Pharmacology

Biologic therapy for psoriasis may protect against severe COVID-19, according to two large observational studies from Italy and France presented at the virtual annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.

“Biologics seem to be very protective against severe, poor-prognosis COVID-19, but they do not prevent infection with the virus,” reported Giovanni Damiani, MD, a dermatologist at the University of Milan.

This apparent protective effect of biologic agents against severe and even fatal COVID-19 is all the more impressive because the psoriasis patients included in the Italian study – as is true of those elsewhere throughout the world – had relatively high rates of obesity, smoking, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, known risk factors for severe COVID-19, he added.

He presented a case-control study including 1,193 adult psoriasis patients on biologics or apremilast (Otezla) at Milan’s San Donato Hospital during the period from Feb. 21 to April 9, 2020. The control group comprised more than 10 million individuals, the entire adult population of the Lombardy region, of which Milan is the capital. This was the hardest-hit area in all of Italy during the first wave of COVID-19.

Twenty-two of the 1,193 psoriasis patients experienced confirmed COVID-19 during the study period. Seventeen were quarantined at home because their disease was mild. Five were hospitalized. But no psoriasis patients were placed in intensive care, and none died.

Psoriasis patients on biologics were significantly more likely than the general Lombardian population to test positive for COVID-19, with an unadjusted odds ratio of 3.43. They were at 9.05-fold increased risk of home quarantine for mild disease, and at 3.59-fold greater risk than controls for hospitalization for COVID-19. However, they were not at significantly increased risk of ICU admission. And while they actually had a 59% relative risk reduction for death, this didn’t achieve statistical significance.

Forty-five percent of the psoriasis patients were on an interleukin-17 (IL-17) inhibitor, 22% were on a tumor necrosis factor–alpha inhibitor, and 20% were taking an IL-12/23 inhibitor. Of note, none of 77 patients on apremilast developed COVID-19, even though it is widely considered a less potent psoriasis therapy than the injectable monoclonal antibody biologics.

The French experience

Anne-Claire Fougerousse, MD, and her French coinvestigators conducted a study designed to address a different question: Is it safe to start psoriasis patients on biologics or older conventional systemic agents such as methotrexate during the pandemic?

She presented a French national cross-sectional study of 1,418 adult psoriasis patients on a biologic or standard systemic therapy during a snapshot in time near the peak of the first wave of the pandemic in France: the period from April 27 to May 7, 2020. The group included 1,188 psoriasis patients on maintenance therapy and 230 who had initiated systemic treatment within the past 4 months. More than one-third of the patients had at least one risk factor for severe COVID-19.

Although testing wasn’t available to confirm all cases, 54 patients developed probable COVID-19 during the study period. Only five required hospitalization. None died. The two hospitalized psoriasis patients admitted to an ICU had obesity as a risk factor for severe COVID-19, as did another of the five hospitalized patients, reported Dr. Fougerousse, a dermatologist at the Bégin Military Teaching Hospital in Saint-Mandé, France. Hospitalization for COVID-19 was required in 0.43% of the French treatment initiators, not significantly different from the 0.34% rate in patients on maintenance systemic therapy. A study limitation was the lack of a control group.

Nonetheless, the data did answer the investigators’ main question: “This is the first data showing no increased incidence of severe COVID-19 in psoriasis patients receiving systemic therapy in the treatment initiation period compared to those on maintenance therapy. This may now allow physicians to initiate conventional systemic or biologic therapy in patients with severe psoriasis on a case-by-case basis in the context of the persistent COVID-19 pandemic,” Dr. Fougerousse concluded.


 

Proposed mechanism of benefit

The Italian study findings that biologics boost the risk of infection with the SARS-CoV-2 virus in psoriasis patients while potentially protecting them against ICU admission and death are backed by a biologically plausible albeit as yet unproven mechanism of action, Dr. Damiani asserted.

He elaborated: A vast body of high-quality clinical trials data demonstrates that these targeted immunosuppressive agents are associated with modestly increased risk of viral infections, including both skin and respiratory tract infections. So there is no reason to suppose these agents would offer protection against the first phase of COVID-19, involving SARS-CoV-2 infection, nor protect against the second (pulmonary phase), whose hallmarks are dyspnea with or without hypoxia. But progression to the third phase, involving hyperinflammation and hypercoagulation – dubbed the cytokine storm – could be a different matter.

“Of particular interest was that our patients on IL-17 inhibitors displayed a really great outcome. Interleukin-17 has procoagulant and prothrombotic effects, organizes bronchoalveolar remodeling, has a profibrotic effect, induces mitochondrial dysfunction, and encourages dendritic cell migration in peribronchial lymph nodes. Therefore, by antagonizing this interleukin, we may have a better prognosis, although further studies are needed to be certain,” Dr. Damiani commented.
 

Publication of his preliminary findings drew the attention of a group of highly respected thought leaders in psoriasis, including James G. Krueger, MD, head of the laboratory for investigative dermatology and codirector of the center for clinical and investigative science at Rockefeller University, New York.

The Italian report prompted them to analyze data from the phase 4, double-blind, randomized ObePso-S study investigating the effects of the IL-17 inhibitor secukinumab (Cosentyx) on systemic inflammatory markers and gene expression in psoriasis patients. The investigators demonstrated that IL-17–mediated inflammation in psoriasis patients was associated with increased expression of the angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) receptor in lesional skin, and that treatment with secukinumab dropped ACE2 expression to levels seen in nonlesional skin. Given that ACE2 is the chief portal of entry for SARS-CoV-2 and that IL-17 exerts systemic proinflammatory effects, it’s plausible that inhibition of IL-17–mediated inflammation via dampening of ACE2 expression in noncutaneous epithelia “could prove to be advantageous in patients with psoriasis who are at risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection,” according to Dr. Krueger and his coinvestigators in the Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology.

Dr. Damiani and Dr. Fougerousse reported having no financial conflicts regarding their studies. The secukinumab/ACE2 receptor study was funded by Novartis.
 

[email protected]

Biologic therapy for psoriasis may protect against severe COVID-19, according to two large observational studies from Italy and France presented at the virtual annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.

“Biologics seem to be very protective against severe, poor-prognosis COVID-19, but they do not prevent infection with the virus,” reported Giovanni Damiani, MD, a dermatologist at the University of Milan.

This apparent protective effect of biologic agents against severe and even fatal COVID-19 is all the more impressive because the psoriasis patients included in the Italian study – as is true of those elsewhere throughout the world – had relatively high rates of obesity, smoking, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, known risk factors for severe COVID-19, he added.

He presented a case-control study including 1,193 adult psoriasis patients on biologics or apremilast (Otezla) at Milan’s San Donato Hospital during the period from Feb. 21 to April 9, 2020. The control group comprised more than 10 million individuals, the entire adult population of the Lombardy region, of which Milan is the capital. This was the hardest-hit area in all of Italy during the first wave of COVID-19.

Twenty-two of the 1,193 psoriasis patients experienced confirmed COVID-19 during the study period. Seventeen were quarantined at home because their disease was mild. Five were hospitalized. But no psoriasis patients were placed in intensive care, and none died.

Psoriasis patients on biologics were significantly more likely than the general Lombardian population to test positive for COVID-19, with an unadjusted odds ratio of 3.43. They were at 9.05-fold increased risk of home quarantine for mild disease, and at 3.59-fold greater risk than controls for hospitalization for COVID-19. However, they were not at significantly increased risk of ICU admission. And while they actually had a 59% relative risk reduction for death, this didn’t achieve statistical significance.

Forty-five percent of the psoriasis patients were on an interleukin-17 (IL-17) inhibitor, 22% were on a tumor necrosis factor–alpha inhibitor, and 20% were taking an IL-12/23 inhibitor. Of note, none of 77 patients on apremilast developed COVID-19, even though it is widely considered a less potent psoriasis therapy than the injectable monoclonal antibody biologics.

The French experience

Anne-Claire Fougerousse, MD, and her French coinvestigators conducted a study designed to address a different question: Is it safe to start psoriasis patients on biologics or older conventional systemic agents such as methotrexate during the pandemic?

She presented a French national cross-sectional study of 1,418 adult psoriasis patients on a biologic or standard systemic therapy during a snapshot in time near the peak of the first wave of the pandemic in France: the period from April 27 to May 7, 2020. The group included 1,188 psoriasis patients on maintenance therapy and 230 who had initiated systemic treatment within the past 4 months. More than one-third of the patients had at least one risk factor for severe COVID-19.

Although testing wasn’t available to confirm all cases, 54 patients developed probable COVID-19 during the study period. Only five required hospitalization. None died. The two hospitalized psoriasis patients admitted to an ICU had obesity as a risk factor for severe COVID-19, as did another of the five hospitalized patients, reported Dr. Fougerousse, a dermatologist at the Bégin Military Teaching Hospital in Saint-Mandé, France. Hospitalization for COVID-19 was required in 0.43% of the French treatment initiators, not significantly different from the 0.34% rate in patients on maintenance systemic therapy. A study limitation was the lack of a control group.

Nonetheless, the data did answer the investigators’ main question: “This is the first data showing no increased incidence of severe COVID-19 in psoriasis patients receiving systemic therapy in the treatment initiation period compared to those on maintenance therapy. This may now allow physicians to initiate conventional systemic or biologic therapy in patients with severe psoriasis on a case-by-case basis in the context of the persistent COVID-19 pandemic,” Dr. Fougerousse concluded.


 

Proposed mechanism of benefit

The Italian study findings that biologics boost the risk of infection with the SARS-CoV-2 virus in psoriasis patients while potentially protecting them against ICU admission and death are backed by a biologically plausible albeit as yet unproven mechanism of action, Dr. Damiani asserted.

He elaborated: A vast body of high-quality clinical trials data demonstrates that these targeted immunosuppressive agents are associated with modestly increased risk of viral infections, including both skin and respiratory tract infections. So there is no reason to suppose these agents would offer protection against the first phase of COVID-19, involving SARS-CoV-2 infection, nor protect against the second (pulmonary phase), whose hallmarks are dyspnea with or without hypoxia. But progression to the third phase, involving hyperinflammation and hypercoagulation – dubbed the cytokine storm – could be a different matter.

“Of particular interest was that our patients on IL-17 inhibitors displayed a really great outcome. Interleukin-17 has procoagulant and prothrombotic effects, organizes bronchoalveolar remodeling, has a profibrotic effect, induces mitochondrial dysfunction, and encourages dendritic cell migration in peribronchial lymph nodes. Therefore, by antagonizing this interleukin, we may have a better prognosis, although further studies are needed to be certain,” Dr. Damiani commented.
 

Publication of his preliminary findings drew the attention of a group of highly respected thought leaders in psoriasis, including James G. Krueger, MD, head of the laboratory for investigative dermatology and codirector of the center for clinical and investigative science at Rockefeller University, New York.

The Italian report prompted them to analyze data from the phase 4, double-blind, randomized ObePso-S study investigating the effects of the IL-17 inhibitor secukinumab (Cosentyx) on systemic inflammatory markers and gene expression in psoriasis patients. The investigators demonstrated that IL-17–mediated inflammation in psoriasis patients was associated with increased expression of the angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) receptor in lesional skin, and that treatment with secukinumab dropped ACE2 expression to levels seen in nonlesional skin. Given that ACE2 is the chief portal of entry for SARS-CoV-2 and that IL-17 exerts systemic proinflammatory effects, it’s plausible that inhibition of IL-17–mediated inflammation via dampening of ACE2 expression in noncutaneous epithelia “could prove to be advantageous in patients with psoriasis who are at risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection,” according to Dr. Krueger and his coinvestigators in the Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology.

Dr. Damiani and Dr. Fougerousse reported having no financial conflicts regarding their studies. The secukinumab/ACE2 receptor study was funded by Novartis.
 

[email protected]

Biologic therapy for psoriasis may protect against severe COVID-19, according to two large observational studies from Italy and France presented at the virtual annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.

“Biologics seem to be very protective against severe, poor-prognosis COVID-19, but they do not prevent infection with the virus,” reported Giovanni Damiani, MD, a dermatologist at the University of Milan.

This apparent protective effect of biologic agents against severe and even fatal COVID-19 is all the more impressive because the psoriasis patients included in the Italian study – as is true of those elsewhere throughout the world – had relatively high rates of obesity, smoking, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, known risk factors for severe COVID-19, he added.

He presented a case-control study including 1,193 adult psoriasis patients on biologics or apremilast (Otezla) at Milan’s San Donato Hospital during the period from Feb. 21 to April 9, 2020. The control group comprised more than 10 million individuals, the entire adult population of the Lombardy region, of which Milan is the capital. This was the hardest-hit area in all of Italy during the first wave of COVID-19.

Twenty-two of the 1,193 psoriasis patients experienced confirmed COVID-19 during the study period. Seventeen were quarantined at home because their disease was mild. Five were hospitalized. But no psoriasis patients were placed in intensive care, and none died.

Psoriasis patients on biologics were significantly more likely than the general Lombardian population to test positive for COVID-19, with an unadjusted odds ratio of 3.43. They were at 9.05-fold increased risk of home quarantine for mild disease, and at 3.59-fold greater risk than controls for hospitalization for COVID-19. However, they were not at significantly increased risk of ICU admission. And while they actually had a 59% relative risk reduction for death, this didn’t achieve statistical significance.

Forty-five percent of the psoriasis patients were on an interleukin-17 (IL-17) inhibitor, 22% were on a tumor necrosis factor–alpha inhibitor, and 20% were taking an IL-12/23 inhibitor. Of note, none of 77 patients on apremilast developed COVID-19, even though it is widely considered a less potent psoriasis therapy than the injectable monoclonal antibody biologics.

The French experience

Anne-Claire Fougerousse, MD, and her French coinvestigators conducted a study designed to address a different question: Is it safe to start psoriasis patients on biologics or older conventional systemic agents such as methotrexate during the pandemic?

She presented a French national cross-sectional study of 1,418 adult psoriasis patients on a biologic or standard systemic therapy during a snapshot in time near the peak of the first wave of the pandemic in France: the period from April 27 to May 7, 2020. The group included 1,188 psoriasis patients on maintenance therapy and 230 who had initiated systemic treatment within the past 4 months. More than one-third of the patients had at least one risk factor for severe COVID-19.

Although testing wasn’t available to confirm all cases, 54 patients developed probable COVID-19 during the study period. Only five required hospitalization. None died. The two hospitalized psoriasis patients admitted to an ICU had obesity as a risk factor for severe COVID-19, as did another of the five hospitalized patients, reported Dr. Fougerousse, a dermatologist at the Bégin Military Teaching Hospital in Saint-Mandé, France. Hospitalization for COVID-19 was required in 0.43% of the French treatment initiators, not significantly different from the 0.34% rate in patients on maintenance systemic therapy. A study limitation was the lack of a control group.

Nonetheless, the data did answer the investigators’ main question: “This is the first data showing no increased incidence of severe COVID-19 in psoriasis patients receiving systemic therapy in the treatment initiation period compared to those on maintenance therapy. This may now allow physicians to initiate conventional systemic or biologic therapy in patients with severe psoriasis on a case-by-case basis in the context of the persistent COVID-19 pandemic,” Dr. Fougerousse concluded.


 

Proposed mechanism of benefit

The Italian study findings that biologics boost the risk of infection with the SARS-CoV-2 virus in psoriasis patients while potentially protecting them against ICU admission and death are backed by a biologically plausible albeit as yet unproven mechanism of action, Dr. Damiani asserted.

He elaborated: A vast body of high-quality clinical trials data demonstrates that these targeted immunosuppressive agents are associated with modestly increased risk of viral infections, including both skin and respiratory tract infections. So there is no reason to suppose these agents would offer protection against the first phase of COVID-19, involving SARS-CoV-2 infection, nor protect against the second (pulmonary phase), whose hallmarks are dyspnea with or without hypoxia. But progression to the third phase, involving hyperinflammation and hypercoagulation – dubbed the cytokine storm – could be a different matter.

“Of particular interest was that our patients on IL-17 inhibitors displayed a really great outcome. Interleukin-17 has procoagulant and prothrombotic effects, organizes bronchoalveolar remodeling, has a profibrotic effect, induces mitochondrial dysfunction, and encourages dendritic cell migration in peribronchial lymph nodes. Therefore, by antagonizing this interleukin, we may have a better prognosis, although further studies are needed to be certain,” Dr. Damiani commented.
 

Publication of his preliminary findings drew the attention of a group of highly respected thought leaders in psoriasis, including James G. Krueger, MD, head of the laboratory for investigative dermatology and codirector of the center for clinical and investigative science at Rockefeller University, New York.

The Italian report prompted them to analyze data from the phase 4, double-blind, randomized ObePso-S study investigating the effects of the IL-17 inhibitor secukinumab (Cosentyx) on systemic inflammatory markers and gene expression in psoriasis patients. The investigators demonstrated that IL-17–mediated inflammation in psoriasis patients was associated with increased expression of the angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) receptor in lesional skin, and that treatment with secukinumab dropped ACE2 expression to levels seen in nonlesional skin. Given that ACE2 is the chief portal of entry for SARS-CoV-2 and that IL-17 exerts systemic proinflammatory effects, it’s plausible that inhibition of IL-17–mediated inflammation via dampening of ACE2 expression in noncutaneous epithelia “could prove to be advantageous in patients with psoriasis who are at risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection,” according to Dr. Krueger and his coinvestigators in the Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology.

Dr. Damiani and Dr. Fougerousse reported having no financial conflicts regarding their studies. The secukinumab/ACE2 receptor study was funded by Novartis.
 

[email protected]

Two COVID-19 antibody treatments, one developed by Regeneron and the other by Eli Lilly, show promise in the outpatient setting in results released on Oct. 28.

Regeneron, in a randomized, double-blind trial, is assessing the effect of adding its investigational antibody cocktail REGN-COV2 to usual standard of care in comparison with adding placebo to standard of care. A descriptive analysis from the first 275 patients was previously reported. The data described on Oct. 28, which involve an additional 524 patients, show that the trial met all of the first nine endpoints.

Regeneron announced prospective results from its phase 2/3 trial showing REGN-COV2 significantly reduced viral load and patient medical visits, which included hospitalizations, visits to an emergency department, visits for urgent care, and/or physician office/telemedicine visits.

Interest in the cocktail spiked after President Donald Trump extolled its benefits after it was used in his own COVID-19 treatment earlier in October.

Trump received the highest dose of the drug, 8 g, but, according to a Regeneron news release announcing the latest findings, “results showed no significant difference in virologic or clinical efficacy between the REGN-COV2 high dose (8 grams) and low dose (2.4 grams).”

The company described further results of the industry-funded study in the release: “On the primary endpoint, the average daily change in viral load through day 7 (mean time-weighted average change from baseline) in patients with high viral load (defined as greater than107 copies/mL) was a 0.68 log10 copies/mL greater reduction with REGN-COV2 compared to placebo (combined dose groups; P < .0001). There was a 1.08 log greater reduction with REGN-COV2 treatment by day 5, which corresponds to REGN-COV2 patients having, on average, a greater than 10-fold reduction in viral load, compared to placebo.”

The treatment appears to be most effective in patients most at risk, whether because of high viral load, ineffective baseline antibody immune response, or preexisting conditions, according to the researchers.

According to the press release, these results have not been peer reviewed but have been submitted to the US Food and Drug Administration, which is reviewing a potential emergency use authorization for the treatment in high-risk adults with mild to moderate COVID-19.

Operation Warp Speed, the Trump administration’s treatment and vaccine program, contracted in July with Regeneron for up to 300,000 doses of its antibody cocktail.
 

Lilly treatment shows drop in hospitalizations, symptoms

Another treatment, also given in the outpatient setting, shows promise as well.

Patients recently diagnosed with mild to moderate COVID-19 who received Eli Lilly’s antibody treatment LY-CoV555 had fewer hospitalizations and symptoms compared with a group that received placebo, an interim analysis of a phase 2 trial indicates.

Peter Chen, MD, with the Department of Medicine, Women’s Guild Lung Institute at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, California, and colleagues found that the most profound effects were in the high-risk groups.

The interim findings of the BLAZE-1 study, which was funded by Eli Lilly, were published online October 28 in The New England Journal of Medicine.

Researchers randomly assigned 452 patients to receive an intravenous infusion of LY-CoV555 in one of three doses (700 mg, 2800 mg, or 7000 mg) or placebo.

In the interim analysis, the researchers found that for the entire population, more than 99.97% of viral RNA was eliminated.

For patients who received the 2800-mg dose, the difference from placebo in the decrease from baseline was −0.53 (95% CI, −0.98 to −0.08; P = .02), for a log viral load that was lower by a factor of 3.4. Benefit over placebo was not significant with the other doses.

At day 29, according to the investigators, the percentage of patients hospitalized with COVID-19 was 1.6% (5 of 309 patients) in the treatment group compared with 6.3% (9 of 143 patients) in the placebo group.

Data indicate that the safety profile was similar whether patients received the active treatment or placebo.

“If these results are confirmed in additional analyses in this trial, LY-CoV555 could become a useful treatment for emergency use in patients with recently diagnosed Covid-19,” the authors write.

Deborah Fuller, PhD, professor in the Department of Microbiology at the University of Washington School of Medicine in Seattle, told Medscape Medical News the findings are «exciting» but only part of the treatment solution.

“What’s remarkable about these two studies and others I’ve seen,” she said, “is how consistent they are in terms of the window of time they will be effective, and that’s because they are just targeting the virus itself. They do not have an effect on the inflammation unless they stop the replication early enough.”

The treatments are effective when they are given near the time of diagnosis, she pointed out.

“Once the virus has started that inflammatory cascade in your body, then that train has left the station and you have to deal with the inflammation,” Fuller said.

She says future treatments will likely have to include both the antiviral and anti-inflammatory properties, and physicians will have to assess what’s best, given the stage of the the patient’s disease.

The trial of REGN-COV2 is funded by Regeneron. The BLAZE-1 study is funded by Eli Lilly. Many of the authors have financial ties to Eli Lilly. Fuller has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Two COVID-19 antibody treatments, one developed by Regeneron and the other by Eli Lilly, show promise in the outpatient setting in results released on Oct. 28.

Regeneron, in a randomized, double-blind trial, is assessing the effect of adding its investigational antibody cocktail REGN-COV2 to usual standard of care in comparison with adding placebo to standard of care. A descriptive analysis from the first 275 patients was previously reported. The data described on Oct. 28, which involve an additional 524 patients, show that the trial met all of the first nine endpoints.

Regeneron announced prospective results from its phase 2/3 trial showing REGN-COV2 significantly reduced viral load and patient medical visits, which included hospitalizations, visits to an emergency department, visits for urgent care, and/or physician office/telemedicine visits.

Interest in the cocktail spiked after President Donald Trump extolled its benefits after it was used in his own COVID-19 treatment earlier in October.

Trump received the highest dose of the drug, 8 g, but, according to a Regeneron news release announcing the latest findings, “results showed no significant difference in virologic or clinical efficacy between the REGN-COV2 high dose (8 grams) and low dose (2.4 grams).”

The company described further results of the industry-funded study in the release: “On the primary endpoint, the average daily change in viral load through day 7 (mean time-weighted average change from baseline) in patients with high viral load (defined as greater than107 copies/mL) was a 0.68 log10 copies/mL greater reduction with REGN-COV2 compared to placebo (combined dose groups; P < .0001). There was a 1.08 log greater reduction with REGN-COV2 treatment by day 5, which corresponds to REGN-COV2 patients having, on average, a greater than 10-fold reduction in viral load, compared to placebo.”

The treatment appears to be most effective in patients most at risk, whether because of high viral load, ineffective baseline antibody immune response, or preexisting conditions, according to the researchers.

According to the press release, these results have not been peer reviewed but have been submitted to the US Food and Drug Administration, which is reviewing a potential emergency use authorization for the treatment in high-risk adults with mild to moderate COVID-19.

Operation Warp Speed, the Trump administration’s treatment and vaccine program, contracted in July with Regeneron for up to 300,000 doses of its antibody cocktail.
 

Lilly treatment shows drop in hospitalizations, symptoms

Another treatment, also given in the outpatient setting, shows promise as well.

Patients recently diagnosed with mild to moderate COVID-19 who received Eli Lilly’s antibody treatment LY-CoV555 had fewer hospitalizations and symptoms compared with a group that received placebo, an interim analysis of a phase 2 trial indicates.

Peter Chen, MD, with the Department of Medicine, Women’s Guild Lung Institute at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, California, and colleagues found that the most profound effects were in the high-risk groups.

The interim findings of the BLAZE-1 study, which was funded by Eli Lilly, were published online October 28 in The New England Journal of Medicine.

Researchers randomly assigned 452 patients to receive an intravenous infusion of LY-CoV555 in one of three doses (700 mg, 2800 mg, or 7000 mg) or placebo.

In the interim analysis, the researchers found that for the entire population, more than 99.97% of viral RNA was eliminated.

For patients who received the 2800-mg dose, the difference from placebo in the decrease from baseline was −0.53 (95% CI, −0.98 to −0.08; P = .02), for a log viral load that was lower by a factor of 3.4. Benefit over placebo was not significant with the other doses.

At day 29, according to the investigators, the percentage of patients hospitalized with COVID-19 was 1.6% (5 of 309 patients) in the treatment group compared with 6.3% (9 of 143 patients) in the placebo group.

Data indicate that the safety profile was similar whether patients received the active treatment or placebo.

“If these results are confirmed in additional analyses in this trial, LY-CoV555 could become a useful treatment for emergency use in patients with recently diagnosed Covid-19,” the authors write.

Deborah Fuller, PhD, professor in the Department of Microbiology at the University of Washington School of Medicine in Seattle, told Medscape Medical News the findings are «exciting» but only part of the treatment solution.

“What’s remarkable about these two studies and others I’ve seen,” she said, “is how consistent they are in terms of the window of time they will be effective, and that’s because they are just targeting the virus itself. They do not have an effect on the inflammation unless they stop the replication early enough.”

The treatments are effective when they are given near the time of diagnosis, she pointed out.

“Once the virus has started that inflammatory cascade in your body, then that train has left the station and you have to deal with the inflammation,” Fuller said.

She says future treatments will likely have to include both the antiviral and anti-inflammatory properties, and physicians will have to assess what’s best, given the stage of the the patient’s disease.

The trial of REGN-COV2 is funded by Regeneron. The BLAZE-1 study is funded by Eli Lilly. Many of the authors have financial ties to Eli Lilly. Fuller has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Two COVID-19 antibody treatments, one developed by Regeneron and the other by Eli Lilly, show promise in the outpatient setting in results released on Oct. 28.

Regeneron, in a randomized, double-blind trial, is assessing the effect of adding its investigational antibody cocktail REGN-COV2 to usual standard of care in comparison with adding placebo to standard of care. A descriptive analysis from the first 275 patients was previously reported. The data described on Oct. 28, which involve an additional 524 patients, show that the trial met all of the first nine endpoints.

Regeneron announced prospective results from its phase 2/3 trial showing REGN-COV2 significantly reduced viral load and patient medical visits, which included hospitalizations, visits to an emergency department, visits for urgent care, and/or physician office/telemedicine visits.

Interest in the cocktail spiked after President Donald Trump extolled its benefits after it was used in his own COVID-19 treatment earlier in October.

Trump received the highest dose of the drug, 8 g, but, according to a Regeneron news release announcing the latest findings, “results showed no significant difference in virologic or clinical efficacy between the REGN-COV2 high dose (8 grams) and low dose (2.4 grams).”

The company described further results of the industry-funded study in the release: “On the primary endpoint, the average daily change in viral load through day 7 (mean time-weighted average change from baseline) in patients with high viral load (defined as greater than107 copies/mL) was a 0.68 log10 copies/mL greater reduction with REGN-COV2 compared to placebo (combined dose groups; P < .0001). There was a 1.08 log greater reduction with REGN-COV2 treatment by day 5, which corresponds to REGN-COV2 patients having, on average, a greater than 10-fold reduction in viral load, compared to placebo.”

The treatment appears to be most effective in patients most at risk, whether because of high viral load, ineffective baseline antibody immune response, or preexisting conditions, according to the researchers.

According to the press release, these results have not been peer reviewed but have been submitted to the US Food and Drug Administration, which is reviewing a potential emergency use authorization for the treatment in high-risk adults with mild to moderate COVID-19.

Operation Warp Speed, the Trump administration’s treatment and vaccine program, contracted in July with Regeneron for up to 300,000 doses of its antibody cocktail.
 

Lilly treatment shows drop in hospitalizations, symptoms

Another treatment, also given in the outpatient setting, shows promise as well.

Patients recently diagnosed with mild to moderate COVID-19 who received Eli Lilly’s antibody treatment LY-CoV555 had fewer hospitalizations and symptoms compared with a group that received placebo, an interim analysis of a phase 2 trial indicates.

Peter Chen, MD, with the Department of Medicine, Women’s Guild Lung Institute at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, California, and colleagues found that the most profound effects were in the high-risk groups.

The interim findings of the BLAZE-1 study, which was funded by Eli Lilly, were published online October 28 in The New England Journal of Medicine.

Researchers randomly assigned 452 patients to receive an intravenous infusion of LY-CoV555 in one of three doses (700 mg, 2800 mg, or 7000 mg) or placebo.

In the interim analysis, the researchers found that for the entire population, more than 99.97% of viral RNA was eliminated.

For patients who received the 2800-mg dose, the difference from placebo in the decrease from baseline was −0.53 (95% CI, −0.98 to −0.08; P = .02), for a log viral load that was lower by a factor of 3.4. Benefit over placebo was not significant with the other doses.

At day 29, according to the investigators, the percentage of patients hospitalized with COVID-19 was 1.6% (5 of 309 patients) in the treatment group compared with 6.3% (9 of 143 patients) in the placebo group.

Data indicate that the safety profile was similar whether patients received the active treatment or placebo.

“If these results are confirmed in additional analyses in this trial, LY-CoV555 could become a useful treatment for emergency use in patients with recently diagnosed Covid-19,” the authors write.

Deborah Fuller, PhD, professor in the Department of Microbiology at the University of Washington School of Medicine in Seattle, told Medscape Medical News the findings are «exciting» but only part of the treatment solution.

“What’s remarkable about these two studies and others I’ve seen,” she said, “is how consistent they are in terms of the window of time they will be effective, and that’s because they are just targeting the virus itself. They do not have an effect on the inflammation unless they stop the replication early enough.”

The treatments are effective when they are given near the time of diagnosis, she pointed out.

“Once the virus has started that inflammatory cascade in your body, then that train has left the station and you have to deal with the inflammation,” Fuller said.

She says future treatments will likely have to include both the antiviral and anti-inflammatory properties, and physicians will have to assess what’s best, given the stage of the the patient’s disease.

The trial of REGN-COV2 is funded by Regeneron. The BLAZE-1 study is funded by Eli Lilly. Many of the authors have financial ties to Eli Lilly. Fuller has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Real-world survival outcomes for cancer patients on immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) are inferior to outcomes reported in patients on clinical trials of ICIs, according to research published in JCO Clinical Cancer Informatics.

However, the research also suggests that real-world patients who receive ICIs achieve longer survival than patients on standard-of-care medications.

“Patients receiving ICIs in real-world practice may differ from those enrolled in trials in a variety of ways, including age, race, performance status, and comorbidity burden,” said study author Jerry S.H. Lee, PhD, of the University of Southern California, Los Angeles.

Dr. Lee noted that only 3%-4% of cancer patients participate in clinical trials. In fact, more than half of patients with melanoma and nearly three-quarters of those with non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) do not meet criteria for eligibility in clinical trials, he said.

To examine the discrepancies between real-world practice and clinical trials and to better understand which patients receive ICIs in clinical practice, Dr. Lee and colleagues conducted a retrospective analysis using electronic health record data from Veterans Administration (VA) facilities nationwide.

The researchers identified 11,888 cancer patients who were treated with ICIs. The cohort included patients who are underrepresented in pivotal clinical trials, including older, non-White, and/or higher disease-burdened patients.

The majority of patients were treated for NSCLC (51.1%), followed by melanoma (14.4%), renal cell carcinoma (RCC; 8.1%), squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (6.8%), urothelial cancer (6.4%), hepatocellular carcinoma (4.5%), and other less common cancer types (8.8%).
 

Overall survival by indication

In general, median overall survival (OS) in the VA cohort was inferior to median OS reported in clinical trials. However, patients treated with first-line nivolumab for melanoma and second-line pembrolizumab or nivolumab for NSCLC had similar OS in the real-world and trial data.

The researchers did not report exact OS numbers from clinical trials. However, they did report the exact numbers from the VA cohort and show OS differences between the VA cohort and clinical trials graphically.

Among patients in the VA cohort, the median OS was:

• 25.5 months in melanoma patients on first-line nivolumab
• 16.3 months in RCC patients receiving nivolumab in the second line or higher
• 14 months in RCC patients on first-line ipilimumab and nivolumab
• 10.6 months in NSCLC patients on first-line pembrolizumab
• 9.9 months in NSCLC patients receiving pembrolizumab or nivolumab in the second line or higher
• 9.1 months in NSCLC patients on first-line pembrolizumab and platinum-based chemotherapy
• 6.7 months in urothelial cancer patients receiving ICIs in the second line or higher.

A number of factors may have contributed to the shorter OS observed in the VA cohort, according to the researchers. The VA cohort is predominantly male, is older, and has a higher degree of comorbidity, compared with patients in clinical trials.

In addition, no data are available to determine the cause for discontinuation of therapy, and VA patients may have received ICIs after failing multiple lines of previous therapy, while clinical trials may limit patients to only one or two previous lines of therapy.

After stratifying VA patients by frailty status, the OS among non-frail patients was more similar to the OS reported in clinical trials.

“Real-world outcomes from the VA were more similar when adjusted for frailty, which shows the importance of patient diversity in clinical trials,” Dr. Lee said. He added that the definition of frailty among VA patients included potential injury during combat and therefore differs from a generic frailty definition.
 

ICIs vs. standard care

The researchers also found that VA patients treated with ICIs had longer OS, compared with a cohort of VA patients receiving standard-of-care therapies.

The median OS was as follows:

• In melanoma patients on first-line treatment – 39.29 months with nivolumab and 5.75 months with chemotherapy (P < .001).
• In RCC patients on first-line treatment – 14.01 months with ipilimumab plus nivolumab and 8.63 months with targeted therapy (P = .051).
• In RCC patients on second-line or greater treatment – 12.43 months with nivolumab and 8.09 months with everolimus (P < .001).
• In NSCLC patients on first-line therapy – 8.88 months with pembrolizumab and 6.38 months with a platinum doublet (P < .001).
• In NSCLC patients on first-line combination therapy – 10.59 months with pembrolizumab plus platinum chemotherapy and 6.38 months with a platinum doublet (P < .001).
• In NSCLC patients on second-line or greater therapy – 10.06 months with pembrolizumab or nivolumab and 6.41 months with docetaxel (P < .001).
• In urothelial cancer patients on second-line or greater therapy – 7.66 months with an ICI and 6.31 months with chemotherapy (P = .043).
   

Help for treatment decisions

“The real-world survival outcomes not only indicate the breadth of indications but also represent patients who tend not to be eligible for immunotherapy trials, based on their health status,” Dr. Lee said. “We hope this dataset of national-level experience provides practicing oncologists evidence to help patients and family members in the process of decision-making about therapy.”

Real-world data can also inform oncologists who face decisions on whether to prescribe or withhold ICIs and patients who face the financial burden of paying for ICIs, he said.

This dataset will be continually updated. The researchers have already added another 10,000 VA patients who have received immunotherapies in the year since the trial began.

“In a longitudinal way, we plan to examine what causes differences in outcomes and continue to find ways to extend care to veterans with a balance of high quality of life,” Dr. Lee said.

“Patients who participate in clinical trials are, on average, younger and healthier than the general population,” said Bora Youn, PhD, a senior biostatistician at Biogen in Cambridge, Mass., who was not involved in this study.

“In the case of immunotherapies, those with poor performance status and autoimmune conditions are often excluded from trials,” Dr. Youn added. “In the real world, these patients can also receive treatments, and clinicians often need to extrapolate the results from clinical trials. It is therefore important to collect real-world data to understand the effectiveness and safety of these therapies in patients with limited evidence.”

Dr. Youn led a real-world study, published in Cancer, of 1,256 Medicare recipients who were diagnosed with NSCLC and received ICI therapy.

“We found that factors associated with poor prognosis in general, such as squamous histology and failure of aggressive prior treatment, are also predictive of decreased survival among those who initiated immunotherapies. Yet, OS of older patients was relatively comparable to those observed in clinical trials,” Dr. Youn said.

“Understanding the real-world effectiveness of these treatments will help improve the evidence base, especially for those underrepresented in clinical trials. These studies can also help identify patients who are most likely to benefit from immunotherapies,” Dr. Youn added.

This study was supported by the VA Office of Research and Development Cooperative Studies Program. Dr. Lee and Dr. Youn disclosed no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Jennifer La et al. JCO Clinical Cancer Informatics. 2020:4:918-28.

Real-world survival outcomes for cancer patients on immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) are inferior to outcomes reported in patients on clinical trials of ICIs, according to research published in JCO Clinical Cancer Informatics.

However, the research also suggests that real-world patients who receive ICIs achieve longer survival than patients on standard-of-care medications.

“Patients receiving ICIs in real-world practice may differ from those enrolled in trials in a variety of ways, including age, race, performance status, and comorbidity burden,” said study author Jerry S.H. Lee, PhD, of the University of Southern California, Los Angeles.

Dr. Lee noted that only 3%-4% of cancer patients participate in clinical trials. In fact, more than half of patients with melanoma and nearly three-quarters of those with non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) do not meet criteria for eligibility in clinical trials, he said.

To examine the discrepancies between real-world practice and clinical trials and to better understand which patients receive ICIs in clinical practice, Dr. Lee and colleagues conducted a retrospective analysis using electronic health record data from Veterans Administration (VA) facilities nationwide.

The researchers identified 11,888 cancer patients who were treated with ICIs. The cohort included patients who are underrepresented in pivotal clinical trials, including older, non-White, and/or higher disease-burdened patients.

The majority of patients were treated for NSCLC (51.1%), followed by melanoma (14.4%), renal cell carcinoma (RCC; 8.1%), squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (6.8%), urothelial cancer (6.4%), hepatocellular carcinoma (4.5%), and other less common cancer types (8.8%).
 

Overall survival by indication

In general, median overall survival (OS) in the VA cohort was inferior to median OS reported in clinical trials. However, patients treated with first-line nivolumab for melanoma and second-line pembrolizumab or nivolumab for NSCLC had similar OS in the real-world and trial data.

The researchers did not report exact OS numbers from clinical trials. However, they did report the exact numbers from the VA cohort and show OS differences between the VA cohort and clinical trials graphically.

Among patients in the VA cohort, the median OS was:

• 25.5 months in melanoma patients on first-line nivolumab
• 16.3 months in RCC patients receiving nivolumab in the second line or higher
• 14 months in RCC patients on first-line ipilimumab and nivolumab
• 10.6 months in NSCLC patients on first-line pembrolizumab
• 9.9 months in NSCLC patients receiving pembrolizumab or nivolumab in the second line or higher
• 9.1 months in NSCLC patients on first-line pembrolizumab and platinum-based chemotherapy
• 6.7 months in urothelial cancer patients receiving ICIs in the second line or higher.

A number of factors may have contributed to the shorter OS observed in the VA cohort, according to the researchers. The VA cohort is predominantly male, is older, and has a higher degree of comorbidity, compared with patients in clinical trials.

In addition, no data are available to determine the cause for discontinuation of therapy, and VA patients may have received ICIs after failing multiple lines of previous therapy, while clinical trials may limit patients to only one or two previous lines of therapy.

After stratifying VA patients by frailty status, the OS among non-frail patients was more similar to the OS reported in clinical trials.

“Real-world outcomes from the VA were more similar when adjusted for frailty, which shows the importance of patient diversity in clinical trials,” Dr. Lee said. He added that the definition of frailty among VA patients included potential injury during combat and therefore differs from a generic frailty definition.
 

ICIs vs. standard care

The researchers also found that VA patients treated with ICIs had longer OS, compared with a cohort of VA patients receiving standard-of-care therapies.

The median OS was as follows:

• In melanoma patients on first-line treatment – 39.29 months with nivolumab and 5.75 months with chemotherapy (P < .001).
• In RCC patients on first-line treatment – 14.01 months with ipilimumab plus nivolumab and 8.63 months with targeted therapy (P = .051).
• In RCC patients on second-line or greater treatment – 12.43 months with nivolumab and 8.09 months with everolimus (P < .001).
• In NSCLC patients on first-line therapy – 8.88 months with pembrolizumab and 6.38 months with a platinum doublet (P < .001).
• In NSCLC patients on first-line combination therapy – 10.59 months with pembrolizumab plus platinum chemotherapy and 6.38 months with a platinum doublet (P < .001).
• In NSCLC patients on second-line or greater therapy – 10.06 months with pembrolizumab or nivolumab and 6.41 months with docetaxel (P < .001).
• In urothelial cancer patients on second-line or greater therapy – 7.66 months with an ICI and 6.31 months with chemotherapy (P = .043).
   

Help for treatment decisions

“The real-world survival outcomes not only indicate the breadth of indications but also represent patients who tend not to be eligible for immunotherapy trials, based on their health status,” Dr. Lee said. “We hope this dataset of national-level experience provides practicing oncologists evidence to help patients and family members in the process of decision-making about therapy.”

Real-world data can also inform oncologists who face decisions on whether to prescribe or withhold ICIs and patients who face the financial burden of paying for ICIs, he said.

This dataset will be continually updated. The researchers have already added another 10,000 VA patients who have received immunotherapies in the year since the trial began.

“In a longitudinal way, we plan to examine what causes differences in outcomes and continue to find ways to extend care to veterans with a balance of high quality of life,” Dr. Lee said.

“Patients who participate in clinical trials are, on average, younger and healthier than the general population,” said Bora Youn, PhD, a senior biostatistician at Biogen in Cambridge, Mass., who was not involved in this study.

“In the case of immunotherapies, those with poor performance status and autoimmune conditions are often excluded from trials,” Dr. Youn added. “In the real world, these patients can also receive treatments, and clinicians often need to extrapolate the results from clinical trials. It is therefore important to collect real-world data to understand the effectiveness and safety of these therapies in patients with limited evidence.”

Dr. Youn led a real-world study, published in Cancer, of 1,256 Medicare recipients who were diagnosed with NSCLC and received ICI therapy.

“We found that factors associated with poor prognosis in general, such as squamous histology and failure of aggressive prior treatment, are also predictive of decreased survival among those who initiated immunotherapies. Yet, OS of older patients was relatively comparable to those observed in clinical trials,” Dr. Youn said.

“Understanding the real-world effectiveness of these treatments will help improve the evidence base, especially for those underrepresented in clinical trials. These studies can also help identify patients who are most likely to benefit from immunotherapies,” Dr. Youn added.

This study was supported by the VA Office of Research and Development Cooperative Studies Program. Dr. Lee and Dr. Youn disclosed no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Jennifer La et al. JCO Clinical Cancer Informatics. 2020:4:918-28.

Real-world survival outcomes for cancer patients on immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) are inferior to outcomes reported in patients on clinical trials of ICIs, according to research published in JCO Clinical Cancer Informatics.

However, the research also suggests that real-world patients who receive ICIs achieve longer survival than patients on standard-of-care medications.

“Patients receiving ICIs in real-world practice may differ from those enrolled in trials in a variety of ways, including age, race, performance status, and comorbidity burden,” said study author Jerry S.H. Lee, PhD, of the University of Southern California, Los Angeles.

Dr. Lee noted that only 3%-4% of cancer patients participate in clinical trials. In fact, more than half of patients with melanoma and nearly three-quarters of those with non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) do not meet criteria for eligibility in clinical trials, he said.

To examine the discrepancies between real-world practice and clinical trials and to better understand which patients receive ICIs in clinical practice, Dr. Lee and colleagues conducted a retrospective analysis using electronic health record data from Veterans Administration (VA) facilities nationwide.

The researchers identified 11,888 cancer patients who were treated with ICIs. The cohort included patients who are underrepresented in pivotal clinical trials, including older, non-White, and/or higher disease-burdened patients.

The majority of patients were treated for NSCLC (51.1%), followed by melanoma (14.4%), renal cell carcinoma (RCC; 8.1%), squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (6.8%), urothelial cancer (6.4%), hepatocellular carcinoma (4.5%), and other less common cancer types (8.8%).
 

Overall survival by indication

In general, median overall survival (OS) in the VA cohort was inferior to median OS reported in clinical trials. However, patients treated with first-line nivolumab for melanoma and second-line pembrolizumab or nivolumab for NSCLC had similar OS in the real-world and trial data.

The researchers did not report exact OS numbers from clinical trials. However, they did report the exact numbers from the VA cohort and show OS differences between the VA cohort and clinical trials graphically.

Among patients in the VA cohort, the median OS was:

• 25.5 months in melanoma patients on first-line nivolumab
• 16.3 months in RCC patients receiving nivolumab in the second line or higher
• 14 months in RCC patients on first-line ipilimumab and nivolumab
• 10.6 months in NSCLC patients on first-line pembrolizumab
• 9.9 months in NSCLC patients receiving pembrolizumab or nivolumab in the second line or higher
• 9.1 months in NSCLC patients on first-line pembrolizumab and platinum-based chemotherapy
• 6.7 months in urothelial cancer patients receiving ICIs in the second line or higher.

A number of factors may have contributed to the shorter OS observed in the VA cohort, according to the researchers. The VA cohort is predominantly male, is older, and has a higher degree of comorbidity, compared with patients in clinical trials.

In addition, no data are available to determine the cause for discontinuation of therapy, and VA patients may have received ICIs after failing multiple lines of previous therapy, while clinical trials may limit patients to only one or two previous lines of therapy.

After stratifying VA patients by frailty status, the OS among non-frail patients was more similar to the OS reported in clinical trials.

“Real-world outcomes from the VA were more similar when adjusted for frailty, which shows the importance of patient diversity in clinical trials,” Dr. Lee said. He added that the definition of frailty among VA patients included potential injury during combat and therefore differs from a generic frailty definition.
 

ICIs vs. standard care

The researchers also found that VA patients treated with ICIs had longer OS, compared with a cohort of VA patients receiving standard-of-care therapies.

The median OS was as follows:

• In melanoma patients on first-line treatment – 39.29 months with nivolumab and 5.75 months with chemotherapy (P < .001).
• In RCC patients on first-line treatment – 14.01 months with ipilimumab plus nivolumab and 8.63 months with targeted therapy (P = .051).
• In RCC patients on second-line or greater treatment – 12.43 months with nivolumab and 8.09 months with everolimus (P < .001).
• In NSCLC patients on first-line therapy – 8.88 months with pembrolizumab and 6.38 months with a platinum doublet (P < .001).
• In NSCLC patients on first-line combination therapy – 10.59 months with pembrolizumab plus platinum chemotherapy and 6.38 months with a platinum doublet (P < .001).
• In NSCLC patients on second-line or greater therapy – 10.06 months with pembrolizumab or nivolumab and 6.41 months with docetaxel (P < .001).
• In urothelial cancer patients on second-line or greater therapy – 7.66 months with an ICI and 6.31 months with chemotherapy (P = .043).
   

Help for treatment decisions

“The real-world survival outcomes not only indicate the breadth of indications but also represent patients who tend not to be eligible for immunotherapy trials, based on their health status,” Dr. Lee said. “We hope this dataset of national-level experience provides practicing oncologists evidence to help patients and family members in the process of decision-making about therapy.”

Real-world data can also inform oncologists who face decisions on whether to prescribe or withhold ICIs and patients who face the financial burden of paying for ICIs, he said.

This dataset will be continually updated. The researchers have already added another 10,000 VA patients who have received immunotherapies in the year since the trial began.

“In a longitudinal way, we plan to examine what causes differences in outcomes and continue to find ways to extend care to veterans with a balance of high quality of life,” Dr. Lee said.

“Patients who participate in clinical trials are, on average, younger and healthier than the general population,” said Bora Youn, PhD, a senior biostatistician at Biogen in Cambridge, Mass., who was not involved in this study.

“In the case of immunotherapies, those with poor performance status and autoimmune conditions are often excluded from trials,” Dr. Youn added. “In the real world, these patients can also receive treatments, and clinicians often need to extrapolate the results from clinical trials. It is therefore important to collect real-world data to understand the effectiveness and safety of these therapies in patients with limited evidence.”

Dr. Youn led a real-world study, published in Cancer, of 1,256 Medicare recipients who were diagnosed with NSCLC and received ICI therapy.

“We found that factors associated with poor prognosis in general, such as squamous histology and failure of aggressive prior treatment, are also predictive of decreased survival among those who initiated immunotherapies. Yet, OS of older patients was relatively comparable to those observed in clinical trials,” Dr. Youn said.

“Understanding the real-world effectiveness of these treatments will help improve the evidence base, especially for those underrepresented in clinical trials. These studies can also help identify patients who are most likely to benefit from immunotherapies,” Dr. Youn added.

This study was supported by the VA Office of Research and Development Cooperative Studies Program. Dr. Lee and Dr. Youn disclosed no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Jennifer La et al. JCO Clinical Cancer Informatics. 2020:4:918-28.

A class of drugs long used to treat HIV and hepatitis B viral infections appears to prevent the development of diabetes in a substantial proportion of patients who take these agents, an analysis of multiple databases has shown.

“Nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors [NRTIs], drugs approved to treat HIV-1 and hepatitis B infections, also block inflammasome activation,” Jayakrishna Ambati, MD, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, and colleagues wrote in Nature Communications.

“[We showed that] the adjusted risk of incident diabetes is 33% lower in patients with NRTI exposure. ... These data suggest the possibility of repurposing an approved class of drugs for prevention of diabetes,” they wrote.

The researchers made a small chemical modification to NRTIs that led to their developing a new class of drugs, which they have termed “kamuvudines.” Kamuvudines are nontoxic derivatives of NRTIs, Dr. Ambati said in an interview.

“People take NRTIs because they need to live with HIV, but giving them to the general population is not a great idea because of the toxicities associated with long-term NRTI use. So our focus is not to go forward specifically with NRTIs but rather with these new molecules that are far less toxic, and that is how we envision a clinical trial going forward,” Dr. Ambati noted.
 

Researchers screened five databases of >100,000 patients

Dr. Ambati and colleagues analyzed information from five databases in which patients who had been exposed to an NRTI but who had not previously been diagnosed with type 2 diabetes were assessed for the subsequent development of diabetes over varying time intervals. In one, the Veterans Health Administration database – from the largest integrated health care system in the United States – the analysis spanned a period of 17 years.

Of 79,744 patients with a confirmed diagnosis of HIV or hepatitis B in the Veterans Health Administration database, the risk for type 2 diabetes was reduced by 34% among NRTI users, compared with nonusers after adjusting for potential confounders (P < .0001).

The reduction in diabetes risk was similar among HIV-positive and hepatitis B–positive patients.

These results were reaffirmed by further analyses of four other databases, the investigators reported. One of these, the employer-based health insurance Truven database, had data on 23,634 patients who had been diagnosed with HIV or hepatitis B. After adjusting for potential confounders, NRTI users had a 39% lower risk of developing type 2 diabetes, compared with nonusers (P < .0001).

The risk of developing type 2 diabetes was somewhat lower among NRTI users in the Pearl Diver database, which includes predominantly private health insurance claims. Of 16,045 patients diagnosed with HIV or hepatitis B included in this database, the risk for type 2 diabetes was 26% lower among NRTI users, compared with nonusers (P = .004).

A similar magnitude of risk reduction was seen in the analysis of the Clinformatics dataset. Among 6,341 users of NRTIs, the risk for type 2 diabetes was 27% lower than it was for nonusers (P = .009).

The least reduction in diabetes risk was in the Medicare database, in which only 3,097 patients had been diagnosed with either HIV or hepatitis B. Among these patients, the risk for diabetes was 17% lower among NRTI users than it was for nonusers (P = .137).
 

One-third reduction across multiple databases enhances confidence

“Collectively, among 128,861 patients with HIV-1 or hepatitis B, users of NRTIs had a 33% reduced hazard of developing type 2 diabetes,” Dr. Ambati and colleagues emphasize.

“The fact that the protective effect against the development of diabetes was replicated in multiple databases in studies from multiple institutions enhances confidence in the results,” Dr. Ambati noted in a statement from the University of Virginia.

Dr. Ambati and colleagues also showed that the NRTI lamivudine restores insulin sensitivity in human cells from type 2 diabetes patients.

That drug prevented induction of insulin resistance in human cells from people who did not have diabetes. It also prevented inflammasome activation in mice fed a high-fat diet.

“These investigations of human cell, mouse and population database systems collectively suggest a potential beneficial effect of NRTIs in forestalling diabetes onset,” they stressed.
 

Trial assessing kamuvudines slated to begin next year

In the interview, Dr. Ambati explained that inflammasomes are protein complexes that form a large superstructure within the cell. “When activated, they lead to the production of some very powerful inflammatory cytokines, including interleukin-1 beta and IL-18.”

Although there are many different types of inflammasomes, the one implicated in type 2 diabetes, as well as many other chronic diseases, including macular degeneration, is the NLRP3 inflammasome.

Activation of this molecule promotes insulin resistance, a key driver of type 2 diabetes, he explained.

Importantly, previous research showed that the way the NRTIs block this inflammasome has nothing to do with their anti-HIV activity.

After making a small chemical modification in the NRTIs, Dr. Ambati and colleagues were able to show that the resulting agents, which they have dubbed “kamuvudines,” are able to block inflammasome activation independently of their antiviral effects.

They hope that this modification will reduce the toxicities associated with the agents. This would be necessary if kamuvudines were to be more widely used in a noninfected, healthier population, Ambati stressed.

Dr. Ambati and his colleague, Paul Ashton, PhD, cofounder of Inflammasone Therapeutics, plan a clinical trial with one of these kamuvudines in macular degeneration, which they hope will begin early next year.

“We are trying to pick a disease where we can show efficacy fairly quickly in a small number of people,” Dr. Ashton explained in an interview. “We’re very enthusiastic about this as it looks really, really promising.”

Dr. Ambati and Dr. Ashton cofounded Inflammasone Therapeutics, located in Boston. Dr. Ashton is the CEO of the company.

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

A class of drugs long used to treat HIV and hepatitis B viral infections appears to prevent the development of diabetes in a substantial proportion of patients who take these agents, an analysis of multiple databases has shown.

“Nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors [NRTIs], drugs approved to treat HIV-1 and hepatitis B infections, also block inflammasome activation,” Jayakrishna Ambati, MD, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, and colleagues wrote in Nature Communications.

“[We showed that] the adjusted risk of incident diabetes is 33% lower in patients with NRTI exposure. ... These data suggest the possibility of repurposing an approved class of drugs for prevention of diabetes,” they wrote.

The researchers made a small chemical modification to NRTIs that led to their developing a new class of drugs, which they have termed “kamuvudines.” Kamuvudines are nontoxic derivatives of NRTIs, Dr. Ambati said in an interview.

“People take NRTIs because they need to live with HIV, but giving them to the general population is not a great idea because of the toxicities associated with long-term NRTI use. So our focus is not to go forward specifically with NRTIs but rather with these new molecules that are far less toxic, and that is how we envision a clinical trial going forward,” Dr. Ambati noted.
 

Researchers screened five databases of >100,000 patients

Dr. Ambati and colleagues analyzed information from five databases in which patients who had been exposed to an NRTI but who had not previously been diagnosed with type 2 diabetes were assessed for the subsequent development of diabetes over varying time intervals. In one, the Veterans Health Administration database – from the largest integrated health care system in the United States – the analysis spanned a period of 17 years.

Of 79,744 patients with a confirmed diagnosis of HIV or hepatitis B in the Veterans Health Administration database, the risk for type 2 diabetes was reduced by 34% among NRTI users, compared with nonusers after adjusting for potential confounders (P < .0001).

The reduction in diabetes risk was similar among HIV-positive and hepatitis B–positive patients.

These results were reaffirmed by further analyses of four other databases, the investigators reported. One of these, the employer-based health insurance Truven database, had data on 23,634 patients who had been diagnosed with HIV or hepatitis B. After adjusting for potential confounders, NRTI users had a 39% lower risk of developing type 2 diabetes, compared with nonusers (P < .0001).

The risk of developing type 2 diabetes was somewhat lower among NRTI users in the Pearl Diver database, which includes predominantly private health insurance claims. Of 16,045 patients diagnosed with HIV or hepatitis B included in this database, the risk for type 2 diabetes was 26% lower among NRTI users, compared with nonusers (P = .004).

A similar magnitude of risk reduction was seen in the analysis of the Clinformatics dataset. Among 6,341 users of NRTIs, the risk for type 2 diabetes was 27% lower than it was for nonusers (P = .009).

The least reduction in diabetes risk was in the Medicare database, in which only 3,097 patients had been diagnosed with either HIV or hepatitis B. Among these patients, the risk for diabetes was 17% lower among NRTI users than it was for nonusers (P = .137).
 

One-third reduction across multiple databases enhances confidence

“Collectively, among 128,861 patients with HIV-1 or hepatitis B, users of NRTIs had a 33% reduced hazard of developing type 2 diabetes,” Dr. Ambati and colleagues emphasize.

“The fact that the protective effect against the development of diabetes was replicated in multiple databases in studies from multiple institutions enhances confidence in the results,” Dr. Ambati noted in a statement from the University of Virginia.

Dr. Ambati and colleagues also showed that the NRTI lamivudine restores insulin sensitivity in human cells from type 2 diabetes patients.

That drug prevented induction of insulin resistance in human cells from people who did not have diabetes. It also prevented inflammasome activation in mice fed a high-fat diet.

“These investigations of human cell, mouse and population database systems collectively suggest a potential beneficial effect of NRTIs in forestalling diabetes onset,” they stressed.
 

Trial assessing kamuvudines slated to begin next year

In the interview, Dr. Ambati explained that inflammasomes are protein complexes that form a large superstructure within the cell. “When activated, they lead to the production of some very powerful inflammatory cytokines, including interleukin-1 beta and IL-18.”

Although there are many different types of inflammasomes, the one implicated in type 2 diabetes, as well as many other chronic diseases, including macular degeneration, is the NLRP3 inflammasome.

Activation of this molecule promotes insulin resistance, a key driver of type 2 diabetes, he explained.

Importantly, previous research showed that the way the NRTIs block this inflammasome has nothing to do with their anti-HIV activity.

After making a small chemical modification in the NRTIs, Dr. Ambati and colleagues were able to show that the resulting agents, which they have dubbed “kamuvudines,” are able to block inflammasome activation independently of their antiviral effects.

They hope that this modification will reduce the toxicities associated with the agents. This would be necessary if kamuvudines were to be more widely used in a noninfected, healthier population, Ambati stressed.

Dr. Ambati and his colleague, Paul Ashton, PhD, cofounder of Inflammasone Therapeutics, plan a clinical trial with one of these kamuvudines in macular degeneration, which they hope will begin early next year.

“We are trying to pick a disease where we can show efficacy fairly quickly in a small number of people,” Dr. Ashton explained in an interview. “We’re very enthusiastic about this as it looks really, really promising.”

Dr. Ambati and Dr. Ashton cofounded Inflammasone Therapeutics, located in Boston. Dr. Ashton is the CEO of the company.

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

A class of drugs long used to treat HIV and hepatitis B viral infections appears to prevent the development of diabetes in a substantial proportion of patients who take these agents, an analysis of multiple databases has shown.

“Nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors [NRTIs], drugs approved to treat HIV-1 and hepatitis B infections, also block inflammasome activation,” Jayakrishna Ambati, MD, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, and colleagues wrote in Nature Communications.

“[We showed that] the adjusted risk of incident diabetes is 33% lower in patients with NRTI exposure. ... These data suggest the possibility of repurposing an approved class of drugs for prevention of diabetes,” they wrote.

The researchers made a small chemical modification to NRTIs that led to their developing a new class of drugs, which they have termed “kamuvudines.” Kamuvudines are nontoxic derivatives of NRTIs, Dr. Ambati said in an interview.

“People take NRTIs because they need to live with HIV, but giving them to the general population is not a great idea because of the toxicities associated with long-term NRTI use. So our focus is not to go forward specifically with NRTIs but rather with these new molecules that are far less toxic, and that is how we envision a clinical trial going forward,” Dr. Ambati noted.
 

Researchers screened five databases of >100,000 patients

Dr. Ambati and colleagues analyzed information from five databases in which patients who had been exposed to an NRTI but who had not previously been diagnosed with type 2 diabetes were assessed for the subsequent development of diabetes over varying time intervals. In one, the Veterans Health Administration database – from the largest integrated health care system in the United States – the analysis spanned a period of 17 years.

Of 79,744 patients with a confirmed diagnosis of HIV or hepatitis B in the Veterans Health Administration database, the risk for type 2 diabetes was reduced by 34% among NRTI users, compared with nonusers after adjusting for potential confounders (P < .0001).

The reduction in diabetes risk was similar among HIV-positive and hepatitis B–positive patients.

These results were reaffirmed by further analyses of four other databases, the investigators reported. One of these, the employer-based health insurance Truven database, had data on 23,634 patients who had been diagnosed with HIV or hepatitis B. After adjusting for potential confounders, NRTI users had a 39% lower risk of developing type 2 diabetes, compared with nonusers (P < .0001).

The risk of developing type 2 diabetes was somewhat lower among NRTI users in the Pearl Diver database, which includes predominantly private health insurance claims. Of 16,045 patients diagnosed with HIV or hepatitis B included in this database, the risk for type 2 diabetes was 26% lower among NRTI users, compared with nonusers (P = .004).

A similar magnitude of risk reduction was seen in the analysis of the Clinformatics dataset. Among 6,341 users of NRTIs, the risk for type 2 diabetes was 27% lower than it was for nonusers (P = .009).

The least reduction in diabetes risk was in the Medicare database, in which only 3,097 patients had been diagnosed with either HIV or hepatitis B. Among these patients, the risk for diabetes was 17% lower among NRTI users than it was for nonusers (P = .137).
 

One-third reduction across multiple databases enhances confidence

“Collectively, among 128,861 patients with HIV-1 or hepatitis B, users of NRTIs had a 33% reduced hazard of developing type 2 diabetes,” Dr. Ambati and colleagues emphasize.

“The fact that the protective effect against the development of diabetes was replicated in multiple databases in studies from multiple institutions enhances confidence in the results,” Dr. Ambati noted in a statement from the University of Virginia.

Dr. Ambati and colleagues also showed that the NRTI lamivudine restores insulin sensitivity in human cells from type 2 diabetes patients.

That drug prevented induction of insulin resistance in human cells from people who did not have diabetes. It also prevented inflammasome activation in mice fed a high-fat diet.

“These investigations of human cell, mouse and population database systems collectively suggest a potential beneficial effect of NRTIs in forestalling diabetes onset,” they stressed.
 

Trial assessing kamuvudines slated to begin next year

In the interview, Dr. Ambati explained that inflammasomes are protein complexes that form a large superstructure within the cell. “When activated, they lead to the production of some very powerful inflammatory cytokines, including interleukin-1 beta and IL-18.”

Although there are many different types of inflammasomes, the one implicated in type 2 diabetes, as well as many other chronic diseases, including macular degeneration, is the NLRP3 inflammasome.

Activation of this molecule promotes insulin resistance, a key driver of type 2 diabetes, he explained.

Importantly, previous research showed that the way the NRTIs block this inflammasome has nothing to do with their anti-HIV activity.

After making a small chemical modification in the NRTIs, Dr. Ambati and colleagues were able to show that the resulting agents, which they have dubbed “kamuvudines,” are able to block inflammasome activation independently of their antiviral effects.

They hope that this modification will reduce the toxicities associated with the agents. This would be necessary if kamuvudines were to be more widely used in a noninfected, healthier population, Ambati stressed.

Dr. Ambati and his colleague, Paul Ashton, PhD, cofounder of Inflammasone Therapeutics, plan a clinical trial with one of these kamuvudines in macular degeneration, which they hope will begin early next year.

“We are trying to pick a disease where we can show efficacy fairly quickly in a small number of people,” Dr. Ashton explained in an interview. “We’re very enthusiastic about this as it looks really, really promising.”

Dr. Ambati and Dr. Ashton cofounded Inflammasone Therapeutics, located in Boston. Dr. Ashton is the CEO of the company.

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

A new, large study has confirmed that different types of hormone replacement therapy (HRT) are associated with an increased risk for breast cancer and has provided additional information on factors associated with that increased risk.

The study was published online on October 28 in The BMJ.

“The study confirms increased risk of breast cancer in patients taking HRT but shows that the magnitude of risk depends on a number of factors,” first author Yana Vinogradova, PhD, said in an interview. Dr. Vinogradova is a medical statistician at the University of Nottingham (England).

The study also suggests the risk may be lower than was estimated in a large meta-analysis of 24 trials that was published in 2019 in The Lancet. In that study, researchers suggested the risk for breast cancer with HRT was higher and persisted longer than had been thought.

This conclusion from the meta-analysis was widely reported in the lay press and led to the UK Medicine and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency issuing a safety alert for HRT regarding breast cancer. Experts in the field questioned the alert and said it caused undue anxiety. The European Medicines Agency also issued a safety alert because of the study.

This new study was begun before publication of the meta-analysis. Although the results are broadly similar in suggesting increased risk for breast cancer with HRT use, findings from the new study suggest the risk is lower than had been estimated in the meta-analysis and that the risk diminishes more rapidly after stopping HRT than was suggested by the meta-analysis.

“The publicity surrounding publication of the meta-analysis highlighted unexpectedly high risks and led to a heightened level of concern in some quarters,” Dr. Vinogradova commented. “Our study, based on general population data, has not confirmed any such findings. In general, it showed lower levels of risk and clarified the variability of magnitude within them.”

Dr. Vinogradova said the discrepancy could be related to the fact that the studies were designed differently. The meta-analysis relied on results from 24 studies that were conducted around the world at different periods and included women of different ages and backgrounds. The studies in the meta-analysis used different methods, including questionnaires that relied on women’s memories and therefore could have been biased, she said.

In contrast, the new study analyzed EMR data collected prospectively by general practices in the United Kingdom. The data came from the QResearch and from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) databases, the two largest primary care databases in the United Kingdom, which were linked to hospital, mortality, and cancer registries.

Because this study used a “consistent design” and “consistent data sources,” these new results “are likely to be more accurate and reliable for assessing risks among HRT users,” Dr. Vinogradova commented.

This study used an observational design, so it cannot prove that HRT causes breast cancer. These results may better represent women in the general U.K. population, compared with the earlier meta-analysis, she added.

Commenting on the new study, Michael Jones, PhD, senior staff scientist in genetics and epidemiology at the Institute of Cancer Research, London, also emphasized that it was large and its data came from general practitioner medical records, “so the strong statistical associations are unlikely to be due to chance.

“The results of this study generally confirm what has been seen before and is well established – that the use of combined estrogen plus progestogen HRT is associated with increased risk of breast cancer, and this risk increases with duration of use. But reassuringly, after stopping HRT, the raised risk of breast cancer mostly returns to that seen in nonusers of HRT,” he said.

“It’s important to note that no one study should be considered in isolation,” he added. “Even though some risks were found to be slightly smaller than those reported in another meta-analysis of the worldwide epidemiological evidence recently published in 2019, women considering use of HRT should still follow advice given to them by their [general practitioners].”
 

Study details

In the study, researchers evaluated all types of HRT commonly prescribed in the United Kingdom over the past 20 years, including topical estrogen, vaginal pessaries, and creams. They grouped HRT use by recent (within the past 5 years) and past (5 or more years ago) and HRT duration as short term (less than 5 years) and long term (5 years or longer). Results were adjusted for a range of factors that could affect breast cancer risk, including lifestyle, smoking, alcohol consumption, other medical conditions, family history, and use of other prescribed drugs.

The analysis included 98,611 women aged 50-79 years who were first diagnosed with breast cancer between 1998 and 2019. These women were matched by age and general practice to 457,498 women who were not diagnosed with breast cancer over these years. HRT use was reported in 34% (33,703) of women with breast cancer and in 31% (134,391) of women without breast cancer.

Overall, the risk for breast cancer was increased with use of most HRT drugs (adjusted odds ratio, 1.21; 95% confidence, 1.19-1.23), compared with not using HRT drugs. The highest risk was tied to combined estrogen/progestogen HRT (adjusted OR, 1.26; 95% CI, 1.24-1.29). The lowest risk was tied to estrogen-only HRT (adjusted OR, 1.06; 95% CI, 1.03-1.10). Estrogen cream and vaginal estrogen were not associated with increased breast cancer risk.

In general, breast cancer risk was higher among recent HRT users and those receiving long-term therapy. HRT-associated breast cancer risk increased with age and declined after discontinuing treatment. Therapy of less than 1 year was not associated with increased breast cancer risk.

Women who had recently been receiving long-term combined estrogen/progestogen HRT had a 79% increased risk for breast cancer (adjusted OR, 1.79; 95% CI, 1.73-1.85), compared with never-users. Among recent long-term users of combined HRT, breast cancer risk was highest for norethisterone (adjusted OR, 1.88; 95% CI, 1.79-1.99) and lowest for dydrogesterone (adjusted OR, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.03-1.48). Women who had recently been receiving long-term estrogen-only HRT had a 15% increased risk for breast cancer compared to never-users (adjusted OR, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.09-1.21).

Among women who discontinued HRT 5 or more years ago, risk for breast cancer was no longer increased for long-term estrogen-only therapy and short-term estrogen/progestogen therapy. However, breast cancer risk remained elevated 5 years after discontinuing long-term estrogen/progestogen (adjusted OR, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.11-1.21).

HRT-associated risk for breast cancer increased with age across all durations of therapy.

Compared with never-use, recent long-term estrogen-only therapy was associated with zero extra breast cancer cases per 10,000 women-years among women aged 50-59 years and eight extra cases per 10,000 women-years among women aged 70-79.

Recent long-term estrogen/progestogen use was associated with 15 extra breast cancer cases among women aged 50-59 and 36 extra cases among women aged 70-79 per 10,000 women-years.

Past long-term estrogen/progestogen use was associated with zero extra breast cancer cases among women aged 50-59 and eight extra cases among women aged 70-79 per 10,000 women-years.

Summarizing, Dr. Vinogradova said the increased risk for breast cancer with HRT appears to be “relatively small, particularly for younger women and for any women who use HRT only for a restricted period.”

Decisions about whether to use HRT and which type to use should depend on symptom severity, patient factors, and suitability of other treatment options, she commented.

“Particularly for those women who our study has shown to be most at risk, these decisions should be made through discussions between the patient and her doctor,” she concluded. “We hope that the new and more detailed information provided by our study will facilitate such prescribing decisions.”

The study was partially funded by the School for Primary Care Research of the National Institute for Health Research, by Cancer Research UK, and by the Cancer Research UK Oxford Center. Dr. Vinogradova has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Senior author Julia Hippisley-Cox is an unpaid director of QResearch and was a paid director of ClinRisk until 2019. The other authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

A version of this story originally appeared on Medscape.com.

A new, large study has confirmed that different types of hormone replacement therapy (HRT) are associated with an increased risk for breast cancer and has provided additional information on factors associated with that increased risk.

The study was published online on October 28 in The BMJ.

“The study confirms increased risk of breast cancer in patients taking HRT but shows that the magnitude of risk depends on a number of factors,” first author Yana Vinogradova, PhD, said in an interview. Dr. Vinogradova is a medical statistician at the University of Nottingham (England).

The study also suggests the risk may be lower than was estimated in a large meta-analysis of 24 trials that was published in 2019 in The Lancet. In that study, researchers suggested the risk for breast cancer with HRT was higher and persisted longer than had been thought.

This conclusion from the meta-analysis was widely reported in the lay press and led to the UK Medicine and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency issuing a safety alert for HRT regarding breast cancer. Experts in the field questioned the alert and said it caused undue anxiety. The European Medicines Agency also issued a safety alert because of the study.

This new study was begun before publication of the meta-analysis. Although the results are broadly similar in suggesting increased risk for breast cancer with HRT use, findings from the new study suggest the risk is lower than had been estimated in the meta-analysis and that the risk diminishes more rapidly after stopping HRT than was suggested by the meta-analysis.

“The publicity surrounding publication of the meta-analysis highlighted unexpectedly high risks and led to a heightened level of concern in some quarters,” Dr. Vinogradova commented. “Our study, based on general population data, has not confirmed any such findings. In general, it showed lower levels of risk and clarified the variability of magnitude within them.”

Dr. Vinogradova said the discrepancy could be related to the fact that the studies were designed differently. The meta-analysis relied on results from 24 studies that were conducted around the world at different periods and included women of different ages and backgrounds. The studies in the meta-analysis used different methods, including questionnaires that relied on women’s memories and therefore could have been biased, she said.

In contrast, the new study analyzed EMR data collected prospectively by general practices in the United Kingdom. The data came from the QResearch and from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) databases, the two largest primary care databases in the United Kingdom, which were linked to hospital, mortality, and cancer registries.

Because this study used a “consistent design” and “consistent data sources,” these new results “are likely to be more accurate and reliable for assessing risks among HRT users,” Dr. Vinogradova commented.

This study used an observational design, so it cannot prove that HRT causes breast cancer. These results may better represent women in the general U.K. population, compared with the earlier meta-analysis, she added.

Commenting on the new study, Michael Jones, PhD, senior staff scientist in genetics and epidemiology at the Institute of Cancer Research, London, also emphasized that it was large and its data came from general practitioner medical records, “so the strong statistical associations are unlikely to be due to chance.

“The results of this study generally confirm what has been seen before and is well established – that the use of combined estrogen plus progestogen HRT is associated with increased risk of breast cancer, and this risk increases with duration of use. But reassuringly, after stopping HRT, the raised risk of breast cancer mostly returns to that seen in nonusers of HRT,” he said.

“It’s important to note that no one study should be considered in isolation,” he added. “Even though some risks were found to be slightly smaller than those reported in another meta-analysis of the worldwide epidemiological evidence recently published in 2019, women considering use of HRT should still follow advice given to them by their [general practitioners].”
 

Study details

In the study, researchers evaluated all types of HRT commonly prescribed in the United Kingdom over the past 20 years, including topical estrogen, vaginal pessaries, and creams. They grouped HRT use by recent (within the past 5 years) and past (5 or more years ago) and HRT duration as short term (less than 5 years) and long term (5 years or longer). Results were adjusted for a range of factors that could affect breast cancer risk, including lifestyle, smoking, alcohol consumption, other medical conditions, family history, and use of other prescribed drugs.

The analysis included 98,611 women aged 50-79 years who were first diagnosed with breast cancer between 1998 and 2019. These women were matched by age and general practice to 457,498 women who were not diagnosed with breast cancer over these years. HRT use was reported in 34% (33,703) of women with breast cancer and in 31% (134,391) of women without breast cancer.

Overall, the risk for breast cancer was increased with use of most HRT drugs (adjusted odds ratio, 1.21; 95% confidence, 1.19-1.23), compared with not using HRT drugs. The highest risk was tied to combined estrogen/progestogen HRT (adjusted OR, 1.26; 95% CI, 1.24-1.29). The lowest risk was tied to estrogen-only HRT (adjusted OR, 1.06; 95% CI, 1.03-1.10). Estrogen cream and vaginal estrogen were not associated with increased breast cancer risk.

In general, breast cancer risk was higher among recent HRT users and those receiving long-term therapy. HRT-associated breast cancer risk increased with age and declined after discontinuing treatment. Therapy of less than 1 year was not associated with increased breast cancer risk.

Women who had recently been receiving long-term combined estrogen/progestogen HRT had a 79% increased risk for breast cancer (adjusted OR, 1.79; 95% CI, 1.73-1.85), compared with never-users. Among recent long-term users of combined HRT, breast cancer risk was highest for norethisterone (adjusted OR, 1.88; 95% CI, 1.79-1.99) and lowest for dydrogesterone (adjusted OR, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.03-1.48). Women who had recently been receiving long-term estrogen-only HRT had a 15% increased risk for breast cancer compared to never-users (adjusted OR, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.09-1.21).

Among women who discontinued HRT 5 or more years ago, risk for breast cancer was no longer increased for long-term estrogen-only therapy and short-term estrogen/progestogen therapy. However, breast cancer risk remained elevated 5 years after discontinuing long-term estrogen/progestogen (adjusted OR, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.11-1.21).

HRT-associated risk for breast cancer increased with age across all durations of therapy.

Compared with never-use, recent long-term estrogen-only therapy was associated with zero extra breast cancer cases per 10,000 women-years among women aged 50-59 years and eight extra cases per 10,000 women-years among women aged 70-79.

Recent long-term estrogen/progestogen use was associated with 15 extra breast cancer cases among women aged 50-59 and 36 extra cases among women aged 70-79 per 10,000 women-years.

Past long-term estrogen/progestogen use was associated with zero extra breast cancer cases among women aged 50-59 and eight extra cases among women aged 70-79 per 10,000 women-years.

Summarizing, Dr. Vinogradova said the increased risk for breast cancer with HRT appears to be “relatively small, particularly for younger women and for any women who use HRT only for a restricted period.”

Decisions about whether to use HRT and which type to use should depend on symptom severity, patient factors, and suitability of other treatment options, she commented.

“Particularly for those women who our study has shown to be most at risk, these decisions should be made through discussions between the patient and her doctor,” she concluded. “We hope that the new and more detailed information provided by our study will facilitate such prescribing decisions.”

The study was partially funded by the School for Primary Care Research of the National Institute for Health Research, by Cancer Research UK, and by the Cancer Research UK Oxford Center. Dr. Vinogradova has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Senior author Julia Hippisley-Cox is an unpaid director of QResearch and was a paid director of ClinRisk until 2019. The other authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

A version of this story originally appeared on Medscape.com.

A new, large study has confirmed that different types of hormone replacement therapy (HRT) are associated with an increased risk for breast cancer and has provided additional information on factors associated with that increased risk.

The study was published online on October 28 in The BMJ.

“The study confirms increased risk of breast cancer in patients taking HRT but shows that the magnitude of risk depends on a number of factors,” first author Yana Vinogradova, PhD, said in an interview. Dr. Vinogradova is a medical statistician at the University of Nottingham (England).

The study also suggests the risk may be lower than was estimated in a large meta-analysis of 24 trials that was published in 2019 in The Lancet. In that study, researchers suggested the risk for breast cancer with HRT was higher and persisted longer than had been thought.

This conclusion from the meta-analysis was widely reported in the lay press and led to the UK Medicine and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency issuing a safety alert for HRT regarding breast cancer. Experts in the field questioned the alert and said it caused undue anxiety. The European Medicines Agency also issued a safety alert because of the study.

This new study was begun before publication of the meta-analysis. Although the results are broadly similar in suggesting increased risk for breast cancer with HRT use, findings from the new study suggest the risk is lower than had been estimated in the meta-analysis and that the risk diminishes more rapidly after stopping HRT than was suggested by the meta-analysis.

“The publicity surrounding publication of the meta-analysis highlighted unexpectedly high risks and led to a heightened level of concern in some quarters,” Dr. Vinogradova commented. “Our study, based on general population data, has not confirmed any such findings. In general, it showed lower levels of risk and clarified the variability of magnitude within them.”

Dr. Vinogradova said the discrepancy could be related to the fact that the studies were designed differently. The meta-analysis relied on results from 24 studies that were conducted around the world at different periods and included women of different ages and backgrounds. The studies in the meta-analysis used different methods, including questionnaires that relied on women’s memories and therefore could have been biased, she said.

In contrast, the new study analyzed EMR data collected prospectively by general practices in the United Kingdom. The data came from the QResearch and from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) databases, the two largest primary care databases in the United Kingdom, which were linked to hospital, mortality, and cancer registries.

Because this study used a “consistent design” and “consistent data sources,” these new results “are likely to be more accurate and reliable for assessing risks among HRT users,” Dr. Vinogradova commented.

This study used an observational design, so it cannot prove that HRT causes breast cancer. These results may better represent women in the general U.K. population, compared with the earlier meta-analysis, she added.

Commenting on the new study, Michael Jones, PhD, senior staff scientist in genetics and epidemiology at the Institute of Cancer Research, London, also emphasized that it was large and its data came from general practitioner medical records, “so the strong statistical associations are unlikely to be due to chance.

“The results of this study generally confirm what has been seen before and is well established – that the use of combined estrogen plus progestogen HRT is associated with increased risk of breast cancer, and this risk increases with duration of use. But reassuringly, after stopping HRT, the raised risk of breast cancer mostly returns to that seen in nonusers of HRT,” he said.

“It’s important to note that no one study should be considered in isolation,” he added. “Even though some risks were found to be slightly smaller than those reported in another meta-analysis of the worldwide epidemiological evidence recently published in 2019, women considering use of HRT should still follow advice given to them by their [general practitioners].”
 

Study details

In the study, researchers evaluated all types of HRT commonly prescribed in the United Kingdom over the past 20 years, including topical estrogen, vaginal pessaries, and creams. They grouped HRT use by recent (within the past 5 years) and past (5 or more years ago) and HRT duration as short term (less than 5 years) and long term (5 years or longer). Results were adjusted for a range of factors that could affect breast cancer risk, including lifestyle, smoking, alcohol consumption, other medical conditions, family history, and use of other prescribed drugs.

The analysis included 98,611 women aged 50-79 years who were first diagnosed with breast cancer between 1998 and 2019. These women were matched by age and general practice to 457,498 women who were not diagnosed with breast cancer over these years. HRT use was reported in 34% (33,703) of women with breast cancer and in 31% (134,391) of women without breast cancer.

Overall, the risk for breast cancer was increased with use of most HRT drugs (adjusted odds ratio, 1.21; 95% confidence, 1.19-1.23), compared with not using HRT drugs. The highest risk was tied to combined estrogen/progestogen HRT (adjusted OR, 1.26; 95% CI, 1.24-1.29). The lowest risk was tied to estrogen-only HRT (adjusted OR, 1.06; 95% CI, 1.03-1.10). Estrogen cream and vaginal estrogen were not associated with increased breast cancer risk.

In general, breast cancer risk was higher among recent HRT users and those receiving long-term therapy. HRT-associated breast cancer risk increased with age and declined after discontinuing treatment. Therapy of less than 1 year was not associated with increased breast cancer risk.

Women who had recently been receiving long-term combined estrogen/progestogen HRT had a 79% increased risk for breast cancer (adjusted OR, 1.79; 95% CI, 1.73-1.85), compared with never-users. Among recent long-term users of combined HRT, breast cancer risk was highest for norethisterone (adjusted OR, 1.88; 95% CI, 1.79-1.99) and lowest for dydrogesterone (adjusted OR, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.03-1.48). Women who had recently been receiving long-term estrogen-only HRT had a 15% increased risk for breast cancer compared to never-users (adjusted OR, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.09-1.21).

Among women who discontinued HRT 5 or more years ago, risk for breast cancer was no longer increased for long-term estrogen-only therapy and short-term estrogen/progestogen therapy. However, breast cancer risk remained elevated 5 years after discontinuing long-term estrogen/progestogen (adjusted OR, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.11-1.21).

HRT-associated risk for breast cancer increased with age across all durations of therapy.

Compared with never-use, recent long-term estrogen-only therapy was associated with zero extra breast cancer cases per 10,000 women-years among women aged 50-59 years and eight extra cases per 10,000 women-years among women aged 70-79.

Recent long-term estrogen/progestogen use was associated with 15 extra breast cancer cases among women aged 50-59 and 36 extra cases among women aged 70-79 per 10,000 women-years.

Past long-term estrogen/progestogen use was associated with zero extra breast cancer cases among women aged 50-59 and eight extra cases among women aged 70-79 per 10,000 women-years.

Summarizing, Dr. Vinogradova said the increased risk for breast cancer with HRT appears to be “relatively small, particularly for younger women and for any women who use HRT only for a restricted period.”

Decisions about whether to use HRT and which type to use should depend on symptom severity, patient factors, and suitability of other treatment options, she commented.

“Particularly for those women who our study has shown to be most at risk, these decisions should be made through discussions between the patient and her doctor,” she concluded. “We hope that the new and more detailed information provided by our study will facilitate such prescribing decisions.”

The study was partially funded by the School for Primary Care Research of the National Institute for Health Research, by Cancer Research UK, and by the Cancer Research UK Oxford Center. Dr. Vinogradova has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Senior author Julia Hippisley-Cox is an unpaid director of QResearch and was a paid director of ClinRisk until 2019. The other authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

A version of this story originally appeared on Medscape.com.

Sexual dysfunction is a common treatment-related problem observed across numerous cancer diagnoses, and a new survey finds that 87% of cancer survivors have had such problems.

However, most of them also reported that their oncologist had not formally discussed the topic, and female patients were particularly unlikely to be asked about sexual dysfunction.

“The main takeaway from our study is that sexual side effects following treatment are very common,” said lead author James Taylor, MD, MPH, chief resident in radiation oncology at the Sidney Kimmel Cancer Center at Thomas Jefferson University in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

“Nearly 9 in 10 patients reported some change after cancer treatment that negatively affected their sexual health,” he said.

Taylor was speaking at the American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) Annual Meeting, held virtually this year because of the pandemic.

“Negative effects on sexual health after cancer treatment are unfortunately very common,” he said. “This is not just patients treated with radiation but this includes chemotherapy, hormonal therapy, surgery, and other treatment modalities.”

Potential issues include physical complications such as erectile dysfunction with prostate cancer treatment or vaginal dryness with gynecological cancer treatment. One recent study found that one-third of men who had undergone treatment for prostate cancer reported that a subsequent lack of sexual function has had the greatest impact on their quality of life. Another study reported that nearly all patients with breast cancer taking endocrine therapy experience a high degree of sexual dysfunction, including vulvovaginal dryness and severe dyspareunia.
 

Not discussed, not warned

Taylor and colleagues developed a questionnaire with input from radiation oncologists, medical oncologists, and surgeons, which consisted of more than 25 questions and was specifically targeted at cancer survivors.

A total of 405 adults completed the electronic survey about their experiences with sexual side effects after cancer treatment (391 responses were eligible for analysis). Most of the respondents were women (81%), and the most common cancer types were breast (67%), prostate (16%), and endometrial (6%). Treatments included chemotherapy (78%), radiation therapy (54%), and hormone therapy (47%).

“The questionnaires were distributed at Thomas Jefferson and throughout social media,” said Taylor. “The responses from social media are important because it shows a broad representation of patients who are treated in multiple clinics across the United States.”

Most of the survivors who responded (n = 337, 87%) stated cancer treatment had impacted sexual function or desire, with 53.8% reporting body image distortion, 73.4% with dyspareunia, and 42.3% unable to achieve orgasm.

Only about one-quarter (27.9%) said they had been formally asked about their sexual health by their clinician.

“Only about 40% said that they have been preemptively warned that their sexual health may be affected by treatment,” said Taylor.

Women were far less likely to be asked about their sexual health by their provider. The survey showed that male respondents were twice as likely to say they had been asked about sexual health and counseled about the potential toxicity (53% vs 22%; P < .001), and a substantially higher percentage of men reported receiving a formal assessment tool such as a survey (32% vs 5%; P = .001) compared with female respondents.

Taylor noted that the survey demonstrated several things. “One is that sexual toxicity is exceedingly common, and number two, it identified a gender disparity,” he said. “But number 3, and I think that this is an important aspect of our study, is that the majority of respondents felt that they would like a standard questionnaire to initiate and guide a discussion on sexual health with their provider.”

The reason that aspect is very important, he emphasized, is that “we know metrics and questionnaires already exist, so this gives us an actionable intervention that we can distribute and help mitigate some of these disparities.”
 

Importance of being holistic

The results of the survey “highlight the importance of being holistic in our approach to patient survivorship,” commented Karen Winkfield, MD, PhD, associate professor of radiation oncology at Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, and executive director of the Meharry-Vanderbilt Alliance, Nashville, Tennessee.

“We need to ask patients about all parts of their well-being, including sexual health,” Winkfield said. “Body dysmorphism can impact anyone, but especially patients who have had surgery or radiation,” she said, while chemotherapy can impact energy and libido and have other toxicities that impact sexual health.

“I encourage all oncologists to ask patients about their sexual health, and a standardized form that can be used across all sites will make this much easier,” Winkfield commented. “We owe it to our patients to treat them holistically.”

The authors have reported no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Sexual dysfunction is a common treatment-related problem observed across numerous cancer diagnoses, and a new survey finds that 87% of cancer survivors have had such problems.

However, most of them also reported that their oncologist had not formally discussed the topic, and female patients were particularly unlikely to be asked about sexual dysfunction.

“The main takeaway from our study is that sexual side effects following treatment are very common,” said lead author James Taylor, MD, MPH, chief resident in radiation oncology at the Sidney Kimmel Cancer Center at Thomas Jefferson University in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

“Nearly 9 in 10 patients reported some change after cancer treatment that negatively affected their sexual health,” he said.

Taylor was speaking at the American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) Annual Meeting, held virtually this year because of the pandemic.

“Negative effects on sexual health after cancer treatment are unfortunately very common,” he said. “This is not just patients treated with radiation but this includes chemotherapy, hormonal therapy, surgery, and other treatment modalities.”

Potential issues include physical complications such as erectile dysfunction with prostate cancer treatment or vaginal dryness with gynecological cancer treatment. One recent study found that one-third of men who had undergone treatment for prostate cancer reported that a subsequent lack of sexual function has had the greatest impact on their quality of life. Another study reported that nearly all patients with breast cancer taking endocrine therapy experience a high degree of sexual dysfunction, including vulvovaginal dryness and severe dyspareunia.
 

Not discussed, not warned

Taylor and colleagues developed a questionnaire with input from radiation oncologists, medical oncologists, and surgeons, which consisted of more than 25 questions and was specifically targeted at cancer survivors.

A total of 405 adults completed the electronic survey about their experiences with sexual side effects after cancer treatment (391 responses were eligible for analysis). Most of the respondents were women (81%), and the most common cancer types were breast (67%), prostate (16%), and endometrial (6%). Treatments included chemotherapy (78%), radiation therapy (54%), and hormone therapy (47%).

“The questionnaires were distributed at Thomas Jefferson and throughout social media,” said Taylor. “The responses from social media are important because it shows a broad representation of patients who are treated in multiple clinics across the United States.”

Most of the survivors who responded (n = 337, 87%) stated cancer treatment had impacted sexual function or desire, with 53.8% reporting body image distortion, 73.4% with dyspareunia, and 42.3% unable to achieve orgasm.

Only about one-quarter (27.9%) said they had been formally asked about their sexual health by their clinician.

“Only about 40% said that they have been preemptively warned that their sexual health may be affected by treatment,” said Taylor.

Women were far less likely to be asked about their sexual health by their provider. The survey showed that male respondents were twice as likely to say they had been asked about sexual health and counseled about the potential toxicity (53% vs 22%; P < .001), and a substantially higher percentage of men reported receiving a formal assessment tool such as a survey (32% vs 5%; P = .001) compared with female respondents.

Taylor noted that the survey demonstrated several things. “One is that sexual toxicity is exceedingly common, and number two, it identified a gender disparity,” he said. “But number 3, and I think that this is an important aspect of our study, is that the majority of respondents felt that they would like a standard questionnaire to initiate and guide a discussion on sexual health with their provider.”

The reason that aspect is very important, he emphasized, is that “we know metrics and questionnaires already exist, so this gives us an actionable intervention that we can distribute and help mitigate some of these disparities.”
 

Importance of being holistic

The results of the survey “highlight the importance of being holistic in our approach to patient survivorship,” commented Karen Winkfield, MD, PhD, associate professor of radiation oncology at Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, and executive director of the Meharry-Vanderbilt Alliance, Nashville, Tennessee.

“We need to ask patients about all parts of their well-being, including sexual health,” Winkfield said. “Body dysmorphism can impact anyone, but especially patients who have had surgery or radiation,” she said, while chemotherapy can impact energy and libido and have other toxicities that impact sexual health.

“I encourage all oncologists to ask patients about their sexual health, and a standardized form that can be used across all sites will make this much easier,” Winkfield commented. “We owe it to our patients to treat them holistically.”

The authors have reported no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Sexual dysfunction is a common treatment-related problem observed across numerous cancer diagnoses, and a new survey finds that 87% of cancer survivors have had such problems.

However, most of them also reported that their oncologist had not formally discussed the topic, and female patients were particularly unlikely to be asked about sexual dysfunction.

“The main takeaway from our study is that sexual side effects following treatment are very common,” said lead author James Taylor, MD, MPH, chief resident in radiation oncology at the Sidney Kimmel Cancer Center at Thomas Jefferson University in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

“Nearly 9 in 10 patients reported some change after cancer treatment that negatively affected their sexual health,” he said.

Taylor was speaking at the American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) Annual Meeting, held virtually this year because of the pandemic.

“Negative effects on sexual health after cancer treatment are unfortunately very common,” he said. “This is not just patients treated with radiation but this includes chemotherapy, hormonal therapy, surgery, and other treatment modalities.”

Potential issues include physical complications such as erectile dysfunction with prostate cancer treatment or vaginal dryness with gynecological cancer treatment. One recent study found that one-third of men who had undergone treatment for prostate cancer reported that a subsequent lack of sexual function has had the greatest impact on their quality of life. Another study reported that nearly all patients with breast cancer taking endocrine therapy experience a high degree of sexual dysfunction, including vulvovaginal dryness and severe dyspareunia.
 

Not discussed, not warned

Taylor and colleagues developed a questionnaire with input from radiation oncologists, medical oncologists, and surgeons, which consisted of more than 25 questions and was specifically targeted at cancer survivors.

A total of 405 adults completed the electronic survey about their experiences with sexual side effects after cancer treatment (391 responses were eligible for analysis). Most of the respondents were women (81%), and the most common cancer types were breast (67%), prostate (16%), and endometrial (6%). Treatments included chemotherapy (78%), radiation therapy (54%), and hormone therapy (47%).

“The questionnaires were distributed at Thomas Jefferson and throughout social media,” said Taylor. “The responses from social media are important because it shows a broad representation of patients who are treated in multiple clinics across the United States.”

Most of the survivors who responded (n = 337, 87%) stated cancer treatment had impacted sexual function or desire, with 53.8% reporting body image distortion, 73.4% with dyspareunia, and 42.3% unable to achieve orgasm.

Only about one-quarter (27.9%) said they had been formally asked about their sexual health by their clinician.

“Only about 40% said that they have been preemptively warned that their sexual health may be affected by treatment,” said Taylor.

Women were far less likely to be asked about their sexual health by their provider. The survey showed that male respondents were twice as likely to say they had been asked about sexual health and counseled about the potential toxicity (53% vs 22%; P < .001), and a substantially higher percentage of men reported receiving a formal assessment tool such as a survey (32% vs 5%; P = .001) compared with female respondents.

Taylor noted that the survey demonstrated several things. “One is that sexual toxicity is exceedingly common, and number two, it identified a gender disparity,” he said. “But number 3, and I think that this is an important aspect of our study, is that the majority of respondents felt that they would like a standard questionnaire to initiate and guide a discussion on sexual health with their provider.”

The reason that aspect is very important, he emphasized, is that “we know metrics and questionnaires already exist, so this gives us an actionable intervention that we can distribute and help mitigate some of these disparities.”
 

Importance of being holistic

The results of the survey “highlight the importance of being holistic in our approach to patient survivorship,” commented Karen Winkfield, MD, PhD, associate professor of radiation oncology at Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, and executive director of the Meharry-Vanderbilt Alliance, Nashville, Tennessee.

“We need to ask patients about all parts of their well-being, including sexual health,” Winkfield said. “Body dysmorphism can impact anyone, but especially patients who have had surgery or radiation,” she said, while chemotherapy can impact energy and libido and have other toxicities that impact sexual health.

“I encourage all oncologists to ask patients about their sexual health, and a standardized form that can be used across all sites will make this much easier,” Winkfield commented. “We owe it to our patients to treat them holistically.”

The authors have reported no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

For patients with diabetic kidney disease, finerenone, an agent from a new class of selective, nonsteroidal mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists, led to significant reductions in combined adverse renal outcomes and in combined adverse cardiovascular outcomes in the pivotal FIDELIO-DKD trial.

And the safety results showed a good level of tolerability. The rate of hyperkalemia was higher with finerenone than with placebo, but the rate of drug discontinuations for elevated potassium was lower than that seen with spironolactone, a steroidal mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist (MRA).

“An ideal drug would cause no hyperkalemia, but the absolute risk we saw is a fraction of what we see with spironolactone in this vulnerable patient population,” said Rajiv Agarwal, MD, from Indiana in Indianapolis, during a press briefing.

After a median follow-up of 2.6 years, finerenone was associated with a 3.4% absolute reduction in the rate of combined adverse renal events, the study’s primary end point, which comprised kidney failure, renal death, and a drop in estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) of at least 40% from baseline. This produced a significant relative risk reduction of 18%, with a number needed to treat of 32 to prevent one of these events, Dr. Agarwal reported at Kidney Week 2020. Findings from the FIDELIO-DKD trial were published simultaneously in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Finerenone was also associated with an absolute 2.4% reduction in the rate of combined adverse cardiovascular events, the study’s “key secondary end point,” which included cardiovascular death, nonfatal MI, nonfatal stroke, and hospitalization for heart failure. This translated into a significant relative risk reduction of 14% and a number needed to treat of 42 to prevent one of these events.

FIDELIO-DKD assessed 5,734 patients with type 2 diabetes and chronic kidney disease from more than 1,000 sites in 48 countries, including the United States, from 2015 to 2018. In the study cohort, average age was slightly more than 65 years, average baseline systolic blood pressure was 138 mm Hg, average duration of diabetes was nearly 17 years, average baseline glycated hemoglobin (A1c) was 7.7%, and fewer than 5% of patients were Black, 25% were Asian, and about 63% were White.
 

A suggestion of less severe hyperkalemia

Finerenone was well tolerated by the participants, and the findings suggest that it caused less clinically meaningful hyperkalemia than spironolactone, the most established and widely used MRA.

Like all MRA drugs, finerenone led to an increase in serum potassium in all patient subgroups – in this case 0.2 mmol/L – unlike placebo, said Dr. Agarwal.

The overall incidence of hyperkalemia was 16% in the 2,827 evaluable patients in the finerenone group and 8% in the 2,831 evaluable patients in the placebo group. Fewer than 10% of patients in the trial received a potassium-binding agent.

The rate of hyperkalemia leading to treatment discontinuation was higher in the finerenone group than in the placebo group (2.3% vs. 0.9%).

That 2.3% rate is 10 times lower than the 23.0% rate of hyperkalemia-related treatment discontinuation in patients who received spironolactone and no potassium-binding agent, said Dr. Agarwal, citing a previous study he was involved with.

He hypothesized that finerenone might cause less clinically meaningful hyperkalemia because it creates no active metabolites that linger in the body, whereas spironolactone produces active metabolites with a half life of about 1 week.

“The risk for hyperkalemia is clearly increased with finerenone compared with placebo, and in the absence of head-to-head studies, it’s hard to know how it compares with spironolactone or eplerenone [Inspra],” the other agents in the MRA class, said Mikhail N. Kosiborod, MD, from the University of Missouri–Kansas City.

“The rates of hyperkalemia observed in FIDELIO-DKD were overall comparable to what we would expect from eplerenone. But the rate of serious hyperkalemia was quite low with finerenone, which is reassuring,” Dr. Kosiborod said in an interview.

And the adverse-effect profile showed that finerenone “is as safe as you could expect from an MRA,” said Janani Rangaswami, MD, from the Einstein Medical Center in Philadelphia.

The rate of hyperkalemia should be interpreted in the context of the high risk the enrolled patients faced, given that they all had moderate to severe diabetic kidney disease with albuminuria and, in some cases, eGFR rates as low as 25 mL/min per 1.73m², she explained. In addition, all patients were on maximally tolerated treatment with either an angiotensin-converting–enzyme inhibitor or an angiotensin receptor blocker to inhibit the renin angiotensin system (RAS).

“Considering this background, it’s a very acceptable adverse-event profile,” Dr. Rangaswami said in an interview.
 

Renal drugs that could work together

More than 99% of patients in FIDELIO-DKD were on an RAS inhibitor, but fewer than 5% were on a sodium glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor at baseline, and fewer than 10% started on this drug class during the course of the study.

Despite that, both Dr. Kosiborod and Dr. Rangaswami are enthusiastic about the prospect of using the three drugs in combination to maximize renal and cardiovascular benefits in FIDELIO-DKD–type patients. Recent results from the CREDENCE study of canagliflozin (Invokana) and from the DAPA-CKD study of dapagluflozin (Farxiga) have established SGLT2 inhibitors – at least those two – as key agents for patients with chronic kidney disease.

Dual treatment with an RAS inhibitor and an SGLT2 inhibitor is “clearly established” for patients with diabetic kidney disease, said Dr. Agarwal.

“After CREDENCE, DAPA-CKD, and now FIDELIO-DKD, we need to seriously consider triple therapy as the future of treatment for diabetic kidney disease to prevent both cardiovascular and kidney complications,” said Dr. Kosiborod. The approach will mimic the multidrug therapy that’s now standard for patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). But he cautioned that this triple combination needs further testing.

“Triple therapy will be the standard of care” for patients with diabetic kidney disease, Dr. Rangaswami agreed, but she cautioned that she would not currently expand the target population for finerenone to patients without type 2 diabetes or to patients without the level of albuminuria required for entry into FIDELIO-DKD: at least 30 mg/g of creatinine per day. And patients with HFrEF were excluded from FIDELIO-DKD, so that limitation on finerenone use should remain for the time being, she added.

Dr. Rangaswami said she is optimistic about the potential efficacy of finerenone added to an SGLT2 inhibitor because of the likelihood that the two drug classes work in different but complementary ways. SGLT2 inhibitors seem to exert their renal protective effects largely through hemodynamic effects, whereas it is likely that finerenone exerts its effects largely as an anti-inflammatory and antifibrotic agent, she speculated. The FIDELIO-DKD results appear to rule out any major effect of finerenone on blood pressure lowering because average systolic pressure fell by only about 2 mm Hg in the treatment group.

“The benefits of finerenone for cardiorenal outcomes are substantial and clinically meaningful,” Dr. Kosiborod said. “We cannot assume that other MRAs, such as spironolactone, provide similar benefits,” he cautioned, but the results are “very good news for patients with type 2 diabetes and chronic kidney disease. We now have another effective intervention with a different mechanism of action.”

FIDELIO-DKD was sponsored by Bayer, the company developing finerenone (BAY 94-8862). Dr. Agarwal has been a consultant to and has received honoraria from Bayer and from several other companies. Dr. Kosiborod has been a consultant to Bayer and to AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Jansse, Merck, and Vifor and has received research funding from AstraZeneca and Boehringer Ingelheim. Dr. Rangaswami has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

For patients with diabetic kidney disease, finerenone, an agent from a new class of selective, nonsteroidal mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists, led to significant reductions in combined adverse renal outcomes and in combined adverse cardiovascular outcomes in the pivotal FIDELIO-DKD trial.

And the safety results showed a good level of tolerability. The rate of hyperkalemia was higher with finerenone than with placebo, but the rate of drug discontinuations for elevated potassium was lower than that seen with spironolactone, a steroidal mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist (MRA).

“An ideal drug would cause no hyperkalemia, but the absolute risk we saw is a fraction of what we see with spironolactone in this vulnerable patient population,” said Rajiv Agarwal, MD, from Indiana in Indianapolis, during a press briefing.

After a median follow-up of 2.6 years, finerenone was associated with a 3.4% absolute reduction in the rate of combined adverse renal events, the study’s primary end point, which comprised kidney failure, renal death, and a drop in estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) of at least 40% from baseline. This produced a significant relative risk reduction of 18%, with a number needed to treat of 32 to prevent one of these events, Dr. Agarwal reported at Kidney Week 2020. Findings from the FIDELIO-DKD trial were published simultaneously in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Finerenone was also associated with an absolute 2.4% reduction in the rate of combined adverse cardiovascular events, the study’s “key secondary end point,” which included cardiovascular death, nonfatal MI, nonfatal stroke, and hospitalization for heart failure. This translated into a significant relative risk reduction of 14% and a number needed to treat of 42 to prevent one of these events.

FIDELIO-DKD assessed 5,734 patients with type 2 diabetes and chronic kidney disease from more than 1,000 sites in 48 countries, including the United States, from 2015 to 2018. In the study cohort, average age was slightly more than 65 years, average baseline systolic blood pressure was 138 mm Hg, average duration of diabetes was nearly 17 years, average baseline glycated hemoglobin (A1c) was 7.7%, and fewer than 5% of patients were Black, 25% were Asian, and about 63% were White.
 

A suggestion of less severe hyperkalemia

Finerenone was well tolerated by the participants, and the findings suggest that it caused less clinically meaningful hyperkalemia than spironolactone, the most established and widely used MRA.

Like all MRA drugs, finerenone led to an increase in serum potassium in all patient subgroups – in this case 0.2 mmol/L – unlike placebo, said Dr. Agarwal.

The overall incidence of hyperkalemia was 16% in the 2,827 evaluable patients in the finerenone group and 8% in the 2,831 evaluable patients in the placebo group. Fewer than 10% of patients in the trial received a potassium-binding agent.

The rate of hyperkalemia leading to treatment discontinuation was higher in the finerenone group than in the placebo group (2.3% vs. 0.9%).

That 2.3% rate is 10 times lower than the 23.0% rate of hyperkalemia-related treatment discontinuation in patients who received spironolactone and no potassium-binding agent, said Dr. Agarwal, citing a previous study he was involved with.

He hypothesized that finerenone might cause less clinically meaningful hyperkalemia because it creates no active metabolites that linger in the body, whereas spironolactone produces active metabolites with a half life of about 1 week.

“The risk for hyperkalemia is clearly increased with finerenone compared with placebo, and in the absence of head-to-head studies, it’s hard to know how it compares with spironolactone or eplerenone [Inspra],” the other agents in the MRA class, said Mikhail N. Kosiborod, MD, from the University of Missouri–Kansas City.

“The rates of hyperkalemia observed in FIDELIO-DKD were overall comparable to what we would expect from eplerenone. But the rate of serious hyperkalemia was quite low with finerenone, which is reassuring,” Dr. Kosiborod said in an interview.

And the adverse-effect profile showed that finerenone “is as safe as you could expect from an MRA,” said Janani Rangaswami, MD, from the Einstein Medical Center in Philadelphia.

The rate of hyperkalemia should be interpreted in the context of the high risk the enrolled patients faced, given that they all had moderate to severe diabetic kidney disease with albuminuria and, in some cases, eGFR rates as low as 25 mL/min per 1.73m², she explained. In addition, all patients were on maximally tolerated treatment with either an angiotensin-converting–enzyme inhibitor or an angiotensin receptor blocker to inhibit the renin angiotensin system (RAS).

“Considering this background, it’s a very acceptable adverse-event profile,” Dr. Rangaswami said in an interview.
 

Renal drugs that could work together

More than 99% of patients in FIDELIO-DKD were on an RAS inhibitor, but fewer than 5% were on a sodium glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor at baseline, and fewer than 10% started on this drug class during the course of the study.

Despite that, both Dr. Kosiborod and Dr. Rangaswami are enthusiastic about the prospect of using the three drugs in combination to maximize renal and cardiovascular benefits in FIDELIO-DKD–type patients. Recent results from the CREDENCE study of canagliflozin (Invokana) and from the DAPA-CKD study of dapagluflozin (Farxiga) have established SGLT2 inhibitors – at least those two – as key agents for patients with chronic kidney disease.

Dual treatment with an RAS inhibitor and an SGLT2 inhibitor is “clearly established” for patients with diabetic kidney disease, said Dr. Agarwal.

“After CREDENCE, DAPA-CKD, and now FIDELIO-DKD, we need to seriously consider triple therapy as the future of treatment for diabetic kidney disease to prevent both cardiovascular and kidney complications,” said Dr. Kosiborod. The approach will mimic the multidrug therapy that’s now standard for patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). But he cautioned that this triple combination needs further testing.

“Triple therapy will be the standard of care” for patients with diabetic kidney disease, Dr. Rangaswami agreed, but she cautioned that she would not currently expand the target population for finerenone to patients without type 2 diabetes or to patients without the level of albuminuria required for entry into FIDELIO-DKD: at least 30 mg/g of creatinine per day. And patients with HFrEF were excluded from FIDELIO-DKD, so that limitation on finerenone use should remain for the time being, she added.

Dr. Rangaswami said she is optimistic about the potential efficacy of finerenone added to an SGLT2 inhibitor because of the likelihood that the two drug classes work in different but complementary ways. SGLT2 inhibitors seem to exert their renal protective effects largely through hemodynamic effects, whereas it is likely that finerenone exerts its effects largely as an anti-inflammatory and antifibrotic agent, she speculated. The FIDELIO-DKD results appear to rule out any major effect of finerenone on blood pressure lowering because average systolic pressure fell by only about 2 mm Hg in the treatment group.

“The benefits of finerenone for cardiorenal outcomes are substantial and clinically meaningful,” Dr. Kosiborod said. “We cannot assume that other MRAs, such as spironolactone, provide similar benefits,” he cautioned, but the results are “very good news for patients with type 2 diabetes and chronic kidney disease. We now have another effective intervention with a different mechanism of action.”

FIDELIO-DKD was sponsored by Bayer, the company developing finerenone (BAY 94-8862). Dr. Agarwal has been a consultant to and has received honoraria from Bayer and from several other companies. Dr. Kosiborod has been a consultant to Bayer and to AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Jansse, Merck, and Vifor and has received research funding from AstraZeneca and Boehringer Ingelheim. Dr. Rangaswami has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

For patients with diabetic kidney disease, finerenone, an agent from a new class of selective, nonsteroidal mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists, led to significant reductions in combined adverse renal outcomes and in combined adverse cardiovascular outcomes in the pivotal FIDELIO-DKD trial.

And the safety results showed a good level of tolerability. The rate of hyperkalemia was higher with finerenone than with placebo, but the rate of drug discontinuations for elevated potassium was lower than that seen with spironolactone, a steroidal mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist (MRA).

“An ideal drug would cause no hyperkalemia, but the absolute risk we saw is a fraction of what we see with spironolactone in this vulnerable patient population,” said Rajiv Agarwal, MD, from Indiana in Indianapolis, during a press briefing.

After a median follow-up of 2.6 years, finerenone was associated with a 3.4% absolute reduction in the rate of combined adverse renal events, the study’s primary end point, which comprised kidney failure, renal death, and a drop in estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) of at least 40% from baseline. This produced a significant relative risk reduction of 18%, with a number needed to treat of 32 to prevent one of these events, Dr. Agarwal reported at Kidney Week 2020. Findings from the FIDELIO-DKD trial were published simultaneously in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Finerenone was also associated with an absolute 2.4% reduction in the rate of combined adverse cardiovascular events, the study’s “key secondary end point,” which included cardiovascular death, nonfatal MI, nonfatal stroke, and hospitalization for heart failure. This translated into a significant relative risk reduction of 14% and a number needed to treat of 42 to prevent one of these events.

FIDELIO-DKD assessed 5,734 patients with type 2 diabetes and chronic kidney disease from more than 1,000 sites in 48 countries, including the United States, from 2015 to 2018. In the study cohort, average age was slightly more than 65 years, average baseline systolic blood pressure was 138 mm Hg, average duration of diabetes was nearly 17 years, average baseline glycated hemoglobin (A1c) was 7.7%, and fewer than 5% of patients were Black, 25% were Asian, and about 63% were White.
 

A suggestion of less severe hyperkalemia

Finerenone was well tolerated by the participants, and the findings suggest that it caused less clinically meaningful hyperkalemia than spironolactone, the most established and widely used MRA.

Like all MRA drugs, finerenone led to an increase in serum potassium in all patient subgroups – in this case 0.2 mmol/L – unlike placebo, said Dr. Agarwal.

The overall incidence of hyperkalemia was 16% in the 2,827 evaluable patients in the finerenone group and 8% in the 2,831 evaluable patients in the placebo group. Fewer than 10% of patients in the trial received a potassium-binding agent.

The rate of hyperkalemia leading to treatment discontinuation was higher in the finerenone group than in the placebo group (2.3% vs. 0.9%).

That 2.3% rate is 10 times lower than the 23.0% rate of hyperkalemia-related treatment discontinuation in patients who received spironolactone and no potassium-binding agent, said Dr. Agarwal, citing a previous study he was involved with.

He hypothesized that finerenone might cause less clinically meaningful hyperkalemia because it creates no active metabolites that linger in the body, whereas spironolactone produces active metabolites with a half life of about 1 week.

“The risk for hyperkalemia is clearly increased with finerenone compared with placebo, and in the absence of head-to-head studies, it’s hard to know how it compares with spironolactone or eplerenone [Inspra],” the other agents in the MRA class, said Mikhail N. Kosiborod, MD, from the University of Missouri–Kansas City.

“The rates of hyperkalemia observed in FIDELIO-DKD were overall comparable to what we would expect from eplerenone. But the rate of serious hyperkalemia was quite low with finerenone, which is reassuring,” Dr. Kosiborod said in an interview.

And the adverse-effect profile showed that finerenone “is as safe as you could expect from an MRA,” said Janani Rangaswami, MD, from the Einstein Medical Center in Philadelphia.

The rate of hyperkalemia should be interpreted in the context of the high risk the enrolled patients faced, given that they all had moderate to severe diabetic kidney disease with albuminuria and, in some cases, eGFR rates as low as 25 mL/min per 1.73m², she explained. In addition, all patients were on maximally tolerated treatment with either an angiotensin-converting–enzyme inhibitor or an angiotensin receptor blocker to inhibit the renin angiotensin system (RAS).

“Considering this background, it’s a very acceptable adverse-event profile,” Dr. Rangaswami said in an interview.
 

Renal drugs that could work together

More than 99% of patients in FIDELIO-DKD were on an RAS inhibitor, but fewer than 5% were on a sodium glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor at baseline, and fewer than 10% started on this drug class during the course of the study.

Despite that, both Dr. Kosiborod and Dr. Rangaswami are enthusiastic about the prospect of using the three drugs in combination to maximize renal and cardiovascular benefits in FIDELIO-DKD–type patients. Recent results from the CREDENCE study of canagliflozin (Invokana) and from the DAPA-CKD study of dapagluflozin (Farxiga) have established SGLT2 inhibitors – at least those two – as key agents for patients with chronic kidney disease.

Dual treatment with an RAS inhibitor and an SGLT2 inhibitor is “clearly established” for patients with diabetic kidney disease, said Dr. Agarwal.

“After CREDENCE, DAPA-CKD, and now FIDELIO-DKD, we need to seriously consider triple therapy as the future of treatment for diabetic kidney disease to prevent both cardiovascular and kidney complications,” said Dr. Kosiborod. The approach will mimic the multidrug therapy that’s now standard for patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). But he cautioned that this triple combination needs further testing.

“Triple therapy will be the standard of care” for patients with diabetic kidney disease, Dr. Rangaswami agreed, but she cautioned that she would not currently expand the target population for finerenone to patients without type 2 diabetes or to patients without the level of albuminuria required for entry into FIDELIO-DKD: at least 30 mg/g of creatinine per day. And patients with HFrEF were excluded from FIDELIO-DKD, so that limitation on finerenone use should remain for the time being, she added.

Dr. Rangaswami said she is optimistic about the potential efficacy of finerenone added to an SGLT2 inhibitor because of the likelihood that the two drug classes work in different but complementary ways. SGLT2 inhibitors seem to exert their renal protective effects largely through hemodynamic effects, whereas it is likely that finerenone exerts its effects largely as an anti-inflammatory and antifibrotic agent, she speculated. The FIDELIO-DKD results appear to rule out any major effect of finerenone on blood pressure lowering because average systolic pressure fell by only about 2 mm Hg in the treatment group.

“The benefits of finerenone for cardiorenal outcomes are substantial and clinically meaningful,” Dr. Kosiborod said. “We cannot assume that other MRAs, such as spironolactone, provide similar benefits,” he cautioned, but the results are “very good news for patients with type 2 diabetes and chronic kidney disease. We now have another effective intervention with a different mechanism of action.”

FIDELIO-DKD was sponsored by Bayer, the company developing finerenone (BAY 94-8862). Dr. Agarwal has been a consultant to and has received honoraria from Bayer and from several other companies. Dr. Kosiborod has been a consultant to Bayer and to AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Jansse, Merck, and Vifor and has received research funding from AstraZeneca and Boehringer Ingelheim. Dr. Rangaswami has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

Tocilizumab (Actemra/RoActemra) was not found to have any clear role as a treatment for COVID-19 in four new studies.

Three randomized controlled trials showed that the drug either had no benefit or only a modest one, contradicting a large retrospective study that had hinted at a more robust effect.

“This is not a blockbuster,” said David Cennimo, MD, an infectious disease expert at Rutgers New Jersey Medical School, Newark, New Jersey. “This is not something that’s going to revolutionize our treatment of COVID-19.”

But some researchers still regard these studies as showing evidence that the drug benefits certain patients with severe inflammation.

The immune response to SARS-CoV-2 includes elevated levels of the cytokine interleukin-6 (IL-6). In some patients, this response becomes a nonspecific inflammation, a “cytokine storm,” involving edema and inflammatory cell infiltration in the lungs. These cases are among the most severe.

Dexamethasone has proved effective in controlling this inflammation in some patients. Researchers have theorized that a more targeted suppression of IL-6 could be even more effective or work in cases that don’t respond to dexamethasone.

A recombinant monoclonal antibody, tocilizumab blocks IL-6 receptors. It is approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for use in patients with rheumatologic disorders and cytokine release syndrome induced by chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy.

Current National Institutes of Health (NIH) guidelines recommend against the use of tocilizumab as a treatment for COVID-19, despite earlier observational studies that suggested the drug might help patients with moderate to severe disease. Controlled trials were lacking until now.

The most hopeful results in this batch came from the CORIMUNO-19 platform of open-label, randomized controlled trials of immune modulatory treatments for moderate or severe COVID-19 in France.

Published in JAMA Internal Medicine , the trial recruited patients from nine French hospitals. Patients were eligible if they required at least 3 L/min of oxygen without ventilation or admission to the intensive care unit.

The investigators randomly assigned 64 patients to receive tocilizumab 8 mg/kg body weight intravenously plus usual care and 67 patients to usual care alone. Usual care included antibiotic agents, antiviral agents, corticosteroids, vasopressor support, and anticoagulants.

After 4 days, the investigators scored patients on the World Health Organization 10-point Clinical Progression Scale. Twelve of the patients who received tocilizumab scored higher than 5 vs 19 of the patients in the usual care group, with higher scores indicating clinical deterioration.

After 14 days, 24% of the patients taking tocilizumab required either noninvasive ventilation or mechanical ventilation or had died, vs 36% in the usual care group (median posterior hazard ratio [HR], 0.58; 90% credible interval, 0.33 – 1.00).

“We reduced the risk of dying or requiring mechanical ventilation, so for me, the study was positive,” said Olivier Hermine, MD, PhD, a professor of hematology at Paris Descartes University in Paris, France.

However, there was no difference in mortality at 28 days. Hermine hopes to have longer-term outcomes soon, he told Medscape Medical News.

A second randomized controlled trial, also published in JAMA Internal Medicine , provided less hope. In this RCT-TCZ-COVID-19 Study Group trial, conducted at 24 Italian centers, patients were enrolled if their partial pressure of arterial oxygen to fraction of inspired oxygen (PaO₂/FiO₂) ratios were between 200 and 300 mm Hg and if their inflammatory phenotypes were defined by fever and elevated C-reactive protein level.

The investigators randomly assigned 60 patients to receive tocilizumab 8 mg/kg up to a maximum of 800 mg within 8 hours of randomization, followed by a second dose after 12 hours. They assigned 66 patients to a control group that received supportive care until clinical worsening, at which point patients could receive tocilizumab as a rescue therapy.

Of the patients who received tocilizumab, 28.3% showed clinical worsening within 14 days, compared to 27.0% in the control group (rate ratio, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.59 – 1.86). There was no significant difference between the groups in terms of the proportion admitted to intensive care. The researchers stopped the trial prematurely because tocilizumab did not seem to be making a difference.

The BACC Bay Tocilizumab Trial was conducted at seven Boston hospitals. The results, which were published in The New England Journal of Medicine, were also discouraging.

In that trial, enrolled patients met two sets of parameters. First, the patients had at least one of the following signs: C-reactive protein level higher than 50 mg/L, ferritin level higher than 500 ng/mL, D-dimer level higher than 1000 ng/mL, or a lactate dehydrogenase level higher than 250 U/L. Second, the patients had to have at least two of the following signs: body temperature >38° C, pulmonary infiltrates, or the need for supplemental oxygen to maintain an oxygen saturation greater than 92%.

The investigators randomly assigned 161 patients to receive intravenous tocilizumab 8 mg/kg up to 800 mg and 81 to receive a placebo.

They didn’t find a statistically significant difference between the groups. The hazard ratio for intubation or death in the tocilizumab group as compared with the placebo group was 0.83 (95% CI, 0.38 – 1.81; P = .64). The hazard ratio for disease worsening was 1.11 (95% CI, 0.59 – 2.10; P = .73). At 14 days, the conditions of 18.0% of the patients who received tocilizumab and 14.9% of the patients who received the placebo worsened.

In contrast to these randomized trials, STOP-COVID, a retrospective analysis of 3924 patients, also published in JAMA Internal Medicine, found that the risk for death was lower for patients treated with tocilizumab compared with those not treated with tocilizumab (HR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.56 – 0.92) over a median follow-up period of 27 days.

Also on the bright side, none of the new studies showed significant adverse reactions to tocilizumab.

More randomized clinical trials are underway. In press releases announcing topline data, Roche reported mostly negative results in its phase 3 COVACTA trial but noted a 44% reduction in the risk for progression to death or ventilation in its phase 3 IMPACTA trial. Roche did not comment on the ethnicity of its COVACTA patients; it said IMPACTA enrolled a majority of Hispanic patients and included large representations of Native American and Black patients.
 

Results don’t support routine use

Commenting on the new studies, editorialists in both JAMA Internal Medicine and The New England Journal of Medicine concluded that the tocilizumab results were not strong enough to support routine use.

“My take-home point from looking at all of these together is that, even if it does help, it’s most likely in a small subset of the population and/or a small effect,” Cennimo told Medscape Medical News.

But the NIH recommendation against tocilizumab goes too far, argued Cristina Mussini, MD, a professor of infectious diseases at the University of Modena and Reggio Emilia in Italy, who is a coauthor of a cohort study of tocilizumab and served on the CORIMUNO-19 Data Safety and Monitoring Board.

“I really think it’s too early to recommend against it because at least two clinical trials showed protection against mechanical ventilation and death,” she said.

She prescribes tocilizumab for patients who have not been helped by dexamethasone. “It’s just a rescue drug,” she told Medscape Medical News. “It’s not something you use for everybody, but it’s the only weapon we have now when the patient is really going to the intensive care unit.”

The BACC Bay Tocilizumab Trial was funded by Genentech/Roche. Genentech/Roche provided the drug for the CORIMUNO and RCT-TCZ-COVID-19 trials. The STOP-COVID study was supported by grants from the NIH and by the Frankel Cardiovascular Center COVID-19: Impact Research Ignitor. Cennimo, Hermine, and Mussini have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Tocilizumab (Actemra/RoActemra) was not found to have any clear role as a treatment for COVID-19 in four new studies.

Three randomized controlled trials showed that the drug either had no benefit or only a modest one, contradicting a large retrospective study that had hinted at a more robust effect.

“This is not a blockbuster,” said David Cennimo, MD, an infectious disease expert at Rutgers New Jersey Medical School, Newark, New Jersey. “This is not something that’s going to revolutionize our treatment of COVID-19.”

But some researchers still regard these studies as showing evidence that the drug benefits certain patients with severe inflammation.

The immune response to SARS-CoV-2 includes elevated levels of the cytokine interleukin-6 (IL-6). In some patients, this response becomes a nonspecific inflammation, a “cytokine storm,” involving edema and inflammatory cell infiltration in the lungs. These cases are among the most severe.

Dexamethasone has proved effective in controlling this inflammation in some patients. Researchers have theorized that a more targeted suppression of IL-6 could be even more effective or work in cases that don’t respond to dexamethasone.

A recombinant monoclonal antibody, tocilizumab blocks IL-6 receptors. It is approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for use in patients with rheumatologic disorders and cytokine release syndrome induced by chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy.

Current National Institutes of Health (NIH) guidelines recommend against the use of tocilizumab as a treatment for COVID-19, despite earlier observational studies that suggested the drug might help patients with moderate to severe disease. Controlled trials were lacking until now.

The most hopeful results in this batch came from the CORIMUNO-19 platform of open-label, randomized controlled trials of immune modulatory treatments for moderate or severe COVID-19 in France.

Published in JAMA Internal Medicine , the trial recruited patients from nine French hospitals. Patients were eligible if they required at least 3 L/min of oxygen without ventilation or admission to the intensive care unit.

The investigators randomly assigned 64 patients to receive tocilizumab 8 mg/kg body weight intravenously plus usual care and 67 patients to usual care alone. Usual care included antibiotic agents, antiviral agents, corticosteroids, vasopressor support, and anticoagulants.

After 4 days, the investigators scored patients on the World Health Organization 10-point Clinical Progression Scale. Twelve of the patients who received tocilizumab scored higher than 5 vs 19 of the patients in the usual care group, with higher scores indicating clinical deterioration.

After 14 days, 24% of the patients taking tocilizumab required either noninvasive ventilation or mechanical ventilation or had died, vs 36% in the usual care group (median posterior hazard ratio [HR], 0.58; 90% credible interval, 0.33 – 1.00).

“We reduced the risk of dying or requiring mechanical ventilation, so for me, the study was positive,” said Olivier Hermine, MD, PhD, a professor of hematology at Paris Descartes University in Paris, France.

However, there was no difference in mortality at 28 days. Hermine hopes to have longer-term outcomes soon, he told Medscape Medical News.

A second randomized controlled trial, also published in JAMA Internal Medicine , provided less hope. In this RCT-TCZ-COVID-19 Study Group trial, conducted at 24 Italian centers, patients were enrolled if their partial pressure of arterial oxygen to fraction of inspired oxygen (PaO₂/FiO₂) ratios were between 200 and 300 mm Hg and if their inflammatory phenotypes were defined by fever and elevated C-reactive protein level.

The investigators randomly assigned 60 patients to receive tocilizumab 8 mg/kg up to a maximum of 800 mg within 8 hours of randomization, followed by a second dose after 12 hours. They assigned 66 patients to a control group that received supportive care until clinical worsening, at which point patients could receive tocilizumab as a rescue therapy.

Of the patients who received tocilizumab, 28.3% showed clinical worsening within 14 days, compared to 27.0% in the control group (rate ratio, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.59 – 1.86). There was no significant difference between the groups in terms of the proportion admitted to intensive care. The researchers stopped the trial prematurely because tocilizumab did not seem to be making a difference.

The BACC Bay Tocilizumab Trial was conducted at seven Boston hospitals. The results, which were published in The New England Journal of Medicine, were also discouraging.

In that trial, enrolled patients met two sets of parameters. First, the patients had at least one of the following signs: C-reactive protein level higher than 50 mg/L, ferritin level higher than 500 ng/mL, D-dimer level higher than 1000 ng/mL, or a lactate dehydrogenase level higher than 250 U/L. Second, the patients had to have at least two of the following signs: body temperature >38° C, pulmonary infiltrates, or the need for supplemental oxygen to maintain an oxygen saturation greater than 92%.

The investigators randomly assigned 161 patients to receive intravenous tocilizumab 8 mg/kg up to 800 mg and 81 to receive a placebo.

They didn’t find a statistically significant difference between the groups. The hazard ratio for intubation or death in the tocilizumab group as compared with the placebo group was 0.83 (95% CI, 0.38 – 1.81; P = .64). The hazard ratio for disease worsening was 1.11 (95% CI, 0.59 – 2.10; P = .73). At 14 days, the conditions of 18.0% of the patients who received tocilizumab and 14.9% of the patients who received the placebo worsened.

In contrast to these randomized trials, STOP-COVID, a retrospective analysis of 3924 patients, also published in JAMA Internal Medicine, found that the risk for death was lower for patients treated with tocilizumab compared with those not treated with tocilizumab (HR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.56 – 0.92) over a median follow-up period of 27 days.

Also on the bright side, none of the new studies showed significant adverse reactions to tocilizumab.

More randomized clinical trials are underway. In press releases announcing topline data, Roche reported mostly negative results in its phase 3 COVACTA trial but noted a 44% reduction in the risk for progression to death or ventilation in its phase 3 IMPACTA trial. Roche did not comment on the ethnicity of its COVACTA patients; it said IMPACTA enrolled a majority of Hispanic patients and included large representations of Native American and Black patients.
 

Results don’t support routine use

Commenting on the new studies, editorialists in both JAMA Internal Medicine and The New England Journal of Medicine concluded that the tocilizumab results were not strong enough to support routine use.

“My take-home point from looking at all of these together is that, even if it does help, it’s most likely in a small subset of the population and/or a small effect,” Cennimo told Medscape Medical News.

But the NIH recommendation against tocilizumab goes too far, argued Cristina Mussini, MD, a professor of infectious diseases at the University of Modena and Reggio Emilia in Italy, who is a coauthor of a cohort study of tocilizumab and served on the CORIMUNO-19 Data Safety and Monitoring Board.

“I really think it’s too early to recommend against it because at least two clinical trials showed protection against mechanical ventilation and death,” she said.

She prescribes tocilizumab for patients who have not been helped by dexamethasone. “It’s just a rescue drug,” she told Medscape Medical News. “It’s not something you use for everybody, but it’s the only weapon we have now when the patient is really going to the intensive care unit.”

The BACC Bay Tocilizumab Trial was funded by Genentech/Roche. Genentech/Roche provided the drug for the CORIMUNO and RCT-TCZ-COVID-19 trials. The STOP-COVID study was supported by grants from the NIH and by the Frankel Cardiovascular Center COVID-19: Impact Research Ignitor. Cennimo, Hermine, and Mussini have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Tocilizumab (Actemra/RoActemra) was not found to have any clear role as a treatment for COVID-19 in four new studies.

Three randomized controlled trials showed that the drug either had no benefit or only a modest one, contradicting a large retrospective study that had hinted at a more robust effect.

“This is not a blockbuster,” said David Cennimo, MD, an infectious disease expert at Rutgers New Jersey Medical School, Newark, New Jersey. “This is not something that’s going to revolutionize our treatment of COVID-19.”

But some researchers still regard these studies as showing evidence that the drug benefits certain patients with severe inflammation.

The immune response to SARS-CoV-2 includes elevated levels of the cytokine interleukin-6 (IL-6). In some patients, this response becomes a nonspecific inflammation, a “cytokine storm,” involving edema and inflammatory cell infiltration in the lungs. These cases are among the most severe.

Dexamethasone has proved effective in controlling this inflammation in some patients. Researchers have theorized that a more targeted suppression of IL-6 could be even more effective or work in cases that don’t respond to dexamethasone.

A recombinant monoclonal antibody, tocilizumab blocks IL-6 receptors. It is approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for use in patients with rheumatologic disorders and cytokine release syndrome induced by chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy.

Current National Institutes of Health (NIH) guidelines recommend against the use of tocilizumab as a treatment for COVID-19, despite earlier observational studies that suggested the drug might help patients with moderate to severe disease. Controlled trials were lacking until now.

The most hopeful results in this batch came from the CORIMUNO-19 platform of open-label, randomized controlled trials of immune modulatory treatments for moderate or severe COVID-19 in France.

Published in JAMA Internal Medicine , the trial recruited patients from nine French hospitals. Patients were eligible if they required at least 3 L/min of oxygen without ventilation or admission to the intensive care unit.

The investigators randomly assigned 64 patients to receive tocilizumab 8 mg/kg body weight intravenously plus usual care and 67 patients to usual care alone. Usual care included antibiotic agents, antiviral agents, corticosteroids, vasopressor support, and anticoagulants.

After 4 days, the investigators scored patients on the World Health Organization 10-point Clinical Progression Scale. Twelve of the patients who received tocilizumab scored higher than 5 vs 19 of the patients in the usual care group, with higher scores indicating clinical deterioration.

After 14 days, 24% of the patients taking tocilizumab required either noninvasive ventilation or mechanical ventilation or had died, vs 36% in the usual care group (median posterior hazard ratio [HR], 0.58; 90% credible interval, 0.33 – 1.00).

“We reduced the risk of dying or requiring mechanical ventilation, so for me, the study was positive,” said Olivier Hermine, MD, PhD, a professor of hematology at Paris Descartes University in Paris, France.

However, there was no difference in mortality at 28 days. Hermine hopes to have longer-term outcomes soon, he told Medscape Medical News.

A second randomized controlled trial, also published in JAMA Internal Medicine , provided less hope. In this RCT-TCZ-COVID-19 Study Group trial, conducted at 24 Italian centers, patients were enrolled if their partial pressure of arterial oxygen to fraction of inspired oxygen (PaO₂/FiO₂) ratios were between 200 and 300 mm Hg and if their inflammatory phenotypes were defined by fever and elevated C-reactive protein level.

The investigators randomly assigned 60 patients to receive tocilizumab 8 mg/kg up to a maximum of 800 mg within 8 hours of randomization, followed by a second dose after 12 hours. They assigned 66 patients to a control group that received supportive care until clinical worsening, at which point patients could receive tocilizumab as a rescue therapy.

Of the patients who received tocilizumab, 28.3% showed clinical worsening within 14 days, compared to 27.0% in the control group (rate ratio, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.59 – 1.86). There was no significant difference between the groups in terms of the proportion admitted to intensive care. The researchers stopped the trial prematurely because tocilizumab did not seem to be making a difference.

The BACC Bay Tocilizumab Trial was conducted at seven Boston hospitals. The results, which were published in The New England Journal of Medicine, were also discouraging.

In that trial, enrolled patients met two sets of parameters. First, the patients had at least one of the following signs: C-reactive protein level higher than 50 mg/L, ferritin level higher than 500 ng/mL, D-dimer level higher than 1000 ng/mL, or a lactate dehydrogenase level higher than 250 U/L. Second, the patients had to have at least two of the following signs: body temperature >38° C, pulmonary infiltrates, or the need for supplemental oxygen to maintain an oxygen saturation greater than 92%.

The investigators randomly assigned 161 patients to receive intravenous tocilizumab 8 mg/kg up to 800 mg and 81 to receive a placebo.

They didn’t find a statistically significant difference between the groups. The hazard ratio for intubation or death in the tocilizumab group as compared with the placebo group was 0.83 (95% CI, 0.38 – 1.81; P = .64). The hazard ratio for disease worsening was 1.11 (95% CI, 0.59 – 2.10; P = .73). At 14 days, the conditions of 18.0% of the patients who received tocilizumab and 14.9% of the patients who received the placebo worsened.

In contrast to these randomized trials, STOP-COVID, a retrospective analysis of 3924 patients, also published in JAMA Internal Medicine, found that the risk for death was lower for patients treated with tocilizumab compared with those not treated with tocilizumab (HR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.56 – 0.92) over a median follow-up period of 27 days.

Also on the bright side, none of the new studies showed significant adverse reactions to tocilizumab.

More randomized clinical trials are underway. In press releases announcing topline data, Roche reported mostly negative results in its phase 3 COVACTA trial but noted a 44% reduction in the risk for progression to death or ventilation in its phase 3 IMPACTA trial. Roche did not comment on the ethnicity of its COVACTA patients; it said IMPACTA enrolled a majority of Hispanic patients and included large representations of Native American and Black patients.
 

Results don’t support routine use

Commenting on the new studies, editorialists in both JAMA Internal Medicine and The New England Journal of Medicine concluded that the tocilizumab results were not strong enough to support routine use.

“My take-home point from looking at all of these together is that, even if it does help, it’s most likely in a small subset of the population and/or a small effect,” Cennimo told Medscape Medical News.

But the NIH recommendation against tocilizumab goes too far, argued Cristina Mussini, MD, a professor of infectious diseases at the University of Modena and Reggio Emilia in Italy, who is a coauthor of a cohort study of tocilizumab and served on the CORIMUNO-19 Data Safety and Monitoring Board.

“I really think it’s too early to recommend against it because at least two clinical trials showed protection against mechanical ventilation and death,” she said.

She prescribes tocilizumab for patients who have not been helped by dexamethasone. “It’s just a rescue drug,” she told Medscape Medical News. “It’s not something you use for everybody, but it’s the only weapon we have now when the patient is really going to the intensive care unit.”

The BACC Bay Tocilizumab Trial was funded by Genentech/Roche. Genentech/Roche provided the drug for the CORIMUNO and RCT-TCZ-COVID-19 trials. The STOP-COVID study was supported by grants from the NIH and by the Frankel Cardiovascular Center COVID-19: Impact Research Ignitor. Cennimo, Hermine, and Mussini have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

New guidelines recommend against retreatment with poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors in women with epithelial ovarian, tubal, or primary peritoneal cancer (EOC). However, trials investigating retreatment are underway, so this recommendation may change.

The guidelines, from the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), do not recommend PARP inhibitors for the initial treatment of stage I-II EOC.

However, PARP inhibitor maintenance should be offered to women with newly diagnosed stage III-IV EOC who achieved a complete or partial response with first-line platinum-based chemotherapy, according to the guidelines. Niraparib can be offered to all women meeting those criteria, while olaparib can be considered for patients with mutations in BRCA1/2.

The guidelines, published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology, are based on a systematic review of recent randomized PARP inhibitor trials, including PRIMA and SOLO1, among others.

What’s not available now is overall survival results from key clinical trials, the guideline authors noted. They added that further research is needed to address the issue of conserving platinum sensitivity in patients with disease progression on or after PARP inhibitor maintenance.

“Given the expectation that early treatment may confer the best outcome, maintenance therapy with PARP inhibitors should be offered, with these caveats,” the authors wrote.

Olaparib can also be added to bevacizumab maintenance therapy following response to first-line chemotherapy plus bevacizumab, according to the guidelines, which also address PARP inhibitor use for women with recurrent EOC, as well as management of adverse events.

The guidelines recommend against pairing PARP inhibitors with chemotherapy, targeted therapy, or immunotherapy outside a clinical trial.
 

Which drug, which setting, which dose?

This new ASCO guidelines may help cut through the complexity of treatment decision-making for women with EOC, according to Roisin E. O’Cearbhaill, MD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York.

“Today as clinicians, we have a whole range of opportunities to give our patients PARP inhibitors in the upfront and recurrent setting,” Dr. O’Cearbhaill said in an interview. “It is quite complicated to know which PARP inhibitor should be used in which setting and which patients.”

“We want to make sure that patients who would derive the most benefit from PARP inhibitors are offered these agents but also that we’re careful not to use PARP inhibitors in settings where there is little or no data,” added Dr. O’Cearbhaill, who was not involved in the drafting of the guidelines.

The ASCO guidelines provide a detailed review of 17 clinical trials to address key issues, including the histologic types of EOC and biomarker subsets for which PARP inhibitors are recommended in the newly diagnosed setting, as well as the settings, dose, and duration of treatment that are recommended for patients with recurrent EOC who have not yet received a PARP inhibitor.

While PARP inhibitors are generally well tolerated, some characteristic toxicities – such as anemia, neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, persistent cytopenias, and nausea – may warrant dose reductions, the guidelines state.

Special attention must be paid to low-grade adverse events since PARP inhibitors are administered continuously on a daily basis, according to the guidelines. If a dose is held because of a grade 2 adverse event, the subsequent dose should be reduced to avoid a second dose hold.

“Reescalation or resumption of the initial dose is never recommended,” the guidelines state.
 

Retreatment

Dr. O’Cearbhaill said she is eager to see future guidelines addressing PARP inhibitor retreatment following disease progression, especially since more and more patients will receive these agents in the upfront setting.

Right now, there is little data available to address PARP inhibitor retreatment. However, the ASCO guidelines do mention the ongoing OReO/ENGOT OV-38 phase 3 trial of maintenance retreatment with olaparib in women with EOC.

This study, which includes patients who previously received a PARP inhibitor and who are responding to additional platinum-based chemotherapy, has an estimated completion date in May 2021, according to details on ClinicalTrials.gov.

That’s one of several trials designed to determine how best to incorporate PARP inhibitor retreatment into the treatment paradigm, according to Dr. O’Cearbhaill.

“Even if a high proportion of patients aren’t ultimately cured by this approach, if we can delay progression of disease by the order of months or even years, whilst proactively managing side effects, it would make such a big difference for patients,” she said. “It allows them to have a better quality of life and go about their daily activities without symptomatic ovarian cancer.”

Cochairs of the ASCO expert panel for the guidelines were William P. Tew, MD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York, and Elise C. Kohn, MD, of the National Cancer Institute in Bethesda, Md. Dr. Tew and Dr. Kohn provided no disclosures, while their coauthors reported disclosures related to Roche, AstraZeneca, Tesaro, Clovis Oncology, Merck, Seattle Genetics, and other companies. Dr. O’Cearbhaill disclosed that she is a coauthor on the PRIMA/ENGOT-OV26/GOG-3012 phase 3 clinical trial (NCT02655016) and serves on the steering committee for DUO-O (NCT0373643). She reported personal fees from Clovis, Tesaro, Regeneron, and GlaxoSmithKline.

SOURCE: Tew WP et al. J Clin Oncol. 2020 Aug 13. doi: 10.1200/JCO.20.01924.

New guidelines recommend against retreatment with poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors in women with epithelial ovarian, tubal, or primary peritoneal cancer (EOC). However, trials investigating retreatment are underway, so this recommendation may change.

The guidelines, from the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), do not recommend PARP inhibitors for the initial treatment of stage I-II EOC.

However, PARP inhibitor maintenance should be offered to women with newly diagnosed stage III-IV EOC who achieved a complete or partial response with first-line platinum-based chemotherapy, according to the guidelines. Niraparib can be offered to all women meeting those criteria, while olaparib can be considered for patients with mutations in BRCA1/2.

The guidelines, published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology, are based on a systematic review of recent randomized PARP inhibitor trials, including PRIMA and SOLO1, among others.

What’s not available now is overall survival results from key clinical trials, the guideline authors noted. They added that further research is needed to address the issue of conserving platinum sensitivity in patients with disease progression on or after PARP inhibitor maintenance.

“Given the expectation that early treatment may confer the best outcome, maintenance therapy with PARP inhibitors should be offered, with these caveats,” the authors wrote.

Olaparib can also be added to bevacizumab maintenance therapy following response to first-line chemotherapy plus bevacizumab, according to the guidelines, which also address PARP inhibitor use for women with recurrent EOC, as well as management of adverse events.

The guidelines recommend against pairing PARP inhibitors with chemotherapy, targeted therapy, or immunotherapy outside a clinical trial.
 

Which drug, which setting, which dose?

This new ASCO guidelines may help cut through the complexity of treatment decision-making for women with EOC, according to Roisin E. O’Cearbhaill, MD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York.

“Today as clinicians, we have a whole range of opportunities to give our patients PARP inhibitors in the upfront and recurrent setting,” Dr. O’Cearbhaill said in an interview. “It is quite complicated to know which PARP inhibitor should be used in which setting and which patients.”

“We want to make sure that patients who would derive the most benefit from PARP inhibitors are offered these agents but also that we’re careful not to use PARP inhibitors in settings where there is little or no data,” added Dr. O’Cearbhaill, who was not involved in the drafting of the guidelines.

The ASCO guidelines provide a detailed review of 17 clinical trials to address key issues, including the histologic types of EOC and biomarker subsets for which PARP inhibitors are recommended in the newly diagnosed setting, as well as the settings, dose, and duration of treatment that are recommended for patients with recurrent EOC who have not yet received a PARP inhibitor.

While PARP inhibitors are generally well tolerated, some characteristic toxicities – such as anemia, neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, persistent cytopenias, and nausea – may warrant dose reductions, the guidelines state.

Special attention must be paid to low-grade adverse events since PARP inhibitors are administered continuously on a daily basis, according to the guidelines. If a dose is held because of a grade 2 adverse event, the subsequent dose should be reduced to avoid a second dose hold.

“Reescalation or resumption of the initial dose is never recommended,” the guidelines state.
 

Retreatment

Dr. O’Cearbhaill said she is eager to see future guidelines addressing PARP inhibitor retreatment following disease progression, especially since more and more patients will receive these agents in the upfront setting.

Right now, there is little data available to address PARP inhibitor retreatment. However, the ASCO guidelines do mention the ongoing OReO/ENGOT OV-38 phase 3 trial of maintenance retreatment with olaparib in women with EOC.

This study, which includes patients who previously received a PARP inhibitor and who are responding to additional platinum-based chemotherapy, has an estimated completion date in May 2021, according to details on ClinicalTrials.gov.

That’s one of several trials designed to determine how best to incorporate PARP inhibitor retreatment into the treatment paradigm, according to Dr. O’Cearbhaill.

“Even if a high proportion of patients aren’t ultimately cured by this approach, if we can delay progression of disease by the order of months or even years, whilst proactively managing side effects, it would make such a big difference for patients,” she said. “It allows them to have a better quality of life and go about their daily activities without symptomatic ovarian cancer.”

Cochairs of the ASCO expert panel for the guidelines were William P. Tew, MD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York, and Elise C. Kohn, MD, of the National Cancer Institute in Bethesda, Md. Dr. Tew and Dr. Kohn provided no disclosures, while their coauthors reported disclosures related to Roche, AstraZeneca, Tesaro, Clovis Oncology, Merck, Seattle Genetics, and other companies. Dr. O’Cearbhaill disclosed that she is a coauthor on the PRIMA/ENGOT-OV26/GOG-3012 phase 3 clinical trial (NCT02655016) and serves on the steering committee for DUO-O (NCT0373643). She reported personal fees from Clovis, Tesaro, Regeneron, and GlaxoSmithKline.

SOURCE: Tew WP et al. J Clin Oncol. 2020 Aug 13. doi: 10.1200/JCO.20.01924.

New guidelines recommend against retreatment with poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors in women with epithelial ovarian, tubal, or primary peritoneal cancer (EOC). However, trials investigating retreatment are underway, so this recommendation may change.

The guidelines, from the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), do not recommend PARP inhibitors for the initial treatment of stage I-II EOC.

However, PARP inhibitor maintenance should be offered to women with newly diagnosed stage III-IV EOC who achieved a complete or partial response with first-line platinum-based chemotherapy, according to the guidelines. Niraparib can be offered to all women meeting those criteria, while olaparib can be considered for patients with mutations in BRCA1/2.

The guidelines, published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology, are based on a systematic review of recent randomized PARP inhibitor trials, including PRIMA and SOLO1, among others.

What’s not available now is overall survival results from key clinical trials, the guideline authors noted. They added that further research is needed to address the issue of conserving platinum sensitivity in patients with disease progression on or after PARP inhibitor maintenance.

“Given the expectation that early treatment may confer the best outcome, maintenance therapy with PARP inhibitors should be offered, with these caveats,” the authors wrote.

Olaparib can also be added to bevacizumab maintenance therapy following response to first-line chemotherapy plus bevacizumab, according to the guidelines, which also address PARP inhibitor use for women with recurrent EOC, as well as management of adverse events.

The guidelines recommend against pairing PARP inhibitors with chemotherapy, targeted therapy, or immunotherapy outside a clinical trial.
 

Which drug, which setting, which dose?

This new ASCO guidelines may help cut through the complexity of treatment decision-making for women with EOC, according to Roisin E. O’Cearbhaill, MD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York.

“Today as clinicians, we have a whole range of opportunities to give our patients PARP inhibitors in the upfront and recurrent setting,” Dr. O’Cearbhaill said in an interview. “It is quite complicated to know which PARP inhibitor should be used in which setting and which patients.”

“We want to make sure that patients who would derive the most benefit from PARP inhibitors are offered these agents but also that we’re careful not to use PARP inhibitors in settings where there is little or no data,” added Dr. O’Cearbhaill, who was not involved in the drafting of the guidelines.

The ASCO guidelines provide a detailed review of 17 clinical trials to address key issues, including the histologic types of EOC and biomarker subsets for which PARP inhibitors are recommended in the newly diagnosed setting, as well as the settings, dose, and duration of treatment that are recommended for patients with recurrent EOC who have not yet received a PARP inhibitor.

While PARP inhibitors are generally well tolerated, some characteristic toxicities – such as anemia, neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, persistent cytopenias, and nausea – may warrant dose reductions, the guidelines state.

Special attention must be paid to low-grade adverse events since PARP inhibitors are administered continuously on a daily basis, according to the guidelines. If a dose is held because of a grade 2 adverse event, the subsequent dose should be reduced to avoid a second dose hold.

“Reescalation or resumption of the initial dose is never recommended,” the guidelines state.
 

Retreatment

Dr. O’Cearbhaill said she is eager to see future guidelines addressing PARP inhibitor retreatment following disease progression, especially since more and more patients will receive these agents in the upfront setting.

Right now, there is little data available to address PARP inhibitor retreatment. However, the ASCO guidelines do mention the ongoing OReO/ENGOT OV-38 phase 3 trial of maintenance retreatment with olaparib in women with EOC.

This study, which includes patients who previously received a PARP inhibitor and who are responding to additional platinum-based chemotherapy, has an estimated completion date in May 2021, according to details on ClinicalTrials.gov.

That’s one of several trials designed to determine how best to incorporate PARP inhibitor retreatment into the treatment paradigm, according to Dr. O’Cearbhaill.

“Even if a high proportion of patients aren’t ultimately cured by this approach, if we can delay progression of disease by the order of months or even years, whilst proactively managing side effects, it would make such a big difference for patients,” she said. “It allows them to have a better quality of life and go about their daily activities without symptomatic ovarian cancer.”

Cochairs of the ASCO expert panel for the guidelines were William P. Tew, MD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York, and Elise C. Kohn, MD, of the National Cancer Institute in Bethesda, Md. Dr. Tew and Dr. Kohn provided no disclosures, while their coauthors reported disclosures related to Roche, AstraZeneca, Tesaro, Clovis Oncology, Merck, Seattle Genetics, and other companies. Dr. O’Cearbhaill disclosed that she is a coauthor on the PRIMA/ENGOT-OV26/GOG-3012 phase 3 clinical trial (NCT02655016) and serves on the steering committee for DUO-O (NCT0373643). She reported personal fees from Clovis, Tesaro, Regeneron, and GlaxoSmithKline.

SOURCE: Tew WP et al. J Clin Oncol. 2020 Aug 13. doi: 10.1200/JCO.20.01924.

Novel therapies are poised to dramatically change frontline therapy for acute myeloid leukemia (AML), and they have the potential to replace chemotherapy, a hematologist/oncologist told colleagues at the virtual Acute Leukemia Forum of Hemedicus.

But more work needs to be done, noted Alexander Perl, MD, MS, associate professor at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. While advances have transformed AML treatment in the relapsed/refractory setting, “we’re just not seeing that substantive improvement” for newly diagnosed patients, he said. “We need to find the disease-modifying drugs that work in the relapsed/refractory setting and move those frontline. That’s where we’re going to see the transformations.”

Research suggests that low-intensity therapy holds tremendous promise, he said, “with the idea that we could make therapy much more tolerable for the vast majority of patients affected by AML, who, as we know, are older patients.”

Dr. Perl highlighted the 2020 VIALE-A study – venetoclax/azacitidine versus azacitidine/placebo – which reported that “in previously untreated patients who were ineligible for intensive chemotherapy, overall survival was longer and the incidence of remission was higher among patients who received azacitidine plus venetoclax than among those who received azacitidine alone.”

Venetoclax promotes apoptosis in leukemia cells, Dr. Perl said. “To a certain extent, you can think of it as putting the rubber to the road in terms of what actually chemotherapy is designed to do, which is to make leukemic blasts apoptose. It does so without DNA damage and with much less toxicity to the patient. Therefore it can be added to any number of regimens – granted, with mild suppression, but with relatively little extramedullary toxicity.”

Dr. Perl noted that the venetoclax arm “showed a higher response rate than azacitidine in pretty much every subgroup that was looked at, whether patients had de novo leukemia, secondary leukemia, multiple mutational complements, various different karyotypes. The response rates on this study are as high as what we often will see with intensive chemotherapy.” He added that “the winning arm on this trial seems to hold up against any low-intensity therapy, and I would argue against many high-intensity therapies in older patients.”

As for other targeted agents, isocitrate dehydrogenase (IDH) inhibitors “are very promising drugs in the relapsed/refractory setting, which is primarily where these drugs are given. In regard to frontline treatment, “data are coming from a very small study, but they’re very encouraging. It’s hard to entirely say that we’re ready to change practice based on this. But it’s very encouraging – the idea that earlier use of a drug-targeting IDH mutation might lead to substantially better outcomes.”

Moving forward, he said, “we could put all of our eggs in one basket and use many active drugs [at] front line. Or we can perhaps be smart about sequencing these drugs one after another, or using more intensive approaches followed by maintenance approaches followed by more intensive approaches.”

This approach is similar to strategies in myeloma patients “who less and less are relying on an autologous transplant for durable control of their disease, and more and more are using low-intensity biologically targeted drugs,” he said.

The Acute Leukemia Forum is held by Hemedicus, which is owned by the same company as this news organization.

Dr. Perl reported numerous disclosures, including relationships with Daiichi Sankyo, Abbvie, and Astellas.

Novel therapies are poised to dramatically change frontline therapy for acute myeloid leukemia (AML), and they have the potential to replace chemotherapy, a hematologist/oncologist told colleagues at the virtual Acute Leukemia Forum of Hemedicus.

But more work needs to be done, noted Alexander Perl, MD, MS, associate professor at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. While advances have transformed AML treatment in the relapsed/refractory setting, “we’re just not seeing that substantive improvement” for newly diagnosed patients, he said. “We need to find the disease-modifying drugs that work in the relapsed/refractory setting and move those frontline. That’s where we’re going to see the transformations.”

Research suggests that low-intensity therapy holds tremendous promise, he said, “with the idea that we could make therapy much more tolerable for the vast majority of patients affected by AML, who, as we know, are older patients.”

Dr. Perl highlighted the 2020 VIALE-A study – venetoclax/azacitidine versus azacitidine/placebo – which reported that “in previously untreated patients who were ineligible for intensive chemotherapy, overall survival was longer and the incidence of remission was higher among patients who received azacitidine plus venetoclax than among those who received azacitidine alone.”

Venetoclax promotes apoptosis in leukemia cells, Dr. Perl said. “To a certain extent, you can think of it as putting the rubber to the road in terms of what actually chemotherapy is designed to do, which is to make leukemic blasts apoptose. It does so without DNA damage and with much less toxicity to the patient. Therefore it can be added to any number of regimens – granted, with mild suppression, but with relatively little extramedullary toxicity.”

Dr. Perl noted that the venetoclax arm “showed a higher response rate than azacitidine in pretty much every subgroup that was looked at, whether patients had de novo leukemia, secondary leukemia, multiple mutational complements, various different karyotypes. The response rates on this study are as high as what we often will see with intensive chemotherapy.” He added that “the winning arm on this trial seems to hold up against any low-intensity therapy, and I would argue against many high-intensity therapies in older patients.”

As for other targeted agents, isocitrate dehydrogenase (IDH) inhibitors “are very promising drugs in the relapsed/refractory setting, which is primarily where these drugs are given. In regard to frontline treatment, “data are coming from a very small study, but they’re very encouraging. It’s hard to entirely say that we’re ready to change practice based on this. But it’s very encouraging – the idea that earlier use of a drug-targeting IDH mutation might lead to substantially better outcomes.”

Moving forward, he said, “we could put all of our eggs in one basket and use many active drugs [at] front line. Or we can perhaps be smart about sequencing these drugs one after another, or using more intensive approaches followed by maintenance approaches followed by more intensive approaches.”

This approach is similar to strategies in myeloma patients “who less and less are relying on an autologous transplant for durable control of their disease, and more and more are using low-intensity biologically targeted drugs,” he said.

The Acute Leukemia Forum is held by Hemedicus, which is owned by the same company as this news organization.

Dr. Perl reported numerous disclosures, including relationships with Daiichi Sankyo, Abbvie, and Astellas.

Novel therapies are poised to dramatically change frontline therapy for acute myeloid leukemia (AML), and they have the potential to replace chemotherapy, a hematologist/oncologist told colleagues at the virtual Acute Leukemia Forum of Hemedicus.

But more work needs to be done, noted Alexander Perl, MD, MS, associate professor at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. While advances have transformed AML treatment in the relapsed/refractory setting, “we’re just not seeing that substantive improvement” for newly diagnosed patients, he said. “We need to find the disease-modifying drugs that work in the relapsed/refractory setting and move those frontline. That’s where we’re going to see the transformations.”

Research suggests that low-intensity therapy holds tremendous promise, he said, “with the idea that we could make therapy much more tolerable for the vast majority of patients affected by AML, who, as we know, are older patients.”

Dr. Perl highlighted the 2020 VIALE-A study – venetoclax/azacitidine versus azacitidine/placebo – which reported that “in previously untreated patients who were ineligible for intensive chemotherapy, overall survival was longer and the incidence of remission was higher among patients who received azacitidine plus venetoclax than among those who received azacitidine alone.”

Venetoclax promotes apoptosis in leukemia cells, Dr. Perl said. “To a certain extent, you can think of it as putting the rubber to the road in terms of what actually chemotherapy is designed to do, which is to make leukemic blasts apoptose. It does so without DNA damage and with much less toxicity to the patient. Therefore it can be added to any number of regimens – granted, with mild suppression, but with relatively little extramedullary toxicity.”

Dr. Perl noted that the venetoclax arm “showed a higher response rate than azacitidine in pretty much every subgroup that was looked at, whether patients had de novo leukemia, secondary leukemia, multiple mutational complements, various different karyotypes. The response rates on this study are as high as what we often will see with intensive chemotherapy.” He added that “the winning arm on this trial seems to hold up against any low-intensity therapy, and I would argue against many high-intensity therapies in older patients.”

As for other targeted agents, isocitrate dehydrogenase (IDH) inhibitors “are very promising drugs in the relapsed/refractory setting, which is primarily where these drugs are given. In regard to frontline treatment, “data are coming from a very small study, but they’re very encouraging. It’s hard to entirely say that we’re ready to change practice based on this. But it’s very encouraging – the idea that earlier use of a drug-targeting IDH mutation might lead to substantially better outcomes.”

Moving forward, he said, “we could put all of our eggs in one basket and use many active drugs [at] front line. Or we can perhaps be smart about sequencing these drugs one after another, or using more intensive approaches followed by maintenance approaches followed by more intensive approaches.”

This approach is similar to strategies in myeloma patients “who less and less are relying on an autologous transplant for durable control of their disease, and more and more are using low-intensity biologically targeted drugs,” he said.

The Acute Leukemia Forum is held by Hemedicus, which is owned by the same company as this news organization.

Dr. Perl reported numerous disclosures, including relationships with Daiichi Sankyo, Abbvie, and Astellas.