis can pose harm, especially when used by those with affective disorders,” Dr. Stanciu said.
The study was funded by the National Institute on Drug Abuse. Dr. Richison, Dr. Marienfeld, and Dr. Stanciu have reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com
Cannabis is ineffective at alleviating depression in pregnant women undergoing opioid agonist therapy (OAT), new research shows.
A study of more than 120 pregnant women undergoing treatment of opioid use disorder (OUD) showed that those who used cannabis to alleviate their depressive symptoms while undergoing OAT continued to have high depression scores at the end of opioid treatment.
In addition, depression scores improved for those who abstained from cannabis use after their first positive screen. Interestingly, cannabis use did not affect patient retention in treatment for OUD, the investigators note.
“To our knowledge, this is the first time looking at the impact of cannabis on the specific population of pregnant women with opioid use disorder, who are very vulnerable to depression,” lead author Abigail Richison, MD, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, said in an interview.
The findings were presented at the American Academy of Addiction Psychiatry (AAAP) 31st Annual Meeting, which was held online this year because of the COVID-19 pandemic.
A safer alternative?
Data from the National Survey on Drug Use and Health show that perinatal cannabis use increased by 62% between 2002 and 2014. Many women try to ameliorate their depression symptoms by using cannabis in the mistaken belief that it will help their depression, the investigators noted.
In addition, many women consider cannabis safer during pregnancy than prescribed medications for improving mood, said Dr. Richison. She said that cannabis does not alleviate depression and may even worsen it.
Dr. Richison noted that at her center, which has a women’s health program that treats pregnant women with OUDs, she was seeing a lot of patients who reported using cannabis to improve their mood.
“However, it didn’t seem like it was really helping, so I started researching about cannabis and depression,” Dr. Richison said.
“ and can be accused of perinatal substance use. I think it is very important to screen for depression as well as cannabis use in this population,” she added.
To shed some light on the impact of cannabis use by pregnant patients with OUD, the investigators conducted a retrospective chart review of 121 pregnant women with OUD who attended outpatient OAT. All were prescribed buprenorphine.
At each visit, Beck Depression Inventory (BDI) scores were obtained and urine drug screens were administered. The primary outcome was BDI score. Other measures included retention, urinary drug screen results, and antidepressant use.
The women were divided into two groups. The first comprised cannabis users, defined as having more than one urine drug screen that was positive for cannabis (n = 35). The other group comprised nonusers, defined as having urine drug screens that were negative for cannabis (n = 86).
Cannabis users were a little younger (mean age, 27 years) than non–cannabis users (mean age, 29.5 years; P = .006). Most of the participants were White (80.2%). Roughly half were on Medicaid, and most of the other participants had private insurance; a small number of women had no insurance.
Results showed that cannabis users had significantly higher BDI scores than non–cannabis users (mean scores, 16 vs. 9.3; P < .001).
Cannabis use continued to be associated with elevated scores for depression when controlling for opioid misuse and antidepressant use. There were no significant differences in retention or lapse to opioid misuse between the two groups.
More evidence of risk
Commenting on the findings in an interview, Carla Marienfeld, MD, professor of psychiatry at the University of California, San Diego, said there is a growing body of evidence about risks from cannabis use during pregnancy, “a time where we already know the endocannabinoid system is very active in the developing fetus.”
She noted that the current study’s design makes it hard to know whether marijuana use causes worse depression.
However, “it clearly is not associated with helping to improve mood the way people who are using it believe or hope for,” said Dr. Marienfeld, who was not part of the research.
“The risk for harm in terms of worse mood for the pregnant woman or risks for harm to the developing fetus are being better understood with many new studies,” she added.
Yet as more and more states legalize medical marijuana, cannabis use during pregnancy is only going to rise, experts fear.
Cornel Stanciu, MD, of Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, N.H., who was asked for comment, noted that public endorsement for potential benefits of the marijuana plant is at an all-time high.
“To date, 33 states and the District of Columbia have responded by legalizing medical marijuana, with 10 states also having legalized recreational use of marijuana. The current practice is said to be ahead of science, as robust research has been hindered by strict regulations – and most epidemiological studies point toward harmful associations,” Dr. Stanciu said in an interview.
“Given the decreased perception of harm by the general public, women are certainly compelled to seek what they perceive as more natural self-management remedies,” he said.
A harmful habit
Dr. Stanciu cited a recent study conducted in Colorado in which researchers contacted cannabis dispensaries, identified themselves as being pregnant, and asked for guidance in managing pregnancy-related symptoms.
Almost 70% of dispensaries recommended products to treat symptoms, particularly in the vulnerable first trimester; 36% of them also provided reassurance of the safety profile. Very few encouraged a discussion with the physician.
“Consumption of cannabis during pregnancy results in cannabinoid placental crossing and accumulation in the fetal brain, as well as other organs, where it interferes with neurodevelopment and the endocannabinoid system,” he said.
In addition, retrospective studies have shown an association between prenatal cannabis ingestion and anemia in the mothers, low birth weight, greater risk for preterm and stillbirths, and increased need for neonatal ICU admissions.
“Children born to mothers who used cannabis during pregnancy have higher rates of impulsivity, delinquency, learning and memory impairment, as well as executive function deficits. There is also an increased association with proneness to psychosis during middle childhood,” Dr. Stanciu said.
When used during pregnancy, cannabis has been associated with increased anxiety in mothers, as well as increased risk for depressive disorders, incidence of suicidal ideations and behavior, and symptoms of mania and psychosis among those with bipolar and schizophrenia spectrum conditions. Cannabis has also been linked to coingestion of other substances and with alcohol use.
“So cannabis can pose harm, especially when used by those with affective disorders,” Dr. Stanciu said.
The study was funded by the National Institute on Drug Abuse. Dr. Richison, Dr. Marienfeld, and Dr. Stanciu have reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com
Cannabis is ineffective at alleviating depression in pregnant women undergoing opioid agonist therapy (OAT), new research shows.
A study of more than 120 pregnant women undergoing treatment of opioid use disorder (OUD) showed that those who used cannabis to alleviate their depressive symptoms while undergoing OAT continued to have high depression scores at the end of opioid treatment.
In addition, depression scores improved for those who abstained from cannabis use after their first positive screen. Interestingly, cannabis use did not affect patient retention in treatment for OUD, the investigators note.
“To our knowledge, this is the first time looking at the impact of cannabis on the specific population of pregnant women with opioid use disorder, who are very vulnerable to depression,” lead author Abigail Richison, MD, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, said in an interview.
The findings were presented at the American Academy of Addiction Psychiatry (AAAP) 31st Annual Meeting, which was held online this year because of the COVID-19 pandemic.
A safer alternative?
Data from the National Survey on Drug Use and Health show that perinatal cannabis use increased by 62% between 2002 and 2014. Many women try to ameliorate their depression symptoms by using cannabis in the mistaken belief that it will help their depression, the investigators noted.
In addition, many women consider cannabis safer during pregnancy than prescribed medications for improving mood, said Dr. Richison. She said that cannabis does not alleviate depression and may even worsen it.
Dr. Richison noted that at her center, which has a women’s health program that treats pregnant women with OUDs, she was seeing a lot of patients who reported using cannabis to improve their mood.
“However, it didn’t seem like it was really helping, so I started researching about cannabis and depression,” Dr. Richison said.
“ and can be accused of perinatal substance use. I think it is very important to screen for depression as well as cannabis use in this population,” she added.
To shed some light on the impact of cannabis use by pregnant patients with OUD, the investigators conducted a retrospective chart review of 121 pregnant women with OUD who attended outpatient OAT. All were prescribed buprenorphine.
At each visit, Beck Depression Inventory (BDI) scores were obtained and urine drug screens were administered. The primary outcome was BDI score. Other measures included retention, urinary drug screen results, and antidepressant use.
The women were divided into two groups. The first comprised cannabis users, defined as having more than one urine drug screen that was positive for cannabis (n = 35). The other group comprised nonusers, defined as having urine drug screens that were negative for cannabis (n = 86).
Cannabis users were a little younger (mean age, 27 years) than non–cannabis users (mean age, 29.5 years; P = .006). Most of the participants were White (80.2%). Roughly half were on Medicaid, and most of the other participants had private insurance; a small number of women had no insurance.
Results showed that cannabis users had significantly higher BDI scores than non–cannabis users (mean scores, 16 vs. 9.3; P < .001).
Cannabis use continued to be associated with elevated scores for depression when controlling for opioid misuse and antidepressant use. There were no significant differences in retention or lapse to opioid misuse between the two groups.
More evidence of risk
Commenting on the findings in an interview, Carla Marienfeld, MD, professor of psychiatry at the University of California, San Diego, said there is a growing body of evidence about risks from cannabis use during pregnancy, “a time where we already know the endocannabinoid system is very active in the developing fetus.”
She noted that the current study’s design makes it hard to know whether marijuana use causes worse depression.
However, “it clearly is not associated with helping to improve mood the way people who are using it believe or hope for,” said Dr. Marienfeld, who was not part of the research.
“The risk for harm in terms of worse mood for the pregnant woman or risks for harm to the developing fetus are being better understood with many new studies,” she added.
Yet as more and more states legalize medical marijuana, cannabis use during pregnancy is only going to rise, experts fear.
Cornel Stanciu, MD, of Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, N.H., who was asked for comment, noted that public endorsement for potential benefits of the marijuana plant is at an all-time high.
“To date, 33 states and the District of Columbia have responded by legalizing medical marijuana, with 10 states also having legalized recreational use of marijuana. The current practice is said to be ahead of science, as robust research has been hindered by strict regulations – and most epidemiological studies point toward harmful associations,” Dr. Stanciu said in an interview.
“Given the decreased perception of harm by the general public, women are certainly compelled to seek what they perceive as more natural self-management remedies,” he said.
A harmful habit
Dr. Stanciu cited a recent study conducted in Colorado in which researchers contacted cannabis dispensaries, identified themselves as being pregnant, and asked for guidance in managing pregnancy-related symptoms.
Almost 70% of dispensaries recommended products to treat symptoms, particularly in the vulnerable first trimester; 36% of them also provided reassurance of the safety profile. Very few encouraged a discussion with the physician.
“Consumption of cannabis during pregnancy results in cannabinoid placental crossing and accumulation in the fetal brain, as well as other organs, where it interferes with neurodevelopment and the endocannabinoid system,” he said.
In addition, retrospective studies have shown an association between prenatal cannabis ingestion and anemia in the mothers, low birth weight, greater risk for preterm and stillbirths, and increased need for neonatal ICU admissions.
“Children born to mothers who used cannabis during pregnancy have higher rates of impulsivity, delinquency, learning and memory impairment, as well as executive function deficits. There is also an increased association with proneness to psychosis during middle childhood,” Dr. Stanciu said.
When used during pregnancy, cannabis has been associated with increased anxiety in mothers, as well as increased risk for depressive disorders, incidence of suicidal ideations and behavior, and symptoms of mania and psychosis among those with bipolar and schizophrenia spectrum conditions. Cannabis has also been linked to coingestion of other substances and with alcohol use.
“So cannabis can pose harm, especially when used by those with affective disorders,” Dr. Stanciu said.
The study was funded by the National Institute on Drug Abuse. Dr. Richison, Dr. Marienfeld, and Dr. Stanciu have reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com
COVID-19 vaccines and cancer patients: 4 things to know
Earlier this week, Medscape spoke with Nora Disis, MD, about vaccinating cancer patients. Disis is a medical oncologist and director of both the Institute of Translational Health Sciences and the Cancer Vaccine Institute, the University of Washington, Seattle, Washington. As editor-in-chief of JAMA Oncology, she has watched COVID-19 developments in the oncology community over the past year.
Here are a few themes that Disis said oncologists should be aware of as vaccines eventually begin reaching cancer patients.
We should expect cancer patients to respond to vaccines. Historically, some believed that cancer patients would be unable to mount an immune response to vaccines. Data on other viral vaccines have shown otherwise. For example, there has been a long history of studies of flu vaccination in cancer patients, and in general, those vaccines confer protection. Likewise for pneumococcal vaccine, which, generally speaking, cancer patients should receive.
Special cases may include hematologic malignancies in which the immune system has been destroyed and profound immunosuppression occurs. Data on immunization during this immunosuppressed period are scarce, but what data are available suggest that once cancer patients are through this immunosuppressed period, they can be vaccinated successfully.
The type of vaccine will probably be important for cancer patients. Currently, there are 61 coronavirus vaccines in human clinical trials, and 17 have reached the final stages of testing. At least 85 preclinical vaccines are under active investigation in animals.
Both the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna COVID vaccines are mRNA type. There are many other types, including protein-based vaccines, viral vector vaccines based on adenoviruses, and inactivated or attenuated coronavirus vaccines.
The latter vaccines, particularly attenuated live virus vaccines, may not be a good choice for cancer patients. Especially in those with rapidly progressing disease or on chemotherapy, attenuated live viruses may cause a low-grade infection.
Incidentally, the technology used in the genetic, or mRNA, vaccines developed by both Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna was initially developed for fighting cancer, and studies have shown that patients can generate immune responses to cancer-associated proteins with this type of vaccine.
These genetic vaccines could turn out to be the most effective for cancer patients, especially those with solid tumors.
Our understanding is very limited right now. Neither the Pfizer-BioNTech nor the Moderna early data discuss cancer patients. Two of the most important questions for cancer patients are dosing and booster scheduling. Potential defects in lymphocyte function among cancer patients may require unique initial dosing and booster schedules. In terms of timing, it is unclear how active therapy might affect a patient’s immune response to vaccination and whether vaccines should be timed with therapy cycles.
Vaccine access may depend on whether cancer patients are viewed as a vulnerable population. Those at higher risk for severe COVID-19 clearly have a greater need for vaccination. While there are data suggesting that cancer patients are at higher risk, they are a bit murky, in part because cancer patients are a heterogeneous group. For example, there are data suggesting that lung and blood cancer patients fare worse. There is also a suggestion that, like in the general population, COVID risk in cancer patients remains driven by comorbidities.
It is likely, then, that personalized risk factors such as type of cancer therapy, site of disease, and comorbidities will shape individual choices about vaccination among cancer patients.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Earlier this week, Medscape spoke with Nora Disis, MD, about vaccinating cancer patients. Disis is a medical oncologist and director of both the Institute of Translational Health Sciences and the Cancer Vaccine Institute, the University of Washington, Seattle, Washington. As editor-in-chief of JAMA Oncology, she has watched COVID-19 developments in the oncology community over the past year.
Here are a few themes that Disis said oncologists should be aware of as vaccines eventually begin reaching cancer patients.
We should expect cancer patients to respond to vaccines. Historically, some believed that cancer patients would be unable to mount an immune response to vaccines. Data on other viral vaccines have shown otherwise. For example, there has been a long history of studies of flu vaccination in cancer patients, and in general, those vaccines confer protection. Likewise for pneumococcal vaccine, which, generally speaking, cancer patients should receive.
Special cases may include hematologic malignancies in which the immune system has been destroyed and profound immunosuppression occurs. Data on immunization during this immunosuppressed period are scarce, but what data are available suggest that once cancer patients are through this immunosuppressed period, they can be vaccinated successfully.
The type of vaccine will probably be important for cancer patients. Currently, there are 61 coronavirus vaccines in human clinical trials, and 17 have reached the final stages of testing. At least 85 preclinical vaccines are under active investigation in animals.
Both the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna COVID vaccines are mRNA type. There are many other types, including protein-based vaccines, viral vector vaccines based on adenoviruses, and inactivated or attenuated coronavirus vaccines.
The latter vaccines, particularly attenuated live virus vaccines, may not be a good choice for cancer patients. Especially in those with rapidly progressing disease or on chemotherapy, attenuated live viruses may cause a low-grade infection.
Incidentally, the technology used in the genetic, or mRNA, vaccines developed by both Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna was initially developed for fighting cancer, and studies have shown that patients can generate immune responses to cancer-associated proteins with this type of vaccine.
These genetic vaccines could turn out to be the most effective for cancer patients, especially those with solid tumors.
Our understanding is very limited right now. Neither the Pfizer-BioNTech nor the Moderna early data discuss cancer patients. Two of the most important questions for cancer patients are dosing and booster scheduling. Potential defects in lymphocyte function among cancer patients may require unique initial dosing and booster schedules. In terms of timing, it is unclear how active therapy might affect a patient’s immune response to vaccination and whether vaccines should be timed with therapy cycles.
Vaccine access may depend on whether cancer patients are viewed as a vulnerable population. Those at higher risk for severe COVID-19 clearly have a greater need for vaccination. While there are data suggesting that cancer patients are at higher risk, they are a bit murky, in part because cancer patients are a heterogeneous group. For example, there are data suggesting that lung and blood cancer patients fare worse. There is also a suggestion that, like in the general population, COVID risk in cancer patients remains driven by comorbidities.
It is likely, then, that personalized risk factors such as type of cancer therapy, site of disease, and comorbidities will shape individual choices about vaccination among cancer patients.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Earlier this week, Medscape spoke with Nora Disis, MD, about vaccinating cancer patients. Disis is a medical oncologist and director of both the Institute of Translational Health Sciences and the Cancer Vaccine Institute, the University of Washington, Seattle, Washington. As editor-in-chief of JAMA Oncology, she has watched COVID-19 developments in the oncology community over the past year.
Here are a few themes that Disis said oncologists should be aware of as vaccines eventually begin reaching cancer patients.
We should expect cancer patients to respond to vaccines. Historically, some believed that cancer patients would be unable to mount an immune response to vaccines. Data on other viral vaccines have shown otherwise. For example, there has been a long history of studies of flu vaccination in cancer patients, and in general, those vaccines confer protection. Likewise for pneumococcal vaccine, which, generally speaking, cancer patients should receive.
Special cases may include hematologic malignancies in which the immune system has been destroyed and profound immunosuppression occurs. Data on immunization during this immunosuppressed period are scarce, but what data are available suggest that once cancer patients are through this immunosuppressed period, they can be vaccinated successfully.
The type of vaccine will probably be important for cancer patients. Currently, there are 61 coronavirus vaccines in human clinical trials, and 17 have reached the final stages of testing. At least 85 preclinical vaccines are under active investigation in animals.
Both the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna COVID vaccines are mRNA type. There are many other types, including protein-based vaccines, viral vector vaccines based on adenoviruses, and inactivated or attenuated coronavirus vaccines.
The latter vaccines, particularly attenuated live virus vaccines, may not be a good choice for cancer patients. Especially in those with rapidly progressing disease or on chemotherapy, attenuated live viruses may cause a low-grade infection.
Incidentally, the technology used in the genetic, or mRNA, vaccines developed by both Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna was initially developed for fighting cancer, and studies have shown that patients can generate immune responses to cancer-associated proteins with this type of vaccine.
These genetic vaccines could turn out to be the most effective for cancer patients, especially those with solid tumors.
Our understanding is very limited right now. Neither the Pfizer-BioNTech nor the Moderna early data discuss cancer patients. Two of the most important questions for cancer patients are dosing and booster scheduling. Potential defects in lymphocyte function among cancer patients may require unique initial dosing and booster schedules. In terms of timing, it is unclear how active therapy might affect a patient’s immune response to vaccination and whether vaccines should be timed with therapy cycles.
Vaccine access may depend on whether cancer patients are viewed as a vulnerable population. Those at higher risk for severe COVID-19 clearly have a greater need for vaccination. While there are data suggesting that cancer patients are at higher risk, they are a bit murky, in part because cancer patients are a heterogeneous group. For example, there are data suggesting that lung and blood cancer patients fare worse. There is also a suggestion that, like in the general population, COVID risk in cancer patients remains driven by comorbidities.
It is likely, then, that personalized risk factors such as type of cancer therapy, site of disease, and comorbidities will shape individual choices about vaccination among cancer patients.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Gut microbiome influences response to methotrexate in new-onset RA patients
The pretreatment gut microbiome can determine response to methotrexate therapy in patients with newly diagnosed rheumatoid arthritis, according to recent research published in Arthritis & Rheumatology.
About half of patients do not respond to methotrexate (MTX), despite it being a first-line therapy for RA, according to Alejandro Artacho of the Centro Superior de Investigación en Salud Pública in Valencia, Spain, and colleagues. In addition, there is currently no way to predict which patients will respond to MTX.
The role of the microbiome in drug response for patients with RA “has been known since it was discovered in 1972 that sulfasalazine requires gut bacteria for its activity,” Veena Taneja, PhD, a researcher and associate professor of immunology at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., said in an interview. The microbiome and how it functions “needs to be explored as biomarkers as well as for treatment options for RA and other diseases,” added Dr. Taneja, who was not involved with the study.
Using 16S rRNA gene and shotgun metagenomic sequencing, the researchers evaluated whether the gut microbiome of a patient newly diagnosed with RA (NORA) influenced their response to MTX. The researchers extracted DNA from fecal samples in 26 patients from New York University Langone Medical Center, Lutheran Hospital, Staten Island, and Mount Sinai School of Medicine rheumatology clinics 48 hours prior to treatment with MTX and determined the bacterial taxa, operational taxonomic units (OTUs), and ribosomal sequence variants in each sample. These patients then received oral MTX with an average dose of 20 mg per week (range, 15-25 mg). The patients were grouped based on whether they responded (39%) or did not respond (61%) to MTX based on improvement of at least 1.8 in their Disease Activity Score in 28 joints (DAS28) after 4 months and no need to add a biologic.
Patients with a statistically significantly lower level of microbial diversity (P < .05) as measured by OTU level tended to respond better to MTX therapy. In patients who did not respond to MTX, there was a significantly higher abundance of Firmicutes, a significantly lower abundance of Bacteroidetes (P < .05), and a higher ratio of Firmicutes to Bacteroidetes.
There was also a consistent difference between abundance of gut microbial genes in patients who did not respond to MTX. “Taken together, these results indicate that the gut microbiome of NORA patients that respond favorably to MTX is distinct from that of MTX-NR, prompting us to hypothesize that the pretreatment microbiome could be used to predict clinical nonresponse,” the researchers said.
Using machine learning, Mr. Artacho and colleagues developed a predictive model based on the initial training cohort of 26 patients to assess MTX response. When the researchers tested the model in a validation cohort of 21 patients, they found it correctly predicted 78% of MTX responders and 83.3% of patients who did not respond to MTX, with the percentage of correct predictions increasing “when considering only those patients with the highest probability score of belonging to either group.”
In a separate set of 20 patients with RA who were prescribed either different conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs or biologics or had not started any medications, the researchers’ model could not predict clinical response, “suggesting that the potential clinical utility of the model is restricted to RA patients that are both drug naive and exposed directly to MTX, but not to other drugs.”
“Our results open the possibility to rationally design microbiome-modulating strategies to improve oral absorption of MTX and its downstream immune effects, inform clinical decision-making or both,” they said.
Clinical application
Dr. Taneja said the findings of the study are novel and intriguing. “The observations suggest a strong influence of [the] host’s microbiome in response to MTX and in future may inform best treatment options for patients. The study speculates that certain microbial clades or microbes can be used to derive a favorable response in patients. This could explain why “one drug fits all” does not apply in treatment for RA,” she said.
The study is also a “step forward” in using the microbiome in regular clinical practice, she noted. “Since MTX is used as a first line of treatment and is one of the most affordable treatments for RA, the observations are definitely exciting.”
In an interview, Martin Kriegel, MD, PhD, of the department of immunobiology at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., and chair of rheumatology and clinical immunology at the University of Münster (Germany), explained that the prediction model has the potential to one day be a tool for clinicians to predict MTX response in patients with RA. However, he noted the researchers did not test a functional link between MTX and gut microbes in vivo.
“It would be useful to test mechanistic effects of MTX on gut microbial communities in vitro and in vivo,” he said. “In addition, it would be informative to apply the prediction model in other cohorts of RA with a different geographic background, possibly also a different duration of disease. If confirmed in a more heterogeneous group of patients, the tool could potentially be used in the clinic to tell some patients that they might not respond to MTX and therefore start therapy with another agent.”
This study was funded by the National Institutes of Health, the Rheumatology Research Foundation, the Searle Scholars Program, various funds from the Spanish government, the UCSF Breakthrough Program for Rheumatoid Arthritis-related Research, and the Arthritis Foundation Center for Excellence. Four authors report consultancies and memberships on scientific advisory boards with pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies that do not overlap with the current study.
Dr. Taneja reported that her institution holds a patent for developing Prevotella histicola as an anti-inflammatory treatment, of which she is a coinventor. Evelo Biosciences is a licensee for the patent, and Dr. Taneja reported receiving research support from the company. Dr. Kriegel reported receiving salary, consulting fees, honoraria, or research funds from AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Cell Applications, Eligo Bioscience, and Roche. He also holds a patent on the use of antibiotics and commensal vaccination to treat autoimmunity.
SOURCE: Artacho A et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2020 Dec 13. doi: 10.1002/art.41622.
The pretreatment gut microbiome can determine response to methotrexate therapy in patients with newly diagnosed rheumatoid arthritis, according to recent research published in Arthritis & Rheumatology.
About half of patients do not respond to methotrexate (MTX), despite it being a first-line therapy for RA, according to Alejandro Artacho of the Centro Superior de Investigación en Salud Pública in Valencia, Spain, and colleagues. In addition, there is currently no way to predict which patients will respond to MTX.
The role of the microbiome in drug response for patients with RA “has been known since it was discovered in 1972 that sulfasalazine requires gut bacteria for its activity,” Veena Taneja, PhD, a researcher and associate professor of immunology at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., said in an interview. The microbiome and how it functions “needs to be explored as biomarkers as well as for treatment options for RA and other diseases,” added Dr. Taneja, who was not involved with the study.
Using 16S rRNA gene and shotgun metagenomic sequencing, the researchers evaluated whether the gut microbiome of a patient newly diagnosed with RA (NORA) influenced their response to MTX. The researchers extracted DNA from fecal samples in 26 patients from New York University Langone Medical Center, Lutheran Hospital, Staten Island, and Mount Sinai School of Medicine rheumatology clinics 48 hours prior to treatment with MTX and determined the bacterial taxa, operational taxonomic units (OTUs), and ribosomal sequence variants in each sample. These patients then received oral MTX with an average dose of 20 mg per week (range, 15-25 mg). The patients were grouped based on whether they responded (39%) or did not respond (61%) to MTX based on improvement of at least 1.8 in their Disease Activity Score in 28 joints (DAS28) after 4 months and no need to add a biologic.
Patients with a statistically significantly lower level of microbial diversity (P < .05) as measured by OTU level tended to respond better to MTX therapy. In patients who did not respond to MTX, there was a significantly higher abundance of Firmicutes, a significantly lower abundance of Bacteroidetes (P < .05), and a higher ratio of Firmicutes to Bacteroidetes.
There was also a consistent difference between abundance of gut microbial genes in patients who did not respond to MTX. “Taken together, these results indicate that the gut microbiome of NORA patients that respond favorably to MTX is distinct from that of MTX-NR, prompting us to hypothesize that the pretreatment microbiome could be used to predict clinical nonresponse,” the researchers said.
Using machine learning, Mr. Artacho and colleagues developed a predictive model based on the initial training cohort of 26 patients to assess MTX response. When the researchers tested the model in a validation cohort of 21 patients, they found it correctly predicted 78% of MTX responders and 83.3% of patients who did not respond to MTX, with the percentage of correct predictions increasing “when considering only those patients with the highest probability score of belonging to either group.”
In a separate set of 20 patients with RA who were prescribed either different conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs or biologics or had not started any medications, the researchers’ model could not predict clinical response, “suggesting that the potential clinical utility of the model is restricted to RA patients that are both drug naive and exposed directly to MTX, but not to other drugs.”
“Our results open the possibility to rationally design microbiome-modulating strategies to improve oral absorption of MTX and its downstream immune effects, inform clinical decision-making or both,” they said.
Clinical application
Dr. Taneja said the findings of the study are novel and intriguing. “The observations suggest a strong influence of [the] host’s microbiome in response to MTX and in future may inform best treatment options for patients. The study speculates that certain microbial clades or microbes can be used to derive a favorable response in patients. This could explain why “one drug fits all” does not apply in treatment for RA,” she said.
The study is also a “step forward” in using the microbiome in regular clinical practice, she noted. “Since MTX is used as a first line of treatment and is one of the most affordable treatments for RA, the observations are definitely exciting.”
In an interview, Martin Kriegel, MD, PhD, of the department of immunobiology at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., and chair of rheumatology and clinical immunology at the University of Münster (Germany), explained that the prediction model has the potential to one day be a tool for clinicians to predict MTX response in patients with RA. However, he noted the researchers did not test a functional link between MTX and gut microbes in vivo.
“It would be useful to test mechanistic effects of MTX on gut microbial communities in vitro and in vivo,” he said. “In addition, it would be informative to apply the prediction model in other cohorts of RA with a different geographic background, possibly also a different duration of disease. If confirmed in a more heterogeneous group of patients, the tool could potentially be used in the clinic to tell some patients that they might not respond to MTX and therefore start therapy with another agent.”
This study was funded by the National Institutes of Health, the Rheumatology Research Foundation, the Searle Scholars Program, various funds from the Spanish government, the UCSF Breakthrough Program for Rheumatoid Arthritis-related Research, and the Arthritis Foundation Center for Excellence. Four authors report consultancies and memberships on scientific advisory boards with pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies that do not overlap with the current study.
Dr. Taneja reported that her institution holds a patent for developing Prevotella histicola as an anti-inflammatory treatment, of which she is a coinventor. Evelo Biosciences is a licensee for the patent, and Dr. Taneja reported receiving research support from the company. Dr. Kriegel reported receiving salary, consulting fees, honoraria, or research funds from AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Cell Applications, Eligo Bioscience, and Roche. He also holds a patent on the use of antibiotics and commensal vaccination to treat autoimmunity.
SOURCE: Artacho A et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2020 Dec 13. doi: 10.1002/art.41622.
The pretreatment gut microbiome can determine response to methotrexate therapy in patients with newly diagnosed rheumatoid arthritis, according to recent research published in Arthritis & Rheumatology.
About half of patients do not respond to methotrexate (MTX), despite it being a first-line therapy for RA, according to Alejandro Artacho of the Centro Superior de Investigación en Salud Pública in Valencia, Spain, and colleagues. In addition, there is currently no way to predict which patients will respond to MTX.
The role of the microbiome in drug response for patients with RA “has been known since it was discovered in 1972 that sulfasalazine requires gut bacteria for its activity,” Veena Taneja, PhD, a researcher and associate professor of immunology at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., said in an interview. The microbiome and how it functions “needs to be explored as biomarkers as well as for treatment options for RA and other diseases,” added Dr. Taneja, who was not involved with the study.
Using 16S rRNA gene and shotgun metagenomic sequencing, the researchers evaluated whether the gut microbiome of a patient newly diagnosed with RA (NORA) influenced their response to MTX. The researchers extracted DNA from fecal samples in 26 patients from New York University Langone Medical Center, Lutheran Hospital, Staten Island, and Mount Sinai School of Medicine rheumatology clinics 48 hours prior to treatment with MTX and determined the bacterial taxa, operational taxonomic units (OTUs), and ribosomal sequence variants in each sample. These patients then received oral MTX with an average dose of 20 mg per week (range, 15-25 mg). The patients were grouped based on whether they responded (39%) or did not respond (61%) to MTX based on improvement of at least 1.8 in their Disease Activity Score in 28 joints (DAS28) after 4 months and no need to add a biologic.
Patients with a statistically significantly lower level of microbial diversity (P < .05) as measured by OTU level tended to respond better to MTX therapy. In patients who did not respond to MTX, there was a significantly higher abundance of Firmicutes, a significantly lower abundance of Bacteroidetes (P < .05), and a higher ratio of Firmicutes to Bacteroidetes.
There was also a consistent difference between abundance of gut microbial genes in patients who did not respond to MTX. “Taken together, these results indicate that the gut microbiome of NORA patients that respond favorably to MTX is distinct from that of MTX-NR, prompting us to hypothesize that the pretreatment microbiome could be used to predict clinical nonresponse,” the researchers said.
Using machine learning, Mr. Artacho and colleagues developed a predictive model based on the initial training cohort of 26 patients to assess MTX response. When the researchers tested the model in a validation cohort of 21 patients, they found it correctly predicted 78% of MTX responders and 83.3% of patients who did not respond to MTX, with the percentage of correct predictions increasing “when considering only those patients with the highest probability score of belonging to either group.”
In a separate set of 20 patients with RA who were prescribed either different conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs or biologics or had not started any medications, the researchers’ model could not predict clinical response, “suggesting that the potential clinical utility of the model is restricted to RA patients that are both drug naive and exposed directly to MTX, but not to other drugs.”
“Our results open the possibility to rationally design microbiome-modulating strategies to improve oral absorption of MTX and its downstream immune effects, inform clinical decision-making or both,” they said.
Clinical application
Dr. Taneja said the findings of the study are novel and intriguing. “The observations suggest a strong influence of [the] host’s microbiome in response to MTX and in future may inform best treatment options for patients. The study speculates that certain microbial clades or microbes can be used to derive a favorable response in patients. This could explain why “one drug fits all” does not apply in treatment for RA,” she said.
The study is also a “step forward” in using the microbiome in regular clinical practice, she noted. “Since MTX is used as a first line of treatment and is one of the most affordable treatments for RA, the observations are definitely exciting.”
In an interview, Martin Kriegel, MD, PhD, of the department of immunobiology at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., and chair of rheumatology and clinical immunology at the University of Münster (Germany), explained that the prediction model has the potential to one day be a tool for clinicians to predict MTX response in patients with RA. However, he noted the researchers did not test a functional link between MTX and gut microbes in vivo.
“It would be useful to test mechanistic effects of MTX on gut microbial communities in vitro and in vivo,” he said. “In addition, it would be informative to apply the prediction model in other cohorts of RA with a different geographic background, possibly also a different duration of disease. If confirmed in a more heterogeneous group of patients, the tool could potentially be used in the clinic to tell some patients that they might not respond to MTX and therefore start therapy with another agent.”
This study was funded by the National Institutes of Health, the Rheumatology Research Foundation, the Searle Scholars Program, various funds from the Spanish government, the UCSF Breakthrough Program for Rheumatoid Arthritis-related Research, and the Arthritis Foundation Center for Excellence. Four authors report consultancies and memberships on scientific advisory boards with pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies that do not overlap with the current study.
Dr. Taneja reported that her institution holds a patent for developing Prevotella histicola as an anti-inflammatory treatment, of which she is a coinventor. Evelo Biosciences is a licensee for the patent, and Dr. Taneja reported receiving research support from the company. Dr. Kriegel reported receiving salary, consulting fees, honoraria, or research funds from AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Cell Applications, Eligo Bioscience, and Roche. He also holds a patent on the use of antibiotics and commensal vaccination to treat autoimmunity.
SOURCE: Artacho A et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2020 Dec 13. doi: 10.1002/art.41622.
FROM ARTHRITIS & RHEUMATOLOGY
Study links sleep meds and dementia risk in older adults
Sleep medications for older patients who report sleep problems may not be the best treatment given growing evidence of the link between these medications and the risk of incident dementia.
Adults aged 65 years and older who used sleep medications 5-7 days a week demonstrated a 30% increased risk of dementia, compared with those who did not use sleep medications, findings from a prospective study of 6,373 individuals show.
Adults aged 65 and older report a higher burden of sleep problems than other age groups, but major medical associations discourage the use of sleep medications by older adults because of growing evidence of a link between sleep medication use and cognitive decline, wrote Rebecca Robbins, MD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, and colleagues. However, data on this association among adults in the United States are limited, they said.
In a study published in Sleep Medicine, the researchers surveyed 6,373 adults aged 65 years and older who were enrolled in the nationally representative National Health and Aging Trends Study (NHATS). The majority of the participants were non-Hispanic White (71%), 59% were women, and 21% ranged in age from 70 to 74 years.
Participants responded to questions about routine sleep medication use. Routine was defined as “most nights” or “every night.” The data were collected for an 8-year period from 2011 to 2018. The study began in 2011, with a core interview administered annually.
Approximately 15% of the study population reported routine use of sleep medications. Overall, routine use of sleep medication was significantly associated with risk of incident dementia (hazard ratio, 1.30; P < .01) after controlling for multiple variables including age, sex, education level, and chronic conditions.
Dementia screening was conducted by participants rating their memory and then performing a memory-related activity (immediate and delayed 10-word recall) and other exercises to assess executive function and orientation. A separate eight-item informant screener was performed for patient proxies. The researcher noted, “Sensitivity of the NHATS probable dementia screening measure has been determined in previous research to be 66%, and specificity is 87%, with respect to a clinical dementia diagnosis.”
The study findings were limited by several factors including the use of self-reports, the lack of data on type or dose of sleep medication, and lack of data on the indication for the prescription, the researchers noted.
“Also, sleep medication use leads to worse performance on cognitive testing, such as the questionnaires used to screen for dementia in this study, and therefore could have resulted in a false diagnosis of dementia,” they added.
However, the results were strengthened by the large, nationally representative study population and support the need for quality geriatric care, the researchers said.
“Our findings provide further support and evidence that sleep medications are all too commonly administered, yet associated with greater risk for incident dementia, and that the U.S. health care system is in need of creative solutions for addressing poor sleep among older individuals,” they concluded.
Implications and alternatives
The study is important as the number of aging Americans increases, said Carolyn M. D’Ambrosio, MD, FCCP, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, in an interview. “In the elderly, inability to fall asleep or stay asleep are common issues that are brought to a health care provider,” she said. Dr. D’Ambrosio said she was not surprised by the study findings “as elderly patients often have sleep issues and sometimes a well-meaning health care provider gives them sleep medication to help. We have known that some of these sleep medications such as benzodiazepines affect cognitive performance,” she said.
Dr. D’Ambrosio said she avoids prescribing sleep medications for older adults if possible. “A deep dive into sleep habits, environment, and other things that disrupt sleep often gets to the problem rather than just masking it with a sleep medication,” she noted. Alternatives to improve sleep in older adults include exercise, exposure to bright light during the day, and good healthy sleep habits, all of which contribute to improved sleep in the elderly, said Dr. D’Ambrosio. She also recommends screening older adults for other issues that affect sleep, such as chronic pain.
The current study highlighted the association between sleep medication use and dementia, but it does not show causation, Dr. D’Ambrosio said. “So much more needs to be done to determine whether the sleep medications are causing worsening cognitive function long term, or if the dementia is starting but not yet diagnosed and the sleep medication is given but not the cause of the dementia, she noted.
Research gaps and treatment strategies
Older adults experiencing sleep difficulties may try various medications including pharmacologics (e.g., benzodiazepines), over-the-counter agents, such as diphenhydramine or doxylamine preparations, and/or herbal and nutritional supplements such as valerian or melatonin, said Mary Jo S. Farmer, MD, FCCP, of the University of Massachusetts Medical School–Baystate, Springfield, in an interview. “However, sleep medications, particularly benzodiazepines, are strongly discouraged by major medical associations including the American Geriatrics Society in part because of the growing evidence that use of sleep medications is associated with cognitive impairment and decline,” she said.
The current study results contribute to previous work demonstrating that both pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic sleep medication, although commonly administered, is associated with subsequent adverse outcomes in older adults, Dr. Farmer said. This association sets the stage for creative and different solutions for addressing poor sleep among older adults, such as behavioral treatments including cognitive-behavioral therapy, she noted.
Dr. Farmer said, “Areas for future research include exploring the causal link between prescription and/or over-the-counter sleep medication use and incident dementia in a randomized controlled trial,” she added.
“Another interesting opportunity for future research is to explore the indications for sleep medications among older adults since it has been shown in the general population that sleep difficulties represent only 12% of the indication for sleep medication prescriptions,” Dr. Farmer noted. “Future research could examine the strength of the underlying motivation to use sleep medication even in light of suggested long-term effects, and the effectiveness of other measures to avoid or minimize sleep difficulties,” she said.
“My experience is that the majority of ambulatory patients recently seen in sleep clinic want to avoid long-term use of sleep medications and will ask what other measures can be tried to consistently achieve a good night’s sleep without medication use,” Dr. Farmer said. “If medications are used, patients would rather try melatonin than a benzodiazepine. Many patients who come to sleep clinic with sleep medications already prescribed and are subsequently found to have sleep apnea and/or restless legs find that they no longer need sleep medication when these other medical conditions are appropriately diagnosed and managed,” she explained. “Finally, many patients tell me they feel less energetic upon awakening, almost feel hung over, and express being less sharp cognitively when taking pharmacologic sleep medication, whether for short or long periods of time, and therefore they want to avoid continuing with sleep medication use,” she said.
Dr. Farmer’s strategy for developing alternatives to sleep medications in older adults includes taking a careful history, including a complete list of medical problems, review of medications, and a thorough sleep history including usual time of sleep onset, awake time, and the frequency of daytime naps. “Tips for improving the quality of nighttime sleep may include adequately treating pain and other medical conditions such as heartburn, sleep apnea, and restless legs, creating a soothing environment to promote sleep by eliminating noise and bright lights, avoiding stimulant medications and substances such as caffeine and nicotine before bedtime, avoiding excessive amounts of alcohol, avoiding diuretics before bedtime, encouraging physical activity during the day, spending time in the sunlight as much as possible to help regulate the sleep cycle, limiting daytime naps, and establishing a regular sleep schedule,” she said.
The study was supported by National Institutes of Health awards K01HL150339, U54MD000538, K07AG052685, R01AG056531, R01AG056031. Lead author Dr. Robbins had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. D’Ambrosio disclosed serving as a section editor for sleep medicine for Dynamed and owning a patent on a circadian programming device. Dr. Farmer had no disclosures.
SOURCE: Robbins R et al. Sleep Med. 2020 Nov 11. doi: 10.1016/j.sleep.2020.11.004.
Sleep medications for older patients who report sleep problems may not be the best treatment given growing evidence of the link between these medications and the risk of incident dementia.
Adults aged 65 years and older who used sleep medications 5-7 days a week demonstrated a 30% increased risk of dementia, compared with those who did not use sleep medications, findings from a prospective study of 6,373 individuals show.
Adults aged 65 and older report a higher burden of sleep problems than other age groups, but major medical associations discourage the use of sleep medications by older adults because of growing evidence of a link between sleep medication use and cognitive decline, wrote Rebecca Robbins, MD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, and colleagues. However, data on this association among adults in the United States are limited, they said.
In a study published in Sleep Medicine, the researchers surveyed 6,373 adults aged 65 years and older who were enrolled in the nationally representative National Health and Aging Trends Study (NHATS). The majority of the participants were non-Hispanic White (71%), 59% were women, and 21% ranged in age from 70 to 74 years.
Participants responded to questions about routine sleep medication use. Routine was defined as “most nights” or “every night.” The data were collected for an 8-year period from 2011 to 2018. The study began in 2011, with a core interview administered annually.
Approximately 15% of the study population reported routine use of sleep medications. Overall, routine use of sleep medication was significantly associated with risk of incident dementia (hazard ratio, 1.30; P < .01) after controlling for multiple variables including age, sex, education level, and chronic conditions.
Dementia screening was conducted by participants rating their memory and then performing a memory-related activity (immediate and delayed 10-word recall) and other exercises to assess executive function and orientation. A separate eight-item informant screener was performed for patient proxies. The researcher noted, “Sensitivity of the NHATS probable dementia screening measure has been determined in previous research to be 66%, and specificity is 87%, with respect to a clinical dementia diagnosis.”
The study findings were limited by several factors including the use of self-reports, the lack of data on type or dose of sleep medication, and lack of data on the indication for the prescription, the researchers noted.
“Also, sleep medication use leads to worse performance on cognitive testing, such as the questionnaires used to screen for dementia in this study, and therefore could have resulted in a false diagnosis of dementia,” they added.
However, the results were strengthened by the large, nationally representative study population and support the need for quality geriatric care, the researchers said.
“Our findings provide further support and evidence that sleep medications are all too commonly administered, yet associated with greater risk for incident dementia, and that the U.S. health care system is in need of creative solutions for addressing poor sleep among older individuals,” they concluded.
Implications and alternatives
The study is important as the number of aging Americans increases, said Carolyn M. D’Ambrosio, MD, FCCP, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, in an interview. “In the elderly, inability to fall asleep or stay asleep are common issues that are brought to a health care provider,” she said. Dr. D’Ambrosio said she was not surprised by the study findings “as elderly patients often have sleep issues and sometimes a well-meaning health care provider gives them sleep medication to help. We have known that some of these sleep medications such as benzodiazepines affect cognitive performance,” she said.
Dr. D’Ambrosio said she avoids prescribing sleep medications for older adults if possible. “A deep dive into sleep habits, environment, and other things that disrupt sleep often gets to the problem rather than just masking it with a sleep medication,” she noted. Alternatives to improve sleep in older adults include exercise, exposure to bright light during the day, and good healthy sleep habits, all of which contribute to improved sleep in the elderly, said Dr. D’Ambrosio. She also recommends screening older adults for other issues that affect sleep, such as chronic pain.
The current study highlighted the association between sleep medication use and dementia, but it does not show causation, Dr. D’Ambrosio said. “So much more needs to be done to determine whether the sleep medications are causing worsening cognitive function long term, or if the dementia is starting but not yet diagnosed and the sleep medication is given but not the cause of the dementia, she noted.
Research gaps and treatment strategies
Older adults experiencing sleep difficulties may try various medications including pharmacologics (e.g., benzodiazepines), over-the-counter agents, such as diphenhydramine or doxylamine preparations, and/or herbal and nutritional supplements such as valerian or melatonin, said Mary Jo S. Farmer, MD, FCCP, of the University of Massachusetts Medical School–Baystate, Springfield, in an interview. “However, sleep medications, particularly benzodiazepines, are strongly discouraged by major medical associations including the American Geriatrics Society in part because of the growing evidence that use of sleep medications is associated with cognitive impairment and decline,” she said.
The current study results contribute to previous work demonstrating that both pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic sleep medication, although commonly administered, is associated with subsequent adverse outcomes in older adults, Dr. Farmer said. This association sets the stage for creative and different solutions for addressing poor sleep among older adults, such as behavioral treatments including cognitive-behavioral therapy, she noted.
Dr. Farmer said, “Areas for future research include exploring the causal link between prescription and/or over-the-counter sleep medication use and incident dementia in a randomized controlled trial,” she added.
“Another interesting opportunity for future research is to explore the indications for sleep medications among older adults since it has been shown in the general population that sleep difficulties represent only 12% of the indication for sleep medication prescriptions,” Dr. Farmer noted. “Future research could examine the strength of the underlying motivation to use sleep medication even in light of suggested long-term effects, and the effectiveness of other measures to avoid or minimize sleep difficulties,” she said.
“My experience is that the majority of ambulatory patients recently seen in sleep clinic want to avoid long-term use of sleep medications and will ask what other measures can be tried to consistently achieve a good night’s sleep without medication use,” Dr. Farmer said. “If medications are used, patients would rather try melatonin than a benzodiazepine. Many patients who come to sleep clinic with sleep medications already prescribed and are subsequently found to have sleep apnea and/or restless legs find that they no longer need sleep medication when these other medical conditions are appropriately diagnosed and managed,” she explained. “Finally, many patients tell me they feel less energetic upon awakening, almost feel hung over, and express being less sharp cognitively when taking pharmacologic sleep medication, whether for short or long periods of time, and therefore they want to avoid continuing with sleep medication use,” she said.
Dr. Farmer’s strategy for developing alternatives to sleep medications in older adults includes taking a careful history, including a complete list of medical problems, review of medications, and a thorough sleep history including usual time of sleep onset, awake time, and the frequency of daytime naps. “Tips for improving the quality of nighttime sleep may include adequately treating pain and other medical conditions such as heartburn, sleep apnea, and restless legs, creating a soothing environment to promote sleep by eliminating noise and bright lights, avoiding stimulant medications and substances such as caffeine and nicotine before bedtime, avoiding excessive amounts of alcohol, avoiding diuretics before bedtime, encouraging physical activity during the day, spending time in the sunlight as much as possible to help regulate the sleep cycle, limiting daytime naps, and establishing a regular sleep schedule,” she said.
The study was supported by National Institutes of Health awards K01HL150339, U54MD000538, K07AG052685, R01AG056531, R01AG056031. Lead author Dr. Robbins had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. D’Ambrosio disclosed serving as a section editor for sleep medicine for Dynamed and owning a patent on a circadian programming device. Dr. Farmer had no disclosures.
SOURCE: Robbins R et al. Sleep Med. 2020 Nov 11. doi: 10.1016/j.sleep.2020.11.004.
Sleep medications for older patients who report sleep problems may not be the best treatment given growing evidence of the link between these medications and the risk of incident dementia.
Adults aged 65 years and older who used sleep medications 5-7 days a week demonstrated a 30% increased risk of dementia, compared with those who did not use sleep medications, findings from a prospective study of 6,373 individuals show.
Adults aged 65 and older report a higher burden of sleep problems than other age groups, but major medical associations discourage the use of sleep medications by older adults because of growing evidence of a link between sleep medication use and cognitive decline, wrote Rebecca Robbins, MD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, and colleagues. However, data on this association among adults in the United States are limited, they said.
In a study published in Sleep Medicine, the researchers surveyed 6,373 adults aged 65 years and older who were enrolled in the nationally representative National Health and Aging Trends Study (NHATS). The majority of the participants were non-Hispanic White (71%), 59% were women, and 21% ranged in age from 70 to 74 years.
Participants responded to questions about routine sleep medication use. Routine was defined as “most nights” or “every night.” The data were collected for an 8-year period from 2011 to 2018. The study began in 2011, with a core interview administered annually.
Approximately 15% of the study population reported routine use of sleep medications. Overall, routine use of sleep medication was significantly associated with risk of incident dementia (hazard ratio, 1.30; P < .01) after controlling for multiple variables including age, sex, education level, and chronic conditions.
Dementia screening was conducted by participants rating their memory and then performing a memory-related activity (immediate and delayed 10-word recall) and other exercises to assess executive function and orientation. A separate eight-item informant screener was performed for patient proxies. The researcher noted, “Sensitivity of the NHATS probable dementia screening measure has been determined in previous research to be 66%, and specificity is 87%, with respect to a clinical dementia diagnosis.”
The study findings were limited by several factors including the use of self-reports, the lack of data on type or dose of sleep medication, and lack of data on the indication for the prescription, the researchers noted.
“Also, sleep medication use leads to worse performance on cognitive testing, such as the questionnaires used to screen for dementia in this study, and therefore could have resulted in a false diagnosis of dementia,” they added.
However, the results were strengthened by the large, nationally representative study population and support the need for quality geriatric care, the researchers said.
“Our findings provide further support and evidence that sleep medications are all too commonly administered, yet associated with greater risk for incident dementia, and that the U.S. health care system is in need of creative solutions for addressing poor sleep among older individuals,” they concluded.
Implications and alternatives
The study is important as the number of aging Americans increases, said Carolyn M. D’Ambrosio, MD, FCCP, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, in an interview. “In the elderly, inability to fall asleep or stay asleep are common issues that are brought to a health care provider,” she said. Dr. D’Ambrosio said she was not surprised by the study findings “as elderly patients often have sleep issues and sometimes a well-meaning health care provider gives them sleep medication to help. We have known that some of these sleep medications such as benzodiazepines affect cognitive performance,” she said.
Dr. D’Ambrosio said she avoids prescribing sleep medications for older adults if possible. “A deep dive into sleep habits, environment, and other things that disrupt sleep often gets to the problem rather than just masking it with a sleep medication,” she noted. Alternatives to improve sleep in older adults include exercise, exposure to bright light during the day, and good healthy sleep habits, all of which contribute to improved sleep in the elderly, said Dr. D’Ambrosio. She also recommends screening older adults for other issues that affect sleep, such as chronic pain.
The current study highlighted the association between sleep medication use and dementia, but it does not show causation, Dr. D’Ambrosio said. “So much more needs to be done to determine whether the sleep medications are causing worsening cognitive function long term, or if the dementia is starting but not yet diagnosed and the sleep medication is given but not the cause of the dementia, she noted.
Research gaps and treatment strategies
Older adults experiencing sleep difficulties may try various medications including pharmacologics (e.g., benzodiazepines), over-the-counter agents, such as diphenhydramine or doxylamine preparations, and/or herbal and nutritional supplements such as valerian or melatonin, said Mary Jo S. Farmer, MD, FCCP, of the University of Massachusetts Medical School–Baystate, Springfield, in an interview. “However, sleep medications, particularly benzodiazepines, are strongly discouraged by major medical associations including the American Geriatrics Society in part because of the growing evidence that use of sleep medications is associated with cognitive impairment and decline,” she said.
The current study results contribute to previous work demonstrating that both pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic sleep medication, although commonly administered, is associated with subsequent adverse outcomes in older adults, Dr. Farmer said. This association sets the stage for creative and different solutions for addressing poor sleep among older adults, such as behavioral treatments including cognitive-behavioral therapy, she noted.
Dr. Farmer said, “Areas for future research include exploring the causal link between prescription and/or over-the-counter sleep medication use and incident dementia in a randomized controlled trial,” she added.
“Another interesting opportunity for future research is to explore the indications for sleep medications among older adults since it has been shown in the general population that sleep difficulties represent only 12% of the indication for sleep medication prescriptions,” Dr. Farmer noted. “Future research could examine the strength of the underlying motivation to use sleep medication even in light of suggested long-term effects, and the effectiveness of other measures to avoid or minimize sleep difficulties,” she said.
“My experience is that the majority of ambulatory patients recently seen in sleep clinic want to avoid long-term use of sleep medications and will ask what other measures can be tried to consistently achieve a good night’s sleep without medication use,” Dr. Farmer said. “If medications are used, patients would rather try melatonin than a benzodiazepine. Many patients who come to sleep clinic with sleep medications already prescribed and are subsequently found to have sleep apnea and/or restless legs find that they no longer need sleep medication when these other medical conditions are appropriately diagnosed and managed,” she explained. “Finally, many patients tell me they feel less energetic upon awakening, almost feel hung over, and express being less sharp cognitively when taking pharmacologic sleep medication, whether for short or long periods of time, and therefore they want to avoid continuing with sleep medication use,” she said.
Dr. Farmer’s strategy for developing alternatives to sleep medications in older adults includes taking a careful history, including a complete list of medical problems, review of medications, and a thorough sleep history including usual time of sleep onset, awake time, and the frequency of daytime naps. “Tips for improving the quality of nighttime sleep may include adequately treating pain and other medical conditions such as heartburn, sleep apnea, and restless legs, creating a soothing environment to promote sleep by eliminating noise and bright lights, avoiding stimulant medications and substances such as caffeine and nicotine before bedtime, avoiding excessive amounts of alcohol, avoiding diuretics before bedtime, encouraging physical activity during the day, spending time in the sunlight as much as possible to help regulate the sleep cycle, limiting daytime naps, and establishing a regular sleep schedule,” she said.
The study was supported by National Institutes of Health awards K01HL150339, U54MD000538, K07AG052685, R01AG056531, R01AG056031. Lead author Dr. Robbins had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. D’Ambrosio disclosed serving as a section editor for sleep medicine for Dynamed and owning a patent on a circadian programming device. Dr. Farmer had no disclosures.
SOURCE: Robbins R et al. Sleep Med. 2020 Nov 11. doi: 10.1016/j.sleep.2020.11.004.
FROM SLEEP MEDICINE