Pharmacology

Cannabis use is associated with a decrease in the prevalence of steatohepatitis and a slowing of its progression in patients with obesity, results from a retrospective cohort study show.

This suggests “that the anti-inflammatory effects of cannabis may be leading to reduced prevalence of steatohepatitis in cannabis users,” said Ikechukwu Achebe, MD, from the John H. Stroger, Jr. Hospital of Cook County in Chicago.

Liver injuries such as nonalcoholic steatohepatitis are characterized by hepatocellular injury and inflammation, which combine to contribute to an increase in the risk for liver failure, cirrhosis, and hepatocellular carcinoma.

“This is where cannabis comes in,” said Dr. Achebe, who presented the study results at the virtual annual meeting of the American College of Gastroenterology. “It is the most commonly used psychoactive substance worldwide and has been shown to reduce hepatic myofibroblast and stellate cell injury. Studies using mouse models have demonstrated reduced liver fibrosis and cirrhosis as a consequence of cannabis exposure.”

Given this possible connection, Dr. Achebe and colleagues set out to determine whether cannabis use affects the prevalence and progression of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) in obese patients.

To do so, they analyzed the discharge records of 879,952 obese adults in the 2016 Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project National Inpatient Sample. The primary outcome was the prevalence of the four presentations of NAFLD: steatosis, steatohepatitis, cirrhosis, and hepatocellular carcinoma.

The researchers compared disease stages in cannabis users and nonusers. In the study cohort of 14,236 patients, 1.6% used cannabis. Steatohepatitis was less common among cannabis users than among nonusers (0.4% vs. 0.7%; P < .001), as was cirrhosis (1.1% vs. 1.5%; P < .001).

After propensity matching, the association between cannabis use and lower rates of steatohepatitis remained significant (0.4% vs. 0.5%; P = .035), but the association between cannabis use and the prevalence of nonalcoholic fatty liver, cirrhosis, and hepatocellular carcinoma did not.

These results might be partly explained by the protective effect of cannabis on hepatocytes regulated by the endocannabinoid system, the researchers concluded.

More studies are needed to explore this relation, said Dr. Achebe.
 

The challenge of self-reported use

The study is “incredibly interesting,” said Nancy S. Reau, MD, from Rush Medical College, Chicago. However, the association between cannabis and nonalcoholic fatty liver needs to be further investigated before clinicians can counsel their patients to use the agent to prevent progression.

It is difficult in a study such as this to tease out other lifestyle factors that might be linked to cannabis use, she explained. For example, “is it possible that the cannabis users exercise more, drink more coffee, or eat differently?”

And “self-reported use is challenging,” Dr. Reau said in an interview. “This cannot differentiate someone who occasionally uses from someone who is a heavy daily user. There must be some minimum level of exposure needed for it to have protective effects, if they exist.”

This study was honored at the meeting as an ACG Newsworthy Abstract and an ACG Outstanding Poster Presenter.

Dr. Achebe disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Reau reported receiving research support from Genfit and having a consultant relationship with Intercept Pharmaceuticals.

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

Cannabis use is associated with a decrease in the prevalence of steatohepatitis and a slowing of its progression in patients with obesity, results from a retrospective cohort study show.

This suggests “that the anti-inflammatory effects of cannabis may be leading to reduced prevalence of steatohepatitis in cannabis users,” said Ikechukwu Achebe, MD, from the John H. Stroger, Jr. Hospital of Cook County in Chicago.

Liver injuries such as nonalcoholic steatohepatitis are characterized by hepatocellular injury and inflammation, which combine to contribute to an increase in the risk for liver failure, cirrhosis, and hepatocellular carcinoma.

“This is where cannabis comes in,” said Dr. Achebe, who presented the study results at the virtual annual meeting of the American College of Gastroenterology. “It is the most commonly used psychoactive substance worldwide and has been shown to reduce hepatic myofibroblast and stellate cell injury. Studies using mouse models have demonstrated reduced liver fibrosis and cirrhosis as a consequence of cannabis exposure.”

Given this possible connection, Dr. Achebe and colleagues set out to determine whether cannabis use affects the prevalence and progression of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) in obese patients.

To do so, they analyzed the discharge records of 879,952 obese adults in the 2016 Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project National Inpatient Sample. The primary outcome was the prevalence of the four presentations of NAFLD: steatosis, steatohepatitis, cirrhosis, and hepatocellular carcinoma.

The researchers compared disease stages in cannabis users and nonusers. In the study cohort of 14,236 patients, 1.6% used cannabis. Steatohepatitis was less common among cannabis users than among nonusers (0.4% vs. 0.7%; P < .001), as was cirrhosis (1.1% vs. 1.5%; P < .001).

After propensity matching, the association between cannabis use and lower rates of steatohepatitis remained significant (0.4% vs. 0.5%; P = .035), but the association between cannabis use and the prevalence of nonalcoholic fatty liver, cirrhosis, and hepatocellular carcinoma did not.

These results might be partly explained by the protective effect of cannabis on hepatocytes regulated by the endocannabinoid system, the researchers concluded.

More studies are needed to explore this relation, said Dr. Achebe.
 

The challenge of self-reported use

The study is “incredibly interesting,” said Nancy S. Reau, MD, from Rush Medical College, Chicago. However, the association between cannabis and nonalcoholic fatty liver needs to be further investigated before clinicians can counsel their patients to use the agent to prevent progression.

It is difficult in a study such as this to tease out other lifestyle factors that might be linked to cannabis use, she explained. For example, “is it possible that the cannabis users exercise more, drink more coffee, or eat differently?”

And “self-reported use is challenging,” Dr. Reau said in an interview. “This cannot differentiate someone who occasionally uses from someone who is a heavy daily user. There must be some minimum level of exposure needed for it to have protective effects, if they exist.”

This study was honored at the meeting as an ACG Newsworthy Abstract and an ACG Outstanding Poster Presenter.

Dr. Achebe disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Reau reported receiving research support from Genfit and having a consultant relationship with Intercept Pharmaceuticals.

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

Cannabis use is associated with a decrease in the prevalence of steatohepatitis and a slowing of its progression in patients with obesity, results from a retrospective cohort study show.

This suggests “that the anti-inflammatory effects of cannabis may be leading to reduced prevalence of steatohepatitis in cannabis users,” said Ikechukwu Achebe, MD, from the John H. Stroger, Jr. Hospital of Cook County in Chicago.

Liver injuries such as nonalcoholic steatohepatitis are characterized by hepatocellular injury and inflammation, which combine to contribute to an increase in the risk for liver failure, cirrhosis, and hepatocellular carcinoma.

“This is where cannabis comes in,” said Dr. Achebe, who presented the study results at the virtual annual meeting of the American College of Gastroenterology. “It is the most commonly used psychoactive substance worldwide and has been shown to reduce hepatic myofibroblast and stellate cell injury. Studies using mouse models have demonstrated reduced liver fibrosis and cirrhosis as a consequence of cannabis exposure.”

Given this possible connection, Dr. Achebe and colleagues set out to determine whether cannabis use affects the prevalence and progression of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) in obese patients.

To do so, they analyzed the discharge records of 879,952 obese adults in the 2016 Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project National Inpatient Sample. The primary outcome was the prevalence of the four presentations of NAFLD: steatosis, steatohepatitis, cirrhosis, and hepatocellular carcinoma.

The researchers compared disease stages in cannabis users and nonusers. In the study cohort of 14,236 patients, 1.6% used cannabis. Steatohepatitis was less common among cannabis users than among nonusers (0.4% vs. 0.7%; P < .001), as was cirrhosis (1.1% vs. 1.5%; P < .001).

After propensity matching, the association between cannabis use and lower rates of steatohepatitis remained significant (0.4% vs. 0.5%; P = .035), but the association between cannabis use and the prevalence of nonalcoholic fatty liver, cirrhosis, and hepatocellular carcinoma did not.

These results might be partly explained by the protective effect of cannabis on hepatocytes regulated by the endocannabinoid system, the researchers concluded.

More studies are needed to explore this relation, said Dr. Achebe.
 

The challenge of self-reported use

The study is “incredibly interesting,” said Nancy S. Reau, MD, from Rush Medical College, Chicago. However, the association between cannabis and nonalcoholic fatty liver needs to be further investigated before clinicians can counsel their patients to use the agent to prevent progression.

It is difficult in a study such as this to tease out other lifestyle factors that might be linked to cannabis use, she explained. For example, “is it possible that the cannabis users exercise more, drink more coffee, or eat differently?”

And “self-reported use is challenging,” Dr. Reau said in an interview. “This cannot differentiate someone who occasionally uses from someone who is a heavy daily user. There must be some minimum level of exposure needed for it to have protective effects, if they exist.”

This study was honored at the meeting as an ACG Newsworthy Abstract and an ACG Outstanding Poster Presenter.

Dr. Achebe disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Reau reported receiving research support from Genfit and having a consultant relationship with Intercept Pharmaceuticals.

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

Although the efficacy of two pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) regimens containing differing prodrug formulations of tenofovir are virtually identical, the balance between benefit and risk tips in favor of the combination using the older formulation, tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF), a pharmacology researcher said.

An analysis of the pharmacologic profiles of TDF plus emtricitabine (FTC; Truvada and generic) with tenofovir alafenamide (TAF) plus FTC (Descovy) shows that the risk of decreased bone mineral density and renal toxicity with TDF are significantly lower than those of weight gain and related metabolic and cardiovascular problems associated with the newer tenofovir formulation TAF, according to pharmacology research fellow Andrew Hill, MD, PhD, from the University of Liverpool (England).

“I think when we’re comparing these two drugs overall, we have a clear benefit/risk, and we need to take both of these potential toxicities seriously, “ he said in an online presentation during IDWeek 2020, an annual scientific meeting on infectious diseases held virtually this year.

“But in my view, treating women – Black women – with TAF/FTC is a bad thing,” he continued. “I think it’s going lead to more harm, more myocardial infarctions, more cases of diabetes, and potentially more adverse birth outcomes, and I think that is a risk that is not worth taking, given that the apparent benefit in terms of bone mineral density and renal markers is a hypothesis at best, and is not translated into hard clinical endpoints.”
 

Adverse event profiles

Dr. Hill compared the side effect profiles of the two agents when used both in antiretroviral therapy (ART) in combination the integrase inhibitor dolutegravir (DTG; Tivicay), and in PrEP.

World Health Organization guidelines for first-line ART recommend the use of TDF/FTC/DTG, reserving TAF plus lamivudine (3TC) and DTG for use in special circumstances only, Dr. Hill noted.

He pointed to a pooled analysis of data from eight randomized, controlled trials of treatment-naive people living with HIV who started on ART from 2003 to 2015. The authors found that demographic factors associated with weight gain included lower CD4 cell counter, higher levels of HIV type 1 RNA, no injection drug use, female sex, and Black race.

They also found that, among nucleoside/nucleotide reverse transcriptase inhibitors, TAF was associated with more weight gain than TDF, abacavir, or zidovudine.

“This pattern is seen consistently across studies both of pre-exposure prophylaxis or treatment comparing tenofovir with either TAF or other nucleoside analogs,” he said.

The greater weight gain with TAF versus TDF was seen in both treatment trials and in the DISCOVER PrEP trial.

In addition, in a crossover trial conducted in Germany, patients who switched from TDF to TAF had an approximately 2 kg increase in body weight.

TAF has also been associated with higher grade 3 or 4 glucose and LDL cholesterol than TDF in clinical trials for the treatment of hepatitis B infections, and with higher LDL cholesterol and total cholesterol levels as well as diabetes in patients treated with the drugs in combination in the EMERALD HIV trial.

Clinical trials also tend to underestimate the real-world population of persons at highest risk for adverse events from TAF, Dr. Hill said, noting that the percentage of Black women in phase 3 trials for dolutegravir was 9%, compared with 42% among persons infected with HIV worldwide. The respective percentages for Black men are 16% versus 30%. These differences are similar across clinical trial programs for other ART agents.

“Generally, it’s women and Black people who seem to be at greatest risk for safety issues,” he said.

In the ADVANCE trial comparing TAF/FTC/DTG with TDF/FTC/DTG and a control arm of TDF, FTC and efavirenz, the mean change in weight among men after 3 years on the TAF-based regimen was a gain of 7.2 kg (15.9 lbs), compared with 5.5 kg (12 lbs) with TDF, and 2.6 kg (5.7 lbs) with the efavirenz-containing regimen.

In women enrolled in the same trial, the respective mean weight gains were 12.3 kg (27 lbs), 7.4 kg (16.3 lbs), and 5.5 kg (12 lbs).

“All of our analyses so far have shown that the weight continues to go up. We’re actually seeing people doubling in their body weight. We’ve seen some women come into clinic and their doctors don’t even recognize them because they’ve put on so much weight,” he said.

In women, most of the gain in weight occurs as limb or trunk fat, with a predominance of visceral fat.

People taking TAF in the trial were also at significantly greater risk for developing the metabolic syndrome, and at week 96, 27% of women on TAF/FTC/DTG had treatment-emergent obesity, compared with 17% for those on TDF/FTC/DTG and 11% for those on TDF/FTC/EFV. In men, the respective 96-week rates of treatment-emergent obesity were 7%, 3%, and 2%.

Clinical obesity itself is a risk factor for obstetric complications and birth outcomes, Alzheimer’s disease, type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease, hypertension and cancer, and an average 4-year reduction in life expectancy, Dr. Hill said. “I think it’s actually very unlikely that the [World Health Organization] guidelines will now change and allow the widespread use of TAF/FTC in combination with integrase inhibitors worldwide given these potential implications.”
 

Modern times

The bad rap that TDF gets for its alleged effects on bone mineral density and kidneys comes from studies where the drug was given in a boosted regimen that can amplify tenofovir toxicities, Dr. Hill said.

He noted that data from Gilead Sciences shows through 7 years of therapy in previously ART-naive patients, the combination of TDF/3TC/EFV showed sustained durable efficacy, no discontinuations to renal adverse effects, and no evidence of clinically relevant bone effects.

“I think we need to be very careful when we look at tenofovir and TAF. We need to look at the more modern way that these drugs are used, which is not with pharmacokinetic boosters anymore, and in that situation the toxicity profile of tenofovir/3TC – the original TDF – is very favorable,” he said.

Robert Goldstein, MD, PhD, an infectious disease specialist and medical director of the transgender health program at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, who comoderated the session where Dr. Hill presented his data, said that his clinical experience mirrors the pharmacokinetic findings.

“I certainly have strong feelings about the use of TDF in pre-exposure prophylaxis,” he said in an interview. “TDF is an effective and safe formulation of tenofovir to be used in pre-exposure prophylaxis, and one that we have more experience with. It’s the formulation of tenofovir that I use for all of my patients who are on pre-exposure prophylaxis, and I think it is the most cost-effective.’

No funding source was reported. Andrew Hill consults for Tibotec on clinical trial programs for darunavir, etravirine, and rilpivirine. Dr. Goldstein reported having no relevant disclosures.

Although the efficacy of two pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) regimens containing differing prodrug formulations of tenofovir are virtually identical, the balance between benefit and risk tips in favor of the combination using the older formulation, tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF), a pharmacology researcher said.

An analysis of the pharmacologic profiles of TDF plus emtricitabine (FTC; Truvada and generic) with tenofovir alafenamide (TAF) plus FTC (Descovy) shows that the risk of decreased bone mineral density and renal toxicity with TDF are significantly lower than those of weight gain and related metabolic and cardiovascular problems associated with the newer tenofovir formulation TAF, according to pharmacology research fellow Andrew Hill, MD, PhD, from the University of Liverpool (England).

“I think when we’re comparing these two drugs overall, we have a clear benefit/risk, and we need to take both of these potential toxicities seriously, “ he said in an online presentation during IDWeek 2020, an annual scientific meeting on infectious diseases held virtually this year.

“But in my view, treating women – Black women – with TAF/FTC is a bad thing,” he continued. “I think it’s going lead to more harm, more myocardial infarctions, more cases of diabetes, and potentially more adverse birth outcomes, and I think that is a risk that is not worth taking, given that the apparent benefit in terms of bone mineral density and renal markers is a hypothesis at best, and is not translated into hard clinical endpoints.”
 

Adverse event profiles

Dr. Hill compared the side effect profiles of the two agents when used both in antiretroviral therapy (ART) in combination the integrase inhibitor dolutegravir (DTG; Tivicay), and in PrEP.

World Health Organization guidelines for first-line ART recommend the use of TDF/FTC/DTG, reserving TAF plus lamivudine (3TC) and DTG for use in special circumstances only, Dr. Hill noted.

He pointed to a pooled analysis of data from eight randomized, controlled trials of treatment-naive people living with HIV who started on ART from 2003 to 2015. The authors found that demographic factors associated with weight gain included lower CD4 cell counter, higher levels of HIV type 1 RNA, no injection drug use, female sex, and Black race.

They also found that, among nucleoside/nucleotide reverse transcriptase inhibitors, TAF was associated with more weight gain than TDF, abacavir, or zidovudine.

“This pattern is seen consistently across studies both of pre-exposure prophylaxis or treatment comparing tenofovir with either TAF or other nucleoside analogs,” he said.

The greater weight gain with TAF versus TDF was seen in both treatment trials and in the DISCOVER PrEP trial.

In addition, in a crossover trial conducted in Germany, patients who switched from TDF to TAF had an approximately 2 kg increase in body weight.

TAF has also been associated with higher grade 3 or 4 glucose and LDL cholesterol than TDF in clinical trials for the treatment of hepatitis B infections, and with higher LDL cholesterol and total cholesterol levels as well as diabetes in patients treated with the drugs in combination in the EMERALD HIV trial.

Clinical trials also tend to underestimate the real-world population of persons at highest risk for adverse events from TAF, Dr. Hill said, noting that the percentage of Black women in phase 3 trials for dolutegravir was 9%, compared with 42% among persons infected with HIV worldwide. The respective percentages for Black men are 16% versus 30%. These differences are similar across clinical trial programs for other ART agents.

“Generally, it’s women and Black people who seem to be at greatest risk for safety issues,” he said.

In the ADVANCE trial comparing TAF/FTC/DTG with TDF/FTC/DTG and a control arm of TDF, FTC and efavirenz, the mean change in weight among men after 3 years on the TAF-based regimen was a gain of 7.2 kg (15.9 lbs), compared with 5.5 kg (12 lbs) with TDF, and 2.6 kg (5.7 lbs) with the efavirenz-containing regimen.

In women enrolled in the same trial, the respective mean weight gains were 12.3 kg (27 lbs), 7.4 kg (16.3 lbs), and 5.5 kg (12 lbs).

“All of our analyses so far have shown that the weight continues to go up. We’re actually seeing people doubling in their body weight. We’ve seen some women come into clinic and their doctors don’t even recognize them because they’ve put on so much weight,” he said.

In women, most of the gain in weight occurs as limb or trunk fat, with a predominance of visceral fat.

People taking TAF in the trial were also at significantly greater risk for developing the metabolic syndrome, and at week 96, 27% of women on TAF/FTC/DTG had treatment-emergent obesity, compared with 17% for those on TDF/FTC/DTG and 11% for those on TDF/FTC/EFV. In men, the respective 96-week rates of treatment-emergent obesity were 7%, 3%, and 2%.

Clinical obesity itself is a risk factor for obstetric complications and birth outcomes, Alzheimer’s disease, type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease, hypertension and cancer, and an average 4-year reduction in life expectancy, Dr. Hill said. “I think it’s actually very unlikely that the [World Health Organization] guidelines will now change and allow the widespread use of TAF/FTC in combination with integrase inhibitors worldwide given these potential implications.”
 

Modern times

The bad rap that TDF gets for its alleged effects on bone mineral density and kidneys comes from studies where the drug was given in a boosted regimen that can amplify tenofovir toxicities, Dr. Hill said.

He noted that data from Gilead Sciences shows through 7 years of therapy in previously ART-naive patients, the combination of TDF/3TC/EFV showed sustained durable efficacy, no discontinuations to renal adverse effects, and no evidence of clinically relevant bone effects.

“I think we need to be very careful when we look at tenofovir and TAF. We need to look at the more modern way that these drugs are used, which is not with pharmacokinetic boosters anymore, and in that situation the toxicity profile of tenofovir/3TC – the original TDF – is very favorable,” he said.

Robert Goldstein, MD, PhD, an infectious disease specialist and medical director of the transgender health program at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, who comoderated the session where Dr. Hill presented his data, said that his clinical experience mirrors the pharmacokinetic findings.

“I certainly have strong feelings about the use of TDF in pre-exposure prophylaxis,” he said in an interview. “TDF is an effective and safe formulation of tenofovir to be used in pre-exposure prophylaxis, and one that we have more experience with. It’s the formulation of tenofovir that I use for all of my patients who are on pre-exposure prophylaxis, and I think it is the most cost-effective.’

No funding source was reported. Andrew Hill consults for Tibotec on clinical trial programs for darunavir, etravirine, and rilpivirine. Dr. Goldstein reported having no relevant disclosures.

Although the efficacy of two pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) regimens containing differing prodrug formulations of tenofovir are virtually identical, the balance between benefit and risk tips in favor of the combination using the older formulation, tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF), a pharmacology researcher said.

An analysis of the pharmacologic profiles of TDF plus emtricitabine (FTC; Truvada and generic) with tenofovir alafenamide (TAF) plus FTC (Descovy) shows that the risk of decreased bone mineral density and renal toxicity with TDF are significantly lower than those of weight gain and related metabolic and cardiovascular problems associated with the newer tenofovir formulation TAF, according to pharmacology research fellow Andrew Hill, MD, PhD, from the University of Liverpool (England).

“I think when we’re comparing these two drugs overall, we have a clear benefit/risk, and we need to take both of these potential toxicities seriously, “ he said in an online presentation during IDWeek 2020, an annual scientific meeting on infectious diseases held virtually this year.

“But in my view, treating women – Black women – with TAF/FTC is a bad thing,” he continued. “I think it’s going lead to more harm, more myocardial infarctions, more cases of diabetes, and potentially more adverse birth outcomes, and I think that is a risk that is not worth taking, given that the apparent benefit in terms of bone mineral density and renal markers is a hypothesis at best, and is not translated into hard clinical endpoints.”
 

Adverse event profiles

Dr. Hill compared the side effect profiles of the two agents when used both in antiretroviral therapy (ART) in combination the integrase inhibitor dolutegravir (DTG; Tivicay), and in PrEP.

World Health Organization guidelines for first-line ART recommend the use of TDF/FTC/DTG, reserving TAF plus lamivudine (3TC) and DTG for use in special circumstances only, Dr. Hill noted.

He pointed to a pooled analysis of data from eight randomized, controlled trials of treatment-naive people living with HIV who started on ART from 2003 to 2015. The authors found that demographic factors associated with weight gain included lower CD4 cell counter, higher levels of HIV type 1 RNA, no injection drug use, female sex, and Black race.

They also found that, among nucleoside/nucleotide reverse transcriptase inhibitors, TAF was associated with more weight gain than TDF, abacavir, or zidovudine.

“This pattern is seen consistently across studies both of pre-exposure prophylaxis or treatment comparing tenofovir with either TAF or other nucleoside analogs,” he said.

The greater weight gain with TAF versus TDF was seen in both treatment trials and in the DISCOVER PrEP trial.

In addition, in a crossover trial conducted in Germany, patients who switched from TDF to TAF had an approximately 2 kg increase in body weight.

TAF has also been associated with higher grade 3 or 4 glucose and LDL cholesterol than TDF in clinical trials for the treatment of hepatitis B infections, and with higher LDL cholesterol and total cholesterol levels as well as diabetes in patients treated with the drugs in combination in the EMERALD HIV trial.

Clinical trials also tend to underestimate the real-world population of persons at highest risk for adverse events from TAF, Dr. Hill said, noting that the percentage of Black women in phase 3 trials for dolutegravir was 9%, compared with 42% among persons infected with HIV worldwide. The respective percentages for Black men are 16% versus 30%. These differences are similar across clinical trial programs for other ART agents.

“Generally, it’s women and Black people who seem to be at greatest risk for safety issues,” he said.

In the ADVANCE trial comparing TAF/FTC/DTG with TDF/FTC/DTG and a control arm of TDF, FTC and efavirenz, the mean change in weight among men after 3 years on the TAF-based regimen was a gain of 7.2 kg (15.9 lbs), compared with 5.5 kg (12 lbs) with TDF, and 2.6 kg (5.7 lbs) with the efavirenz-containing regimen.

In women enrolled in the same trial, the respective mean weight gains were 12.3 kg (27 lbs), 7.4 kg (16.3 lbs), and 5.5 kg (12 lbs).

“All of our analyses so far have shown that the weight continues to go up. We’re actually seeing people doubling in their body weight. We’ve seen some women come into clinic and their doctors don’t even recognize them because they’ve put on so much weight,” he said.

In women, most of the gain in weight occurs as limb or trunk fat, with a predominance of visceral fat.

People taking TAF in the trial were also at significantly greater risk for developing the metabolic syndrome, and at week 96, 27% of women on TAF/FTC/DTG had treatment-emergent obesity, compared with 17% for those on TDF/FTC/DTG and 11% for those on TDF/FTC/EFV. In men, the respective 96-week rates of treatment-emergent obesity were 7%, 3%, and 2%.

Clinical obesity itself is a risk factor for obstetric complications and birth outcomes, Alzheimer’s disease, type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease, hypertension and cancer, and an average 4-year reduction in life expectancy, Dr. Hill said. “I think it’s actually very unlikely that the [World Health Organization] guidelines will now change and allow the widespread use of TAF/FTC in combination with integrase inhibitors worldwide given these potential implications.”
 

Modern times

The bad rap that TDF gets for its alleged effects on bone mineral density and kidneys comes from studies where the drug was given in a boosted regimen that can amplify tenofovir toxicities, Dr. Hill said.

He noted that data from Gilead Sciences shows through 7 years of therapy in previously ART-naive patients, the combination of TDF/3TC/EFV showed sustained durable efficacy, no discontinuations to renal adverse effects, and no evidence of clinically relevant bone effects.

“I think we need to be very careful when we look at tenofovir and TAF. We need to look at the more modern way that these drugs are used, which is not with pharmacokinetic boosters anymore, and in that situation the toxicity profile of tenofovir/3TC – the original TDF – is very favorable,” he said.

Robert Goldstein, MD, PhD, an infectious disease specialist and medical director of the transgender health program at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, who comoderated the session where Dr. Hill presented his data, said that his clinical experience mirrors the pharmacokinetic findings.

“I certainly have strong feelings about the use of TDF in pre-exposure prophylaxis,” he said in an interview. “TDF is an effective and safe formulation of tenofovir to be used in pre-exposure prophylaxis, and one that we have more experience with. It’s the formulation of tenofovir that I use for all of my patients who are on pre-exposure prophylaxis, and I think it is the most cost-effective.’

No funding source was reported. Andrew Hill consults for Tibotec on clinical trial programs for darunavir, etravirine, and rilpivirine. Dr. Goldstein reported having no relevant disclosures.

A patient-centered approach can help guide persons at risk for HIV exposure to decide on the best choice of pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) regimens for them, stifling the noise generated by direct-to-consumer advertising, an infectious disease specialist recommends.

The decision for patients whether to start or remain on the PrEP combination of tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) plus emtricitabine (FTC; Truvada and generic) or on tenofovir alafenamide (TAF) plus FTC (Descovy) is made more fraught by confusion regarding the use of the newer and allegedly safer TAF prodrug of tenofovir in HIV treatment regimens, said Oni Blackstock, MD, founder and executive director of Health Justice and an attending physician in the division of infectious diseases at Harlem Hospital, New York.

“There have been commercials on TV as well as on social media around class-action lawsuits against [Truvada maker] Gilead,” she said in an online presentation during IDWeek 2020, an annual scientific meeting on infectious diseases, held virtually this year.

“These lawsuits focus on TDF for HIV treatment, but they have sown a great deal of confusion about TDF versus TAF for PrEP among potential and actual PrEP users,” she added.

Dr. Blackstock described her approach to shared decision-making regarding TDF/FTC versus TAF/FTC, and to helping patients understand the relative benefits and risks of each formulation.

In January of 2020, Dr. Blackstock, who was then assistant commissioner of the HIV bureau of the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, issued with other Bureau members a “Dear colleague” letter stating why they believed that TDF/FTC should remain the first-line regimen for PrEP.

That opinion, she said, was bolstered by an editorial published in February 2020 by Douglas E. Krakower, MD, from Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston, and colleagues, which questioned the rush to shift from TDF to TAF in HIV treatment, and cautioned against the same approach to PrEP.

“Despite evidence that TAF/FTC would not be cost-effective, compared with generic TDF/FTC , the newer regimen quickly and irrevocably displaced TDF/FTC for HIV treatment in the U.S. A similar shift for PrEP – especially for populations in which TAF/FTC is untested – would be premature, costly, and counterproductive for population impact,” Krakower et al. wrote.
 

Shared decision-making

Clinicians can help patients who may be a candidate for either PrEP regimen by engaging them in shared decision-making.

“The clinician provides information in this case about a prevention strategy, options, benefits and risks, alternatives, and the patient provides their preferences and values, and together the clinician and patient make a decision,” Dr. Blackstock said.

The process differs from the model of informed decision-making, where the clinician gives the patient the information and the patient comes to a decision, or the old, “paternalistic” model in which the clinician gives information and makes recommendations to the patient.

“Shared decision-making has been studied extensively and has been shown to improve patient satisfaction, patient communication, and also potentially reducing health inequities that we see,” she said.

The model for shared decision-making for clinical practice includes three distinct portions: a choice talk, option talk, and decision talk.
 

Choice

To begin the discussion, the physician informs the patients of the availability of choices and justifies them, saying, for example, “there is good information about how these two PrEP options differ that I’d like to discuss with you,” and “the two PrEP options have different side effects … some will matter more to you than other people.”

At this stage the clinician should defer closure by offering a more detailed discussion of the choices.
 

Option

Here the clinician solicits information about what the patient has heard or read about PrEP, describes each option in practical terms, and points out where the two regimens differ, being specific about the pros and cons of each (for example, potential bone mineral density loss or renal complications with TDF, and potential weight gain with subsequent metabolic and cardiovascular consequences with TAF).

The TDF versus TAF-based PrEP discussion could also focus on what’s known about the comparative effectiveness of each regimen.

For example, TDF/FTC has been shown to be about 99% effective at preventing infection in men who have sex with men and in transgender women, also about 99% effective in heterosexual women and men, and 74%-84% effective in persons who inject drugs.

In contrast, TAF/FTC has been shown to be about 99% effective in men who have sex with men and transgender women, but it’s efficacy in the other two categories is unknown, Dr. Blackstock said.

The option discussion should include a comparison of the evidence base for each regimen, including the real-world experience with TDF/FTC since 2012, and much more limited experience with TAF/FTC.

Discussing relative costs, although the wholesale costs of the regimens are similar, there is now a generic version of TDF/FTC made by Teva Pharmaceuticals that sells for about $400 less per month than the brand name, which might make the option more acceptable to health insurers.
 

Decision

The decision talk is about considering the patients preferences and deciding with them what is best.

The clinician could say, for example: “What, from your point of view, matters most to you?”

The clinician should also be willing to allow the patient to defer a decision or to guide them depending on their stated wish, asking something like: “Are you ready to decide, or do you want more time? Do you have more questions? Are there more things we should discuss?

Offering the patient a chance to review the decision can also be a good way to arrive at closure, Dr. Blackstock said.

Robert Goldstein, MD, PhD, an infectious disease specialist and medical director of the transgender health program at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, who comoderated the session where Dr. Blackstock presented her talk, said that he also uses a similar approach to the PrEP discussion.

“I use a very patient-centered approach of providing information and talking through the data that are available,” he said.

“I will say that, as patients come to me talking about the transition from TDF to TAF for pre-exposure prophylaxis, I am very clear with them about the limited benefit or no benefit that I see with TAF for pre-exposure prophylaxis, and all of my patients have remained on TDF for pre-exposure prophylaxis,” he added.

No funding source for the presentation was reported. Dr. Blackstock and Dr. Goldstein reported having no conflicts of interest to disclose.

A patient-centered approach can help guide persons at risk for HIV exposure to decide on the best choice of pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) regimens for them, stifling the noise generated by direct-to-consumer advertising, an infectious disease specialist recommends.

The decision for patients whether to start or remain on the PrEP combination of tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) plus emtricitabine (FTC; Truvada and generic) or on tenofovir alafenamide (TAF) plus FTC (Descovy) is made more fraught by confusion regarding the use of the newer and allegedly safer TAF prodrug of tenofovir in HIV treatment regimens, said Oni Blackstock, MD, founder and executive director of Health Justice and an attending physician in the division of infectious diseases at Harlem Hospital, New York.

“There have been commercials on TV as well as on social media around class-action lawsuits against [Truvada maker] Gilead,” she said in an online presentation during IDWeek 2020, an annual scientific meeting on infectious diseases, held virtually this year.

“These lawsuits focus on TDF for HIV treatment, but they have sown a great deal of confusion about TDF versus TAF for PrEP among potential and actual PrEP users,” she added.

Dr. Blackstock described her approach to shared decision-making regarding TDF/FTC versus TAF/FTC, and to helping patients understand the relative benefits and risks of each formulation.

In January of 2020, Dr. Blackstock, who was then assistant commissioner of the HIV bureau of the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, issued with other Bureau members a “Dear colleague” letter stating why they believed that TDF/FTC should remain the first-line regimen for PrEP.

That opinion, she said, was bolstered by an editorial published in February 2020 by Douglas E. Krakower, MD, from Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston, and colleagues, which questioned the rush to shift from TDF to TAF in HIV treatment, and cautioned against the same approach to PrEP.

“Despite evidence that TAF/FTC would not be cost-effective, compared with generic TDF/FTC , the newer regimen quickly and irrevocably displaced TDF/FTC for HIV treatment in the U.S. A similar shift for PrEP – especially for populations in which TAF/FTC is untested – would be premature, costly, and counterproductive for population impact,” Krakower et al. wrote.
 

Shared decision-making

Clinicians can help patients who may be a candidate for either PrEP regimen by engaging them in shared decision-making.

“The clinician provides information in this case about a prevention strategy, options, benefits and risks, alternatives, and the patient provides their preferences and values, and together the clinician and patient make a decision,” Dr. Blackstock said.

The process differs from the model of informed decision-making, where the clinician gives the patient the information and the patient comes to a decision, or the old, “paternalistic” model in which the clinician gives information and makes recommendations to the patient.

“Shared decision-making has been studied extensively and has been shown to improve patient satisfaction, patient communication, and also potentially reducing health inequities that we see,” she said.

The model for shared decision-making for clinical practice includes three distinct portions: a choice talk, option talk, and decision talk.
 

Choice

To begin the discussion, the physician informs the patients of the availability of choices and justifies them, saying, for example, “there is good information about how these two PrEP options differ that I’d like to discuss with you,” and “the two PrEP options have different side effects … some will matter more to you than other people.”

At this stage the clinician should defer closure by offering a more detailed discussion of the choices.
 

Option

Here the clinician solicits information about what the patient has heard or read about PrEP, describes each option in practical terms, and points out where the two regimens differ, being specific about the pros and cons of each (for example, potential bone mineral density loss or renal complications with TDF, and potential weight gain with subsequent metabolic and cardiovascular consequences with TAF).

The TDF versus TAF-based PrEP discussion could also focus on what’s known about the comparative effectiveness of each regimen.

For example, TDF/FTC has been shown to be about 99% effective at preventing infection in men who have sex with men and in transgender women, also about 99% effective in heterosexual women and men, and 74%-84% effective in persons who inject drugs.

In contrast, TAF/FTC has been shown to be about 99% effective in men who have sex with men and transgender women, but it’s efficacy in the other two categories is unknown, Dr. Blackstock said.

The option discussion should include a comparison of the evidence base for each regimen, including the real-world experience with TDF/FTC since 2012, and much more limited experience with TAF/FTC.

Discussing relative costs, although the wholesale costs of the regimens are similar, there is now a generic version of TDF/FTC made by Teva Pharmaceuticals that sells for about $400 less per month than the brand name, which might make the option more acceptable to health insurers.
 

Decision

The decision talk is about considering the patients preferences and deciding with them what is best.

The clinician could say, for example: “What, from your point of view, matters most to you?”

The clinician should also be willing to allow the patient to defer a decision or to guide them depending on their stated wish, asking something like: “Are you ready to decide, or do you want more time? Do you have more questions? Are there more things we should discuss?

Offering the patient a chance to review the decision can also be a good way to arrive at closure, Dr. Blackstock said.

Robert Goldstein, MD, PhD, an infectious disease specialist and medical director of the transgender health program at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, who comoderated the session where Dr. Blackstock presented her talk, said that he also uses a similar approach to the PrEP discussion.

“I use a very patient-centered approach of providing information and talking through the data that are available,” he said.

“I will say that, as patients come to me talking about the transition from TDF to TAF for pre-exposure prophylaxis, I am very clear with them about the limited benefit or no benefit that I see with TAF for pre-exposure prophylaxis, and all of my patients have remained on TDF for pre-exposure prophylaxis,” he added.

No funding source for the presentation was reported. Dr. Blackstock and Dr. Goldstein reported having no conflicts of interest to disclose.

A patient-centered approach can help guide persons at risk for HIV exposure to decide on the best choice of pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) regimens for them, stifling the noise generated by direct-to-consumer advertising, an infectious disease specialist recommends.

The decision for patients whether to start or remain on the PrEP combination of tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) plus emtricitabine (FTC; Truvada and generic) or on tenofovir alafenamide (TAF) plus FTC (Descovy) is made more fraught by confusion regarding the use of the newer and allegedly safer TAF prodrug of tenofovir in HIV treatment regimens, said Oni Blackstock, MD, founder and executive director of Health Justice and an attending physician in the division of infectious diseases at Harlem Hospital, New York.

“There have been commercials on TV as well as on social media around class-action lawsuits against [Truvada maker] Gilead,” she said in an online presentation during IDWeek 2020, an annual scientific meeting on infectious diseases, held virtually this year.

“These lawsuits focus on TDF for HIV treatment, but they have sown a great deal of confusion about TDF versus TAF for PrEP among potential and actual PrEP users,” she added.

Dr. Blackstock described her approach to shared decision-making regarding TDF/FTC versus TAF/FTC, and to helping patients understand the relative benefits and risks of each formulation.

In January of 2020, Dr. Blackstock, who was then assistant commissioner of the HIV bureau of the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, issued with other Bureau members a “Dear colleague” letter stating why they believed that TDF/FTC should remain the first-line regimen for PrEP.

That opinion, she said, was bolstered by an editorial published in February 2020 by Douglas E. Krakower, MD, from Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston, and colleagues, which questioned the rush to shift from TDF to TAF in HIV treatment, and cautioned against the same approach to PrEP.

“Despite evidence that TAF/FTC would not be cost-effective, compared with generic TDF/FTC , the newer regimen quickly and irrevocably displaced TDF/FTC for HIV treatment in the U.S. A similar shift for PrEP – especially for populations in which TAF/FTC is untested – would be premature, costly, and counterproductive for population impact,” Krakower et al. wrote.
 

Shared decision-making

Clinicians can help patients who may be a candidate for either PrEP regimen by engaging them in shared decision-making.

“The clinician provides information in this case about a prevention strategy, options, benefits and risks, alternatives, and the patient provides their preferences and values, and together the clinician and patient make a decision,” Dr. Blackstock said.

The process differs from the model of informed decision-making, where the clinician gives the patient the information and the patient comes to a decision, or the old, “paternalistic” model in which the clinician gives information and makes recommendations to the patient.

“Shared decision-making has been studied extensively and has been shown to improve patient satisfaction, patient communication, and also potentially reducing health inequities that we see,” she said.

The model for shared decision-making for clinical practice includes three distinct portions: a choice talk, option talk, and decision talk.
 

Choice

To begin the discussion, the physician informs the patients of the availability of choices and justifies them, saying, for example, “there is good information about how these two PrEP options differ that I’d like to discuss with you,” and “the two PrEP options have different side effects … some will matter more to you than other people.”

At this stage the clinician should defer closure by offering a more detailed discussion of the choices.
 

Option

Here the clinician solicits information about what the patient has heard or read about PrEP, describes each option in practical terms, and points out where the two regimens differ, being specific about the pros and cons of each (for example, potential bone mineral density loss or renal complications with TDF, and potential weight gain with subsequent metabolic and cardiovascular consequences with TAF).

The TDF versus TAF-based PrEP discussion could also focus on what’s known about the comparative effectiveness of each regimen.

For example, TDF/FTC has been shown to be about 99% effective at preventing infection in men who have sex with men and in transgender women, also about 99% effective in heterosexual women and men, and 74%-84% effective in persons who inject drugs.

In contrast, TAF/FTC has been shown to be about 99% effective in men who have sex with men and transgender women, but it’s efficacy in the other two categories is unknown, Dr. Blackstock said.

The option discussion should include a comparison of the evidence base for each regimen, including the real-world experience with TDF/FTC since 2012, and much more limited experience with TAF/FTC.

Discussing relative costs, although the wholesale costs of the regimens are similar, there is now a generic version of TDF/FTC made by Teva Pharmaceuticals that sells for about $400 less per month than the brand name, which might make the option more acceptable to health insurers.
 

Decision

The decision talk is about considering the patients preferences and deciding with them what is best.

The clinician could say, for example: “What, from your point of view, matters most to you?”

The clinician should also be willing to allow the patient to defer a decision or to guide them depending on their stated wish, asking something like: “Are you ready to decide, or do you want more time? Do you have more questions? Are there more things we should discuss?

Offering the patient a chance to review the decision can also be a good way to arrive at closure, Dr. Blackstock said.

Robert Goldstein, MD, PhD, an infectious disease specialist and medical director of the transgender health program at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, who comoderated the session where Dr. Blackstock presented her talk, said that he also uses a similar approach to the PrEP discussion.

“I use a very patient-centered approach of providing information and talking through the data that are available,” he said.

“I will say that, as patients come to me talking about the transition from TDF to TAF for pre-exposure prophylaxis, I am very clear with them about the limited benefit or no benefit that I see with TAF for pre-exposure prophylaxis, and all of my patients have remained on TDF for pre-exposure prophylaxis,” he added.

No funding source for the presentation was reported. Dr. Blackstock and Dr. Goldstein reported having no conflicts of interest to disclose.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved remdesivir (Veklury) Oct. 22 as a treatment for hospitalized COVID-19 patients aged 12 and up, making it the first and only approved treatment for COVID-19, according to a release from drug manufacturer Gilead Sciences.

The FDA’s initial Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) of the antiviral, issued in May, allowed the drug to be used only for patients with severe COVID-19, specifically, COVID-19 patients with low blood oxygen levels or who needed oxygen therapy or mechanical ventilation.

An August EUA expanded treatment to include all adult and pediatric hospitalized COVID-19 patients, regardless of the severity of their disease. The FDA also issued a new EUA for remdesivir Oct. 22 allowing treatment of hospitalized pediatric patients younger than 12 weighing at least 3.5 kg.

Today’s approval is based on three randomized controlled trials, according to Gilead.

Final trial results from one of them, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease–funded ACTT-1 trial, published earlier in October, showed that hospitalized patients with COVID-19 who received remdesivir had a shorter median recovery time than those who received a placebo – 10 days versus 15 days.

This difference and some related secondary endpoints were statistically significant in the randomized trial, but there was not a statistically significant difference in mortality between the treatment and placebo groups.

The other two trials used for the approval, the SIMPLE trials, were open-label phase 3 trials conducted in countries with a high prevalence of COVID-19 infections, according to Gilead.

The SIMPLE-Severe trial was a randomized, multicenter study that evaluated the efficacy and safety of 5-day and 10-day dosing plus standard of care in 397 hospitalized adult patients with severe COVID-19. The primary endpoint was clinical status on day 14 assessed on a 7-point ordinal scale, according to Gilead.

The trial found that a 5-day or a 10-day treatment course of Veklury achieved similar clinical outcomes to the ACTT-1 trial (odds ratio, 0.75; 95% confidence interval, 0.51-1.12).

The SIMPLE-Moderate trial was a randomized, controlled, multicenter study that evaluated the efficacy and safety of 5-day and 10-day dosing durations of Veklury plus standard of care, compared with standard of care alone in 600 hospitalized adult patients with moderate COVID-19, Gilead stated in its release.

The primary endpoint was clinical status on day 11 assessed on a 7-point ordinal scale.

The results showed statistically improved clinical outcomes with a 5-day treatment course of Veklury, compared with standard of care (OR, 1.65; 95% CI, 1.0-2.48; P = .017), according to Gilead.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved remdesivir (Veklury) Oct. 22 as a treatment for hospitalized COVID-19 patients aged 12 and up, making it the first and only approved treatment for COVID-19, according to a release from drug manufacturer Gilead Sciences.

The FDA’s initial Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) of the antiviral, issued in May, allowed the drug to be used only for patients with severe COVID-19, specifically, COVID-19 patients with low blood oxygen levels or who needed oxygen therapy or mechanical ventilation.

An August EUA expanded treatment to include all adult and pediatric hospitalized COVID-19 patients, regardless of the severity of their disease. The FDA also issued a new EUA for remdesivir Oct. 22 allowing treatment of hospitalized pediatric patients younger than 12 weighing at least 3.5 kg.

Today’s approval is based on three randomized controlled trials, according to Gilead.

Final trial results from one of them, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease–funded ACTT-1 trial, published earlier in October, showed that hospitalized patients with COVID-19 who received remdesivir had a shorter median recovery time than those who received a placebo – 10 days versus 15 days.

This difference and some related secondary endpoints were statistically significant in the randomized trial, but there was not a statistically significant difference in mortality between the treatment and placebo groups.

The other two trials used for the approval, the SIMPLE trials, were open-label phase 3 trials conducted in countries with a high prevalence of COVID-19 infections, according to Gilead.

The SIMPLE-Severe trial was a randomized, multicenter study that evaluated the efficacy and safety of 5-day and 10-day dosing plus standard of care in 397 hospitalized adult patients with severe COVID-19. The primary endpoint was clinical status on day 14 assessed on a 7-point ordinal scale, according to Gilead.

The trial found that a 5-day or a 10-day treatment course of Veklury achieved similar clinical outcomes to the ACTT-1 trial (odds ratio, 0.75; 95% confidence interval, 0.51-1.12).

The SIMPLE-Moderate trial was a randomized, controlled, multicenter study that evaluated the efficacy and safety of 5-day and 10-day dosing durations of Veklury plus standard of care, compared with standard of care alone in 600 hospitalized adult patients with moderate COVID-19, Gilead stated in its release.

The primary endpoint was clinical status on day 11 assessed on a 7-point ordinal scale.

The results showed statistically improved clinical outcomes with a 5-day treatment course of Veklury, compared with standard of care (OR, 1.65; 95% CI, 1.0-2.48; P = .017), according to Gilead.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved remdesivir (Veklury) Oct. 22 as a treatment for hospitalized COVID-19 patients aged 12 and up, making it the first and only approved treatment for COVID-19, according to a release from drug manufacturer Gilead Sciences.

The FDA’s initial Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) of the antiviral, issued in May, allowed the drug to be used only for patients with severe COVID-19, specifically, COVID-19 patients with low blood oxygen levels or who needed oxygen therapy or mechanical ventilation.

An August EUA expanded treatment to include all adult and pediatric hospitalized COVID-19 patients, regardless of the severity of their disease. The FDA also issued a new EUA for remdesivir Oct. 22 allowing treatment of hospitalized pediatric patients younger than 12 weighing at least 3.5 kg.

Today’s approval is based on three randomized controlled trials, according to Gilead.

Final trial results from one of them, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease–funded ACTT-1 trial, published earlier in October, showed that hospitalized patients with COVID-19 who received remdesivir had a shorter median recovery time than those who received a placebo – 10 days versus 15 days.

This difference and some related secondary endpoints were statistically significant in the randomized trial, but there was not a statistically significant difference in mortality between the treatment and placebo groups.

The other two trials used for the approval, the SIMPLE trials, were open-label phase 3 trials conducted in countries with a high prevalence of COVID-19 infections, according to Gilead.

The SIMPLE-Severe trial was a randomized, multicenter study that evaluated the efficacy and safety of 5-day and 10-day dosing plus standard of care in 397 hospitalized adult patients with severe COVID-19. The primary endpoint was clinical status on day 14 assessed on a 7-point ordinal scale, according to Gilead.

The trial found that a 5-day or a 10-day treatment course of Veklury achieved similar clinical outcomes to the ACTT-1 trial (odds ratio, 0.75; 95% confidence interval, 0.51-1.12).

The SIMPLE-Moderate trial was a randomized, controlled, multicenter study that evaluated the efficacy and safety of 5-day and 10-day dosing durations of Veklury plus standard of care, compared with standard of care alone in 600 hospitalized adult patients with moderate COVID-19, Gilead stated in its release.

The primary endpoint was clinical status on day 11 assessed on a 7-point ordinal scale.

The results showed statistically improved clinical outcomes with a 5-day treatment course of Veklury, compared with standard of care (OR, 1.65; 95% CI, 1.0-2.48; P = .017), according to Gilead.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Among individuals admitted to hospitals with sepsis, statin users had a lower mortality, compared with nonstatin users, according to a recent analysis focused on a large and diverse cohort of patients in California.

Mortality hazard ratios at 30 and 90 days were lower by about 20% for statin users admitted for sepsis, compared with nonstatin users, according to results of the retrospective cohort study.

Hydrophilic and synthetic statins had more favorable mortality outcomes, compared with lipophilic and fungal-derived statins, respectively, added investigator Brannen Liang, MD, a third-year internal medicine resident at Kaiser Permanente Los Angeles Medical Center.

These findings suggest a potential benefit of statins in patients with sepsis, with certain types of statins having a greater protective effect than others, according to Dr. Liang, who presented the original research in a presentation at the annual meeting of the American College of Chest Physicians, held virtually this year.

“I think there’s potential for extending the use of statins to other indications, such as sepsis,” Dr. Liang said in an interview, though he also cautioned that the present study is hypothesis generating and more research is necessary.

Using a certain statin type over another (i.e., a hydrophilic, synthetic statin) might be a consideration for populations who are at greater risk for sepsis, such as the immunocompromised, patients with diabetes, or elderly and who also require a statin for an indication such as hyperlipidemia, he added.

While the link between statin use and sepsis mortality outcomes is not new, this study is unique in that it replicates results of earlier studies in a large and diverse real-world population, Dr. Liang said.

“Numerous studies seem to suggest that statins may play a role in attenuating the mortality of patients admitted to the hospital with sepsis, for whatever reason – whether this is due to their anti-inflammatory effects, their lipid-lowering effects, or if they truly have an antimicrobial effect, which has been studied in vitro and in animal studies,” he said in an interview.

It’s impossible to definitively conclude from retrospective studies such as this whether statins reduce sepsis-related mortality risk, but the present study at least makes the case for using certain types of statins when they are indicated in high-risk patients, said Steven Q. Simpson, MD, FCCP, professor of medicine in the division of pulmonary and critical care medicine at the University of Kansas, Kansas City.

“If you have patients at high risk for sepsis and they need a statin, you could give consideration to using a hydrophilic and synthetic statin, rather than either of the other choices,” said Dr. Simpson, CHEST president-elect and senior advisor to the Solving Sepsis initiative of the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority of the Department of Health & Human Services.

The retrospective cohort study by Dr. Liang and colleagues included a total of 137,019 individuals admitted for sepsis within the Kaiser Permanente Southern California health system between 2008 and 2018. Of that group, 36,908 were taking a statin.

Overall, the mean age of patients admitted for sepsis was 66.9 years, and 50.4% were female. Nearly 50% were White, about 12% were Black, 28% were Hispanic, and 8% were Asian. A diagnosis of ischemic heart disease was reported for 43% of statin users and 23% of nonusers, while diabetes mellitus was reported for 60% of statin users and 37% of nonusers (P < .0001 for both comparisons).

Differences in mortality favored statin users, compared with nonusers, with hazard ratios of 0.79 (95% confidence interval, 0.77-0.82) at 30 days and similarly, 0.79 (95% CI, 0.77-0.81) at 90 days, Dr. Liang reported, noting that the models were adjusted for age, race, sex, and comorbidities.

Further analysis suggested a mortality advantage of lipophilic, compared with hydrophilic statins, and an advantage of fungal-derived statins over synthetic-derived statins, the investigator added.

In the comparison of lipophilic statin users and hydrophilic statin users, the 30- and 90-day mortality HRs were 1.13 (95% CI, 1.02-1.26) and 1.17 (95% CI, 1.07-1.28), respectively, the data show. For fungal-derived statin users, compared with synthetic derived statin users, 30- and 90-day mortality HRs were 1.12 (95% CI, 1.06-1.19) and 1.14 (95% CI, 1.09-1.20), respectively.

Dr. Liang and coauthors disclosed no relevant relationships with respect to the work presented at the CHEST meeting.

SOURCE: Liang B et al. CHEST 2020, Abstract A589.

Among individuals admitted to hospitals with sepsis, statin users had a lower mortality, compared with nonstatin users, according to a recent analysis focused on a large and diverse cohort of patients in California.

Mortality hazard ratios at 30 and 90 days were lower by about 20% for statin users admitted for sepsis, compared with nonstatin users, according to results of the retrospective cohort study.

Hydrophilic and synthetic statins had more favorable mortality outcomes, compared with lipophilic and fungal-derived statins, respectively, added investigator Brannen Liang, MD, a third-year internal medicine resident at Kaiser Permanente Los Angeles Medical Center.

These findings suggest a potential benefit of statins in patients with sepsis, with certain types of statins having a greater protective effect than others, according to Dr. Liang, who presented the original research in a presentation at the annual meeting of the American College of Chest Physicians, held virtually this year.

“I think there’s potential for extending the use of statins to other indications, such as sepsis,” Dr. Liang said in an interview, though he also cautioned that the present study is hypothesis generating and more research is necessary.

Using a certain statin type over another (i.e., a hydrophilic, synthetic statin) might be a consideration for populations who are at greater risk for sepsis, such as the immunocompromised, patients with diabetes, or elderly and who also require a statin for an indication such as hyperlipidemia, he added.

While the link between statin use and sepsis mortality outcomes is not new, this study is unique in that it replicates results of earlier studies in a large and diverse real-world population, Dr. Liang said.

“Numerous studies seem to suggest that statins may play a role in attenuating the mortality of patients admitted to the hospital with sepsis, for whatever reason – whether this is due to their anti-inflammatory effects, their lipid-lowering effects, or if they truly have an antimicrobial effect, which has been studied in vitro and in animal studies,” he said in an interview.

It’s impossible to definitively conclude from retrospective studies such as this whether statins reduce sepsis-related mortality risk, but the present study at least makes the case for using certain types of statins when they are indicated in high-risk patients, said Steven Q. Simpson, MD, FCCP, professor of medicine in the division of pulmonary and critical care medicine at the University of Kansas, Kansas City.

“If you have patients at high risk for sepsis and they need a statin, you could give consideration to using a hydrophilic and synthetic statin, rather than either of the other choices,” said Dr. Simpson, CHEST president-elect and senior advisor to the Solving Sepsis initiative of the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority of the Department of Health & Human Services.

The retrospective cohort study by Dr. Liang and colleagues included a total of 137,019 individuals admitted for sepsis within the Kaiser Permanente Southern California health system between 2008 and 2018. Of that group, 36,908 were taking a statin.

Overall, the mean age of patients admitted for sepsis was 66.9 years, and 50.4% were female. Nearly 50% were White, about 12% were Black, 28% were Hispanic, and 8% were Asian. A diagnosis of ischemic heart disease was reported for 43% of statin users and 23% of nonusers, while diabetes mellitus was reported for 60% of statin users and 37% of nonusers (P < .0001 for both comparisons).

Differences in mortality favored statin users, compared with nonusers, with hazard ratios of 0.79 (95% confidence interval, 0.77-0.82) at 30 days and similarly, 0.79 (95% CI, 0.77-0.81) at 90 days, Dr. Liang reported, noting that the models were adjusted for age, race, sex, and comorbidities.

Further analysis suggested a mortality advantage of lipophilic, compared with hydrophilic statins, and an advantage of fungal-derived statins over synthetic-derived statins, the investigator added.

In the comparison of lipophilic statin users and hydrophilic statin users, the 30- and 90-day mortality HRs were 1.13 (95% CI, 1.02-1.26) and 1.17 (95% CI, 1.07-1.28), respectively, the data show. For fungal-derived statin users, compared with synthetic derived statin users, 30- and 90-day mortality HRs were 1.12 (95% CI, 1.06-1.19) and 1.14 (95% CI, 1.09-1.20), respectively.

Dr. Liang and coauthors disclosed no relevant relationships with respect to the work presented at the CHEST meeting.

SOURCE: Liang B et al. CHEST 2020, Abstract A589.

Among individuals admitted to hospitals with sepsis, statin users had a lower mortality, compared with nonstatin users, according to a recent analysis focused on a large and diverse cohort of patients in California.

Mortality hazard ratios at 30 and 90 days were lower by about 20% for statin users admitted for sepsis, compared with nonstatin users, according to results of the retrospective cohort study.

Hydrophilic and synthetic statins had more favorable mortality outcomes, compared with lipophilic and fungal-derived statins, respectively, added investigator Brannen Liang, MD, a third-year internal medicine resident at Kaiser Permanente Los Angeles Medical Center.

These findings suggest a potential benefit of statins in patients with sepsis, with certain types of statins having a greater protective effect than others, according to Dr. Liang, who presented the original research in a presentation at the annual meeting of the American College of Chest Physicians, held virtually this year.

“I think there’s potential for extending the use of statins to other indications, such as sepsis,” Dr. Liang said in an interview, though he also cautioned that the present study is hypothesis generating and more research is necessary.

Using a certain statin type over another (i.e., a hydrophilic, synthetic statin) might be a consideration for populations who are at greater risk for sepsis, such as the immunocompromised, patients with diabetes, or elderly and who also require a statin for an indication such as hyperlipidemia, he added.

While the link between statin use and sepsis mortality outcomes is not new, this study is unique in that it replicates results of earlier studies in a large and diverse real-world population, Dr. Liang said.

“Numerous studies seem to suggest that statins may play a role in attenuating the mortality of patients admitted to the hospital with sepsis, for whatever reason – whether this is due to their anti-inflammatory effects, their lipid-lowering effects, or if they truly have an antimicrobial effect, which has been studied in vitro and in animal studies,” he said in an interview.

It’s impossible to definitively conclude from retrospective studies such as this whether statins reduce sepsis-related mortality risk, but the present study at least makes the case for using certain types of statins when they are indicated in high-risk patients, said Steven Q. Simpson, MD, FCCP, professor of medicine in the division of pulmonary and critical care medicine at the University of Kansas, Kansas City.

“If you have patients at high risk for sepsis and they need a statin, you could give consideration to using a hydrophilic and synthetic statin, rather than either of the other choices,” said Dr. Simpson, CHEST president-elect and senior advisor to the Solving Sepsis initiative of the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority of the Department of Health & Human Services.

The retrospective cohort study by Dr. Liang and colleagues included a total of 137,019 individuals admitted for sepsis within the Kaiser Permanente Southern California health system between 2008 and 2018. Of that group, 36,908 were taking a statin.

Overall, the mean age of patients admitted for sepsis was 66.9 years, and 50.4% were female. Nearly 50% were White, about 12% were Black, 28% were Hispanic, and 8% were Asian. A diagnosis of ischemic heart disease was reported for 43% of statin users and 23% of nonusers, while diabetes mellitus was reported for 60% of statin users and 37% of nonusers (P < .0001 for both comparisons).

Differences in mortality favored statin users, compared with nonusers, with hazard ratios of 0.79 (95% confidence interval, 0.77-0.82) at 30 days and similarly, 0.79 (95% CI, 0.77-0.81) at 90 days, Dr. Liang reported, noting that the models were adjusted for age, race, sex, and comorbidities.

Further analysis suggested a mortality advantage of lipophilic, compared with hydrophilic statins, and an advantage of fungal-derived statins over synthetic-derived statins, the investigator added.

In the comparison of lipophilic statin users and hydrophilic statin users, the 30- and 90-day mortality HRs were 1.13 (95% CI, 1.02-1.26) and 1.17 (95% CI, 1.07-1.28), respectively, the data show. For fungal-derived statin users, compared with synthetic derived statin users, 30- and 90-day mortality HRs were 1.12 (95% CI, 1.06-1.19) and 1.14 (95% CI, 1.09-1.20), respectively.

Dr. Liang and coauthors disclosed no relevant relationships with respect to the work presented at the CHEST meeting.

SOURCE: Liang B et al. CHEST 2020, Abstract A589.

Start most patients newly diagnosed with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction on the disorder’s four foundational drug regimens all at once, all on the day the diagnosis is made, Gregg C. Fonarow, MD, recommended.

Less than 2 months before Dr. Fonarow made that striking statement during the virtual annual meeting of the Heart Failure Society of America, investigators first reported results from the EMPEROR-Reduced trial at the European Society of Cardiology’s virtual annual meeting, showing that the sodium-glucose transporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor empagliflozin (Jardiance) successfully cut events in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). That report, a year after results from a similar trial (DAPA-HF) showed the same outcome using a different drug from the same class, dapagliflozin (Farxiga), cemented the SGLT2 inhibitor drug class as the fourth pillar for treating HFrEF, joining the angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) class (sacubitril valsartan), beta-blockers (like carvedilol), and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (like spironolactone).

This rejiggering of the consensus expert approach for treating HFrEF left cardiologists wondering what sequence to use when starting this quadruple therapy. Within weeks, the answer from heart failure opinion leaders was clear:

“Start all four pillars simultaneously. Most patients can tolerate, and will benefit from, a simultaneous start,” declared Dr. Fonarow, professor and chief of cardiology at the University of California, Los Angeles.

His rationale? Patients get benefits from each of these drug classes “surprisingly early,” with improved outcomes in clinical trials appearing within a few weeks, compared with patients in control arms. The consequence is that any delay in starting treatment denies patients time with improved health status, function, and survival.

Study results documented that the four foundational drug classes can produce rapid improvements in health status, left ventricular size and shape, and make clinically meaningful cuts in both first and recurrent hospitalizations for heart failure and in mortality, Dr. Fonarow said. After 30 days on quadruple treatment, a patient’s relative risk for death drops by more than three-quarters, compared with patients not on these medications.

The benefits from each of the four classes involve distinct physiologic pathways and hence are not diminished by concurrent treatment. And immediate initiation avoids the risk of clinical inertia and a negligence to prescribe one or more of the four important drug classes. Introducing the four classes in a sequential manner could mean spending as long as a year to get all four on board and up-titrated to optimal therapeutic levels, he noted.

“Overcome inertia by prescribing [all four drug classes] at the time of diagnosis,” Dr. Fonarow admonished his audience.

The challenge of prescribing inertia

The risk for inertia in prescribing heart failure medications is real. Data collected in the CHAMP-HF (Change the Management of Patients with Heart Failure) registry from more than 3,500 HFrEF patients managed at any of 150 U.S. primary care and cardiology practices starting in late 2015 and continuing through 2017 showed that, among patients eligible for treatment with renin-angiotensin system (RAS) inhibition (with either ARNI or a single RAS inhibiting drug), a beta-blocker, and a mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist (MRA), 22% received all three drug classes. A scant 1% were on target dosages of all three drug classes, noted Stephen J. Greene, MD, in a separate talk at the meeting when he cited his published findings.

The sole formulation currently in the ARNI class, sacubitril/valsartan (Entresto) has in recent years been the poster child for prescribing inertia in HFrEF patients after coming onto the U.S. market for routine use in 2015. A review run by Dr. Greene of more than 9,000 HFrEF patients who were at least 65 years old and discharged from a hospital participating in the Get With the Guidelines–Heart Failure registry during October 2015–September 2017 showed that 8% of eligible patients actually received a sacubitril/valsartan prescription. Separate assessment of outpatients with HFrEF from the same era showed 13% uptake, said D. Greene, a cardiologist at Duke University, Durham, N.C.

Substantial gaps in prescribing evidence-based treatments to HFrEF patients have existed for the past couple of decades, said Dr. Greene. “Even a blockbuster drug like sacubitril/valsartan has been slow to implement.”
 

Quadruple therapy adds an average of 6 years of life

One of the most strongest arguments favoring the start-four-at-once approach was detailed in what’s quickly become a widely cited analysis published in July 2020 by a team of researchers led by Muthiah Vaduganathan, MD. Using data from three key pivotal trials they estimated that timely treatment with all four drug classes would on average produce an extra 6 years of overall survival in a 55-year old HFrEF patient, and an added 8 years free from cardiovascular death or first hospitalization for heart failure, compared with less comprehensive treatment. The analysis also showed a significant 3-year average boost in overall survival among HFrEF patients who were 80 years old when using quadruple therapy compared with the “conventional medical therapy” used on control patients in the three trials examined.

Dr. Greene called these findings “remarkable.”

Mitchel L. Zoler/Frontline Medical News

“Four drugs use five mechanistic pathways to produce 6 added years of survival,” summed up Dr. Vaduganathan during a separate talk at the virtual meeting.

In addition to this substantial potential for a meaningful impact on patents’ lives, he cited other factors that add to the case for early prescription of the pharmaceutical gauntlet: avoiding missed treatment opportunities that occur with slower, step-wise drug introduction; simplifying, streamlining, and standardizing the care pathway, which helps avoid care inequities and disrupts the potential for inertia; magnifying benefit when comprehensive treatment starts sooner; and providing additive benefits without drug-drug interactions.

“Upfront treatment at the time of [HFrEF] diagnosis or hospitalization is an approach that disrupts treatment inertia,” emphasized Dr. Vaduganathan, a cardiologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston.
 

New approaches needed to encourage quick uptake

“Efficacy alone has not been enough for efficient uptake in U.S. practice” of sacubitril/valsartan, other RAS inhibitors, beta-blockers, and MRAs, noted Dr. Greene.

He was more optimistic about prospects for relatively quick uptake of early SGLT2 inhibitor treatment as part of routine HFrEF management given all the positives that this new HFrEF treatment offers, including some “unique features” among HFrEF drugs. These include the simplicity of the regimen, which involves a single dosage for everyone that’s taken once daily; minimal blood pressure effects and no adverse renal effects while also producing substantial renal protection; and two SGLT2 inhibitors with proven HFrEF benefit (dapagliflozin and empagliflozin), which bodes well for an eventual price drop.

The SGLT2 inhibitors stack up as an “ideal” HFrEF treatment, concluded Dr. Greene, which should facilitate quick uptake. As far as getting clinicians to also add early on the other three members of the core four treatment classes in routine treatment, he conceded that “innovative and evidence-based approaches to improving real-world uptake of guideline-directed medical therapy are urgently needed.”

EMPEROR-Reduced was funded by Boehringer Ingelheim and Lilly, the companies that market empagliflozin (Jardiance). CHAMP-HF was funded by Novartis, the company that markets sacubitril/valsartan (Entresto). Dr. Fonarow has been a consultant or adviser to Novartis, as well as to Abbott, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, CHF Solutions, Edwards, Janssen, Medtronic, and Merck. Dr. Greene has received research funding from Novartis, has been a consultant to Amgen and Merck, an adviser to Amgen and Cytokinetics, and has received research funding from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Merck. Dr. Vaduganathan has had financial relationships with Boehringer Ingelheim and Novartis, as well as with Amgen, AstraZeneca, Baxter Healthcare, Bayer, Cytokinetics, and Relypsa.

[email protected]

Start most patients newly diagnosed with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction on the disorder’s four foundational drug regimens all at once, all on the day the diagnosis is made, Gregg C. Fonarow, MD, recommended.

Less than 2 months before Dr. Fonarow made that striking statement during the virtual annual meeting of the Heart Failure Society of America, investigators first reported results from the EMPEROR-Reduced trial at the European Society of Cardiology’s virtual annual meeting, showing that the sodium-glucose transporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor empagliflozin (Jardiance) successfully cut events in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). That report, a year after results from a similar trial (DAPA-HF) showed the same outcome using a different drug from the same class, dapagliflozin (Farxiga), cemented the SGLT2 inhibitor drug class as the fourth pillar for treating HFrEF, joining the angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) class (sacubitril valsartan), beta-blockers (like carvedilol), and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (like spironolactone).

This rejiggering of the consensus expert approach for treating HFrEF left cardiologists wondering what sequence to use when starting this quadruple therapy. Within weeks, the answer from heart failure opinion leaders was clear:

“Start all four pillars simultaneously. Most patients can tolerate, and will benefit from, a simultaneous start,” declared Dr. Fonarow, professor and chief of cardiology at the University of California, Los Angeles.

His rationale? Patients get benefits from each of these drug classes “surprisingly early,” with improved outcomes in clinical trials appearing within a few weeks, compared with patients in control arms. The consequence is that any delay in starting treatment denies patients time with improved health status, function, and survival.

Study results documented that the four foundational drug classes can produce rapid improvements in health status, left ventricular size and shape, and make clinically meaningful cuts in both first and recurrent hospitalizations for heart failure and in mortality, Dr. Fonarow said. After 30 days on quadruple treatment, a patient’s relative risk for death drops by more than three-quarters, compared with patients not on these medications.

The benefits from each of the four classes involve distinct physiologic pathways and hence are not diminished by concurrent treatment. And immediate initiation avoids the risk of clinical inertia and a negligence to prescribe one or more of the four important drug classes. Introducing the four classes in a sequential manner could mean spending as long as a year to get all four on board and up-titrated to optimal therapeutic levels, he noted.

“Overcome inertia by prescribing [all four drug classes] at the time of diagnosis,” Dr. Fonarow admonished his audience.

The challenge of prescribing inertia

The risk for inertia in prescribing heart failure medications is real. Data collected in the CHAMP-HF (Change the Management of Patients with Heart Failure) registry from more than 3,500 HFrEF patients managed at any of 150 U.S. primary care and cardiology practices starting in late 2015 and continuing through 2017 showed that, among patients eligible for treatment with renin-angiotensin system (RAS) inhibition (with either ARNI or a single RAS inhibiting drug), a beta-blocker, and a mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist (MRA), 22% received all three drug classes. A scant 1% were on target dosages of all three drug classes, noted Stephen J. Greene, MD, in a separate talk at the meeting when he cited his published findings.

The sole formulation currently in the ARNI class, sacubitril/valsartan (Entresto) has in recent years been the poster child for prescribing inertia in HFrEF patients after coming onto the U.S. market for routine use in 2015. A review run by Dr. Greene of more than 9,000 HFrEF patients who were at least 65 years old and discharged from a hospital participating in the Get With the Guidelines–Heart Failure registry during October 2015–September 2017 showed that 8% of eligible patients actually received a sacubitril/valsartan prescription. Separate assessment of outpatients with HFrEF from the same era showed 13% uptake, said D. Greene, a cardiologist at Duke University, Durham, N.C.

Substantial gaps in prescribing evidence-based treatments to HFrEF patients have existed for the past couple of decades, said Dr. Greene. “Even a blockbuster drug like sacubitril/valsartan has been slow to implement.”
 

Quadruple therapy adds an average of 6 years of life

One of the most strongest arguments favoring the start-four-at-once approach was detailed in what’s quickly become a widely cited analysis published in July 2020 by a team of researchers led by Muthiah Vaduganathan, MD. Using data from three key pivotal trials they estimated that timely treatment with all four drug classes would on average produce an extra 6 years of overall survival in a 55-year old HFrEF patient, and an added 8 years free from cardiovascular death or first hospitalization for heart failure, compared with less comprehensive treatment. The analysis also showed a significant 3-year average boost in overall survival among HFrEF patients who were 80 years old when using quadruple therapy compared with the “conventional medical therapy” used on control patients in the three trials examined.

Dr. Greene called these findings “remarkable.”

Mitchel L. Zoler/Frontline Medical News

“Four drugs use five mechanistic pathways to produce 6 added years of survival,” summed up Dr. Vaduganathan during a separate talk at the virtual meeting.

In addition to this substantial potential for a meaningful impact on patents’ lives, he cited other factors that add to the case for early prescription of the pharmaceutical gauntlet: avoiding missed treatment opportunities that occur with slower, step-wise drug introduction; simplifying, streamlining, and standardizing the care pathway, which helps avoid care inequities and disrupts the potential for inertia; magnifying benefit when comprehensive treatment starts sooner; and providing additive benefits without drug-drug interactions.

“Upfront treatment at the time of [HFrEF] diagnosis or hospitalization is an approach that disrupts treatment inertia,” emphasized Dr. Vaduganathan, a cardiologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston.
 

New approaches needed to encourage quick uptake

“Efficacy alone has not been enough for efficient uptake in U.S. practice” of sacubitril/valsartan, other RAS inhibitors, beta-blockers, and MRAs, noted Dr. Greene.

He was more optimistic about prospects for relatively quick uptake of early SGLT2 inhibitor treatment as part of routine HFrEF management given all the positives that this new HFrEF treatment offers, including some “unique features” among HFrEF drugs. These include the simplicity of the regimen, which involves a single dosage for everyone that’s taken once daily; minimal blood pressure effects and no adverse renal effects while also producing substantial renal protection; and two SGLT2 inhibitors with proven HFrEF benefit (dapagliflozin and empagliflozin), which bodes well for an eventual price drop.

The SGLT2 inhibitors stack up as an “ideal” HFrEF treatment, concluded Dr. Greene, which should facilitate quick uptake. As far as getting clinicians to also add early on the other three members of the core four treatment classes in routine treatment, he conceded that “innovative and evidence-based approaches to improving real-world uptake of guideline-directed medical therapy are urgently needed.”

EMPEROR-Reduced was funded by Boehringer Ingelheim and Lilly, the companies that market empagliflozin (Jardiance). CHAMP-HF was funded by Novartis, the company that markets sacubitril/valsartan (Entresto). Dr. Fonarow has been a consultant or adviser to Novartis, as well as to Abbott, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, CHF Solutions, Edwards, Janssen, Medtronic, and Merck. Dr. Greene has received research funding from Novartis, has been a consultant to Amgen and Merck, an adviser to Amgen and Cytokinetics, and has received research funding from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Merck. Dr. Vaduganathan has had financial relationships with Boehringer Ingelheim and Novartis, as well as with Amgen, AstraZeneca, Baxter Healthcare, Bayer, Cytokinetics, and Relypsa.

[email protected]

Start most patients newly diagnosed with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction on the disorder’s four foundational drug regimens all at once, all on the day the diagnosis is made, Gregg C. Fonarow, MD, recommended.

Less than 2 months before Dr. Fonarow made that striking statement during the virtual annual meeting of the Heart Failure Society of America, investigators first reported results from the EMPEROR-Reduced trial at the European Society of Cardiology’s virtual annual meeting, showing that the sodium-glucose transporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor empagliflozin (Jardiance) successfully cut events in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). That report, a year after results from a similar trial (DAPA-HF) showed the same outcome using a different drug from the same class, dapagliflozin (Farxiga), cemented the SGLT2 inhibitor drug class as the fourth pillar for treating HFrEF, joining the angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) class (sacubitril valsartan), beta-blockers (like carvedilol), and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (like spironolactone).

This rejiggering of the consensus expert approach for treating HFrEF left cardiologists wondering what sequence to use when starting this quadruple therapy. Within weeks, the answer from heart failure opinion leaders was clear:

“Start all four pillars simultaneously. Most patients can tolerate, and will benefit from, a simultaneous start,” declared Dr. Fonarow, professor and chief of cardiology at the University of California, Los Angeles.

His rationale? Patients get benefits from each of these drug classes “surprisingly early,” with improved outcomes in clinical trials appearing within a few weeks, compared with patients in control arms. The consequence is that any delay in starting treatment denies patients time with improved health status, function, and survival.

Study results documented that the four foundational drug classes can produce rapid improvements in health status, left ventricular size and shape, and make clinically meaningful cuts in both first and recurrent hospitalizations for heart failure and in mortality, Dr. Fonarow said. After 30 days on quadruple treatment, a patient’s relative risk for death drops by more than three-quarters, compared with patients not on these medications.

The benefits from each of the four classes involve distinct physiologic pathways and hence are not diminished by concurrent treatment. And immediate initiation avoids the risk of clinical inertia and a negligence to prescribe one or more of the four important drug classes. Introducing the four classes in a sequential manner could mean spending as long as a year to get all four on board and up-titrated to optimal therapeutic levels, he noted.

“Overcome inertia by prescribing [all four drug classes] at the time of diagnosis,” Dr. Fonarow admonished his audience.

The challenge of prescribing inertia

The risk for inertia in prescribing heart failure medications is real. Data collected in the CHAMP-HF (Change the Management of Patients with Heart Failure) registry from more than 3,500 HFrEF patients managed at any of 150 U.S. primary care and cardiology practices starting in late 2015 and continuing through 2017 showed that, among patients eligible for treatment with renin-angiotensin system (RAS) inhibition (with either ARNI or a single RAS inhibiting drug), a beta-blocker, and a mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist (MRA), 22% received all three drug classes. A scant 1% were on target dosages of all three drug classes, noted Stephen J. Greene, MD, in a separate talk at the meeting when he cited his published findings.

The sole formulation currently in the ARNI class, sacubitril/valsartan (Entresto) has in recent years been the poster child for prescribing inertia in HFrEF patients after coming onto the U.S. market for routine use in 2015. A review run by Dr. Greene of more than 9,000 HFrEF patients who were at least 65 years old and discharged from a hospital participating in the Get With the Guidelines–Heart Failure registry during October 2015–September 2017 showed that 8% of eligible patients actually received a sacubitril/valsartan prescription. Separate assessment of outpatients with HFrEF from the same era showed 13% uptake, said D. Greene, a cardiologist at Duke University, Durham, N.C.

Substantial gaps in prescribing evidence-based treatments to HFrEF patients have existed for the past couple of decades, said Dr. Greene. “Even a blockbuster drug like sacubitril/valsartan has been slow to implement.”
 

Quadruple therapy adds an average of 6 years of life

One of the most strongest arguments favoring the start-four-at-once approach was detailed in what’s quickly become a widely cited analysis published in July 2020 by a team of researchers led by Muthiah Vaduganathan, MD. Using data from three key pivotal trials they estimated that timely treatment with all four drug classes would on average produce an extra 6 years of overall survival in a 55-year old HFrEF patient, and an added 8 years free from cardiovascular death or first hospitalization for heart failure, compared with less comprehensive treatment. The analysis also showed a significant 3-year average boost in overall survival among HFrEF patients who were 80 years old when using quadruple therapy compared with the “conventional medical therapy” used on control patients in the three trials examined.

Dr. Greene called these findings “remarkable.”

Mitchel L. Zoler/Frontline Medical News

“Four drugs use five mechanistic pathways to produce 6 added years of survival,” summed up Dr. Vaduganathan during a separate talk at the virtual meeting.

In addition to this substantial potential for a meaningful impact on patents’ lives, he cited other factors that add to the case for early prescription of the pharmaceutical gauntlet: avoiding missed treatment opportunities that occur with slower, step-wise drug introduction; simplifying, streamlining, and standardizing the care pathway, which helps avoid care inequities and disrupts the potential for inertia; magnifying benefit when comprehensive treatment starts sooner; and providing additive benefits without drug-drug interactions.

“Upfront treatment at the time of [HFrEF] diagnosis or hospitalization is an approach that disrupts treatment inertia,” emphasized Dr. Vaduganathan, a cardiologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston.
 

New approaches needed to encourage quick uptake

“Efficacy alone has not been enough for efficient uptake in U.S. practice” of sacubitril/valsartan, other RAS inhibitors, beta-blockers, and MRAs, noted Dr. Greene.

He was more optimistic about prospects for relatively quick uptake of early SGLT2 inhibitor treatment as part of routine HFrEF management given all the positives that this new HFrEF treatment offers, including some “unique features” among HFrEF drugs. These include the simplicity of the regimen, which involves a single dosage for everyone that’s taken once daily; minimal blood pressure effects and no adverse renal effects while also producing substantial renal protection; and two SGLT2 inhibitors with proven HFrEF benefit (dapagliflozin and empagliflozin), which bodes well for an eventual price drop.

The SGLT2 inhibitors stack up as an “ideal” HFrEF treatment, concluded Dr. Greene, which should facilitate quick uptake. As far as getting clinicians to also add early on the other three members of the core four treatment classes in routine treatment, he conceded that “innovative and evidence-based approaches to improving real-world uptake of guideline-directed medical therapy are urgently needed.”

EMPEROR-Reduced was funded by Boehringer Ingelheim and Lilly, the companies that market empagliflozin (Jardiance). CHAMP-HF was funded by Novartis, the company that markets sacubitril/valsartan (Entresto). Dr. Fonarow has been a consultant or adviser to Novartis, as well as to Abbott, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, CHF Solutions, Edwards, Janssen, Medtronic, and Merck. Dr. Greene has received research funding from Novartis, has been a consultant to Amgen and Merck, an adviser to Amgen and Cytokinetics, and has received research funding from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Merck. Dr. Vaduganathan has had financial relationships with Boehringer Ingelheim and Novartis, as well as with Amgen, AstraZeneca, Baxter Healthcare, Bayer, Cytokinetics, and Relypsa.

[email protected]

We can “stop putting money on vitamin D” to help patients who require critical care, said Todd Rice, MD, FCCP.

“Results from vitamin D trials have not been uniformly one way, but they have been pretty uniformly disappointing,” Dr. Rice, from Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn., reported at the annual meeting of the American College of Chest Physicians.

Low levels of vitamin D in critically ill COVID-19 patients have been reported in numerous recent studies, and researchers are looking for ways to boost those levels and improve outcomes.

We are seeing “the exact same story” in the critically ill COVID-19 population as we see in the general ICU population, said Dr. Rice. “The whole scenario is repeating itself. I’m pessimistic.”

Still, vitamin D levels can be elevated so, in theory, “the concept makes sense,” he said. There is evidence that, “when given enterally, the levels rise nicely” and vitamin D is absorbed reasonably well.” But is that enough?

When patients are admitted to the ICU, some biomarkers in the body are too high and others are too low. Vitamin D is often too low. So far, though, “supplementing vitamin D in the ICU has not significantly improved outcomes,” said Dr. Rice.

In the Vitamin D to Improve Outcomes by Leveraging Early Treatment (VIOLET) trial, Dr. Rice and colleagues found no statistical benefit when a 540,000 IU boost of vitamin D was administered to 2,624 critically ill patients, as reported by Medscape Medical News.

“Early administration of high-dose enteral vitamin D₃ did not provide an advantage over placebo with respect to 90-day mortality or other nonfatal outcomes among critically ill, vitamin D–deficient patients,” the researchers write in their recent report.

In fact, VIOLET ended before enrollment had reached the planned 3,000-patient cohort because the statistical analysis clearly did not show benefit. Those enrolled were in the ICU because of, among other things, pneumonia, sepsis, the need for mechanical ventilation or vasopressors, and risk for acute respiratory distress syndrome.

“It doesn’t look like vitamin D is going to be the answer to our critical care problems,” Dr. Rice said in an interview.
 

Maintenance dose needed?

One theory suggests that VIOLET might have failed because a maintenance dose is needed after the initial boost of vitamin D.

In the ongoing VITDALIZE trial, critically ill patients with severe vitamin D deficiency (12 ng/mL or less at admission) receive an initial 540,000-IU dose followed by 4,000 IU per day.

The highly anticipated VITDALIZE results are expected in the middle of next year, Dr. Rice reported, so “let’s wait to see.”

“Vitamin D may not have an acute effect,” he theorized. “We can raise your levels, but that doesn’t give you all the benefits of having a sufficient level for a long period of time.”

Another theory suggests that a low level of vitamin D is simply a signal of the severity of disease, not a direct influence on disease pathology.

Some observational data have shown an association between low levels of vitamin D and outcomes in COVID-19 patients (Nutrients. 2020 May 9;12[5]:1359; medRxiv 2020 Apr 24. doi: 10.1101/2020.04.24.20075838; JAMA Netw Open. 2020;3[9]:e2019722; FEBS J. 2020 Jul 23;10.1111/febs.15495; Clin Endocrinol [Oxf]. 2020 Jul 3;10.1111/cen.14276), but some have shown no association (medRxiv. 2020 Jun 26. doi: 10.1101/2020.06.26.20140921; J Public Health [Oxf]. 2020 Aug 18;42[3]:451-60).

Dr. Rice conducted a search of Clinicaltrials.gov immediately before his presentation on Sunday, and found 41 ongoing interventional studies – “not observational studies” – looking at COVID-19 and vitamin D.

“They’re recruiting, they’re enrolling; hopefully we’ll have data soon,” he said.

Researchers have checked a lot of boxes with a resounding yes on the vitamin D question, so there’s reason to think an association does exist for ICU patients, whether or not they have COVID-19.

“Is there a theoretical benefit of vitamin D in the ICU?” Dr. Rice asked. “Yes. Is vitamin D deficient in patients in the ICU? Yes. Is that deficiency associated with poor outcomes? Yes. Can it be replaced safely? Yes.”

However, “we’re not really sure that it improves outcomes,” he said.
 

A chronic issue?

“Do you think it’s really an issue of the patients being critically ill with vitamin D,” or is it “a chronic issue of having low vitamin D?” asked session moderator Antine Stenbit, MD, PhD, from the University of California, San Diego.

“We don’t know for sure,” Dr. Rice said. Vitamin D might not have a lot of acute effects; it might have effects that are chronic, that work with levels over a period of time, he explained.

“It’s not clear we can correct that with a single dose or with a few days of giving a level that is adequate,” he acknowledged.

Dr. Rice is an investigator in the PETAL network. Dr. Stenbit disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

We can “stop putting money on vitamin D” to help patients who require critical care, said Todd Rice, MD, FCCP.

“Results from vitamin D trials have not been uniformly one way, but they have been pretty uniformly disappointing,” Dr. Rice, from Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn., reported at the annual meeting of the American College of Chest Physicians.

Low levels of vitamin D in critically ill COVID-19 patients have been reported in numerous recent studies, and researchers are looking for ways to boost those levels and improve outcomes.

We are seeing “the exact same story” in the critically ill COVID-19 population as we see in the general ICU population, said Dr. Rice. “The whole scenario is repeating itself. I’m pessimistic.”

Still, vitamin D levels can be elevated so, in theory, “the concept makes sense,” he said. There is evidence that, “when given enterally, the levels rise nicely” and vitamin D is absorbed reasonably well.” But is that enough?

When patients are admitted to the ICU, some biomarkers in the body are too high and others are too low. Vitamin D is often too low. So far, though, “supplementing vitamin D in the ICU has not significantly improved outcomes,” said Dr. Rice.

In the Vitamin D to Improve Outcomes by Leveraging Early Treatment (VIOLET) trial, Dr. Rice and colleagues found no statistical benefit when a 540,000 IU boost of vitamin D was administered to 2,624 critically ill patients, as reported by Medscape Medical News.

“Early administration of high-dose enteral vitamin D₃ did not provide an advantage over placebo with respect to 90-day mortality or other nonfatal outcomes among critically ill, vitamin D–deficient patients,” the researchers write in their recent report.

In fact, VIOLET ended before enrollment had reached the planned 3,000-patient cohort because the statistical analysis clearly did not show benefit. Those enrolled were in the ICU because of, among other things, pneumonia, sepsis, the need for mechanical ventilation or vasopressors, and risk for acute respiratory distress syndrome.

“It doesn’t look like vitamin D is going to be the answer to our critical care problems,” Dr. Rice said in an interview.
 

Maintenance dose needed?

One theory suggests that VIOLET might have failed because a maintenance dose is needed after the initial boost of vitamin D.

In the ongoing VITDALIZE trial, critically ill patients with severe vitamin D deficiency (12 ng/mL or less at admission) receive an initial 540,000-IU dose followed by 4,000 IU per day.

The highly anticipated VITDALIZE results are expected in the middle of next year, Dr. Rice reported, so “let’s wait to see.”

“Vitamin D may not have an acute effect,” he theorized. “We can raise your levels, but that doesn’t give you all the benefits of having a sufficient level for a long period of time.”

Another theory suggests that a low level of vitamin D is simply a signal of the severity of disease, not a direct influence on disease pathology.

Some observational data have shown an association between low levels of vitamin D and outcomes in COVID-19 patients (Nutrients. 2020 May 9;12[5]:1359; medRxiv 2020 Apr 24. doi: 10.1101/2020.04.24.20075838; JAMA Netw Open. 2020;3[9]:e2019722; FEBS J. 2020 Jul 23;10.1111/febs.15495; Clin Endocrinol [Oxf]. 2020 Jul 3;10.1111/cen.14276), but some have shown no association (medRxiv. 2020 Jun 26. doi: 10.1101/2020.06.26.20140921; J Public Health [Oxf]. 2020 Aug 18;42[3]:451-60).

Dr. Rice conducted a search of Clinicaltrials.gov immediately before his presentation on Sunday, and found 41 ongoing interventional studies – “not observational studies” – looking at COVID-19 and vitamin D.

“They’re recruiting, they’re enrolling; hopefully we’ll have data soon,” he said.

Researchers have checked a lot of boxes with a resounding yes on the vitamin D question, so there’s reason to think an association does exist for ICU patients, whether or not they have COVID-19.

“Is there a theoretical benefit of vitamin D in the ICU?” Dr. Rice asked. “Yes. Is vitamin D deficient in patients in the ICU? Yes. Is that deficiency associated with poor outcomes? Yes. Can it be replaced safely? Yes.”

However, “we’re not really sure that it improves outcomes,” he said.
 

A chronic issue?

“Do you think it’s really an issue of the patients being critically ill with vitamin D,” or is it “a chronic issue of having low vitamin D?” asked session moderator Antine Stenbit, MD, PhD, from the University of California, San Diego.

“We don’t know for sure,” Dr. Rice said. Vitamin D might not have a lot of acute effects; it might have effects that are chronic, that work with levels over a period of time, he explained.

“It’s not clear we can correct that with a single dose or with a few days of giving a level that is adequate,” he acknowledged.

Dr. Rice is an investigator in the PETAL network. Dr. Stenbit disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

We can “stop putting money on vitamin D” to help patients who require critical care, said Todd Rice, MD, FCCP.

“Results from vitamin D trials have not been uniformly one way, but they have been pretty uniformly disappointing,” Dr. Rice, from Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn., reported at the annual meeting of the American College of Chest Physicians.

Low levels of vitamin D in critically ill COVID-19 patients have been reported in numerous recent studies, and researchers are looking for ways to boost those levels and improve outcomes.

We are seeing “the exact same story” in the critically ill COVID-19 population as we see in the general ICU population, said Dr. Rice. “The whole scenario is repeating itself. I’m pessimistic.”

Still, vitamin D levels can be elevated so, in theory, “the concept makes sense,” he said. There is evidence that, “when given enterally, the levels rise nicely” and vitamin D is absorbed reasonably well.” But is that enough?

When patients are admitted to the ICU, some biomarkers in the body are too high and others are too low. Vitamin D is often too low. So far, though, “supplementing vitamin D in the ICU has not significantly improved outcomes,” said Dr. Rice.

In the Vitamin D to Improve Outcomes by Leveraging Early Treatment (VIOLET) trial, Dr. Rice and colleagues found no statistical benefit when a 540,000 IU boost of vitamin D was administered to 2,624 critically ill patients, as reported by Medscape Medical News.

“Early administration of high-dose enteral vitamin D₃ did not provide an advantage over placebo with respect to 90-day mortality or other nonfatal outcomes among critically ill, vitamin D–deficient patients,” the researchers write in their recent report.

In fact, VIOLET ended before enrollment had reached the planned 3,000-patient cohort because the statistical analysis clearly did not show benefit. Those enrolled were in the ICU because of, among other things, pneumonia, sepsis, the need for mechanical ventilation or vasopressors, and risk for acute respiratory distress syndrome.

“It doesn’t look like vitamin D is going to be the answer to our critical care problems,” Dr. Rice said in an interview.
 

Maintenance dose needed?

One theory suggests that VIOLET might have failed because a maintenance dose is needed after the initial boost of vitamin D.

In the ongoing VITDALIZE trial, critically ill patients with severe vitamin D deficiency (12 ng/mL or less at admission) receive an initial 540,000-IU dose followed by 4,000 IU per day.

The highly anticipated VITDALIZE results are expected in the middle of next year, Dr. Rice reported, so “let’s wait to see.”

“Vitamin D may not have an acute effect,” he theorized. “We can raise your levels, but that doesn’t give you all the benefits of having a sufficient level for a long period of time.”

Another theory suggests that a low level of vitamin D is simply a signal of the severity of disease, not a direct influence on disease pathology.

Some observational data have shown an association between low levels of vitamin D and outcomes in COVID-19 patients (Nutrients. 2020 May 9;12[5]:1359; medRxiv 2020 Apr 24. doi: 10.1101/2020.04.24.20075838; JAMA Netw Open. 2020;3[9]:e2019722; FEBS J. 2020 Jul 23;10.1111/febs.15495; Clin Endocrinol [Oxf]. 2020 Jul 3;10.1111/cen.14276), but some have shown no association (medRxiv. 2020 Jun 26. doi: 10.1101/2020.06.26.20140921; J Public Health [Oxf]. 2020 Aug 18;42[3]:451-60).

Dr. Rice conducted a search of Clinicaltrials.gov immediately before his presentation on Sunday, and found 41 ongoing interventional studies – “not observational studies” – looking at COVID-19 and vitamin D.

“They’re recruiting, they’re enrolling; hopefully we’ll have data soon,” he said.

Researchers have checked a lot of boxes with a resounding yes on the vitamin D question, so there’s reason to think an association does exist for ICU patients, whether or not they have COVID-19.

“Is there a theoretical benefit of vitamin D in the ICU?” Dr. Rice asked. “Yes. Is vitamin D deficient in patients in the ICU? Yes. Is that deficiency associated with poor outcomes? Yes. Can it be replaced safely? Yes.”

However, “we’re not really sure that it improves outcomes,” he said.
 

A chronic issue?

“Do you think it’s really an issue of the patients being critically ill with vitamin D,” or is it “a chronic issue of having low vitamin D?” asked session moderator Antine Stenbit, MD, PhD, from the University of California, San Diego.

“We don’t know for sure,” Dr. Rice said. Vitamin D might not have a lot of acute effects; it might have effects that are chronic, that work with levels over a period of time, he explained.

“It’s not clear we can correct that with a single dose or with a few days of giving a level that is adequate,” he acknowledged.

Dr. Rice is an investigator in the PETAL network. Dr. Stenbit disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The recall of extended-release metformin continues this month as 76 more lots have been flagged for a possible cancer-causing ingredient.

The Food and Drug Administration announced the latest recall, involving Marksans Pharma Limited and Sun Pharmaceutical Industries products, on Oct. 5. It involves the 500-mg and 700-mg tablets. More than 175 different drug combinations have been recalled since late May.

Consumers can see all the recalled metformin products at this FDA website. The agency says that immediate-release metformin does not appear to have the same contamination problem.

The FDA has been investigating the presence of nitrosamines, known to be possible carcinogens, in the popular diabetes medications since December, when they were first discovered in drugs in other countries. The agency said this month they still do not know the source of nitrosamines in the medications.

The investigation and subsequent recalls follow similar ones for contamination of popular heartburn and blood pressure drugs also for nitrosamines, such as N-Nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA).

The FDA says patients taking metformin products that have been recalled should continue taking the medication until a doctor or pharmacist gives them a replacement or a different treatment option. It could be dangerous for patients with type 2 diabetes to stop taking the medication without first talking to their doctor.

The agency has asked drug manufacturers to test products before batches are released into the market. The companies must tell the FDA if any product shows levels of nitrosamines above the acceptable limit.

The risk from nitrosamines is not clear. The FDA says they may increase the risk of cancer in people who are exposed to high levels over a long period of time, “but we do not anticipate that shorter-term exposure at levels above the acceptable intake limit would lead to an increase in the risk of cancer.”
 

This article first appeared on WebMD.com.

The recall of extended-release metformin continues this month as 76 more lots have been flagged for a possible cancer-causing ingredient.

The Food and Drug Administration announced the latest recall, involving Marksans Pharma Limited and Sun Pharmaceutical Industries products, on Oct. 5. It involves the 500-mg and 700-mg tablets. More than 175 different drug combinations have been recalled since late May.

Consumers can see all the recalled metformin products at this FDA website. The agency says that immediate-release metformin does not appear to have the same contamination problem.

The FDA has been investigating the presence of nitrosamines, known to be possible carcinogens, in the popular diabetes medications since December, when they were first discovered in drugs in other countries. The agency said this month they still do not know the source of nitrosamines in the medications.

The investigation and subsequent recalls follow similar ones for contamination of popular heartburn and blood pressure drugs also for nitrosamines, such as N-Nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA).

The FDA says patients taking metformin products that have been recalled should continue taking the medication until a doctor or pharmacist gives them a replacement or a different treatment option. It could be dangerous for patients with type 2 diabetes to stop taking the medication without first talking to their doctor.

The agency has asked drug manufacturers to test products before batches are released into the market. The companies must tell the FDA if any product shows levels of nitrosamines above the acceptable limit.

The risk from nitrosamines is not clear. The FDA says they may increase the risk of cancer in people who are exposed to high levels over a long period of time, “but we do not anticipate that shorter-term exposure at levels above the acceptable intake limit would lead to an increase in the risk of cancer.”
 

This article first appeared on WebMD.com.

The recall of extended-release metformin continues this month as 76 more lots have been flagged for a possible cancer-causing ingredient.

The Food and Drug Administration announced the latest recall, involving Marksans Pharma Limited and Sun Pharmaceutical Industries products, on Oct. 5. It involves the 500-mg and 700-mg tablets. More than 175 different drug combinations have been recalled since late May.

Consumers can see all the recalled metformin products at this FDA website. The agency says that immediate-release metformin does not appear to have the same contamination problem.

The FDA has been investigating the presence of nitrosamines, known to be possible carcinogens, in the popular diabetes medications since December, when they were first discovered in drugs in other countries. The agency said this month they still do not know the source of nitrosamines in the medications.

The investigation and subsequent recalls follow similar ones for contamination of popular heartburn and blood pressure drugs also for nitrosamines, such as N-Nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA).

The FDA says patients taking metformin products that have been recalled should continue taking the medication until a doctor or pharmacist gives them a replacement or a different treatment option. It could be dangerous for patients with type 2 diabetes to stop taking the medication without first talking to their doctor.

The agency has asked drug manufacturers to test products before batches are released into the market. The companies must tell the FDA if any product shows levels of nitrosamines above the acceptable limit.

The risk from nitrosamines is not clear. The FDA says they may increase the risk of cancer in people who are exposed to high levels over a long period of time, “but we do not anticipate that shorter-term exposure at levels above the acceptable intake limit would lead to an increase in the risk of cancer.”
 

This article first appeared on WebMD.com.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration released new warnings Oct. 15 that most nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory agents (NSAIDs) carry an elevated risk for kidney complications in unborn children when taken around weeks 20 or later in pregnancy.

Citing newly available research, the agency states the risk of low amniotic fluid (known as oligohydramnios) can occur, which in turn can cause rare but serious kidney problems in the offspring. Pregnancy complications also can result.

The FDA action expands on earlier warnings about agents in this drug class, which the FDA previously cautioned about taking after week 30 of pregnancy because of heart-related risks.

Manufacturers of both over-the-counter and prescription NSAIDs – including ibuprofen, naproxen, diclofenac, and celecoxib – will be required to update their labeling with the new warning.

Low-dose (81-mg) aspirin is excluded from this warning.

“Low-dose aspirin may be an important treatment for some women during pregnancy and should be taken under the direction of a healthcare professional,” the agency stated in a news release.

“It is important that women understand the benefits and risks of the medications they may take over the course of their pregnancy,” Patrizia Cavazzoni, MD, acting director of FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, states in the release. “To this end, the agency is using its regulatory authority to inform women and their healthcare providers about the risks if NSAIDs are used after around 20 weeks of pregnancy and beyond.”

Oligohydramnios can arise quickly – in as little as 2 days – or weeks after starting regular NSAID use in this patient population. The condition usually resolves if a pregnant woman stops taking the NSAID, the agency notes.

If a health care provider believes NSAIDs are necessary between about 20 and 30 weeks of pregnancy, use should be limited to the lowest effective dose and shortest duration possible, the Drug Safety Communication notes.

As a reminder, health care professionals and patients should report side effects from NSAIDs to the FDA’s MedWatch program.

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration released new warnings Oct. 15 that most nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory agents (NSAIDs) carry an elevated risk for kidney complications in unborn children when taken around weeks 20 or later in pregnancy.

Citing newly available research, the agency states the risk of low amniotic fluid (known as oligohydramnios) can occur, which in turn can cause rare but serious kidney problems in the offspring. Pregnancy complications also can result.

The FDA action expands on earlier warnings about agents in this drug class, which the FDA previously cautioned about taking after week 30 of pregnancy because of heart-related risks.

Manufacturers of both over-the-counter and prescription NSAIDs – including ibuprofen, naproxen, diclofenac, and celecoxib – will be required to update their labeling with the new warning.

Low-dose (81-mg) aspirin is excluded from this warning.

“Low-dose aspirin may be an important treatment for some women during pregnancy and should be taken under the direction of a healthcare professional,” the agency stated in a news release.

“It is important that women understand the benefits and risks of the medications they may take over the course of their pregnancy,” Patrizia Cavazzoni, MD, acting director of FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, states in the release. “To this end, the agency is using its regulatory authority to inform women and their healthcare providers about the risks if NSAIDs are used after around 20 weeks of pregnancy and beyond.”

Oligohydramnios can arise quickly – in as little as 2 days – or weeks after starting regular NSAID use in this patient population. The condition usually resolves if a pregnant woman stops taking the NSAID, the agency notes.

If a health care provider believes NSAIDs are necessary between about 20 and 30 weeks of pregnancy, use should be limited to the lowest effective dose and shortest duration possible, the Drug Safety Communication notes.

As a reminder, health care professionals and patients should report side effects from NSAIDs to the FDA’s MedWatch program.

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration released new warnings Oct. 15 that most nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory agents (NSAIDs) carry an elevated risk for kidney complications in unborn children when taken around weeks 20 or later in pregnancy.

Citing newly available research, the agency states the risk of low amniotic fluid (known as oligohydramnios) can occur, which in turn can cause rare but serious kidney problems in the offspring. Pregnancy complications also can result.

The FDA action expands on earlier warnings about agents in this drug class, which the FDA previously cautioned about taking after week 30 of pregnancy because of heart-related risks.

Manufacturers of both over-the-counter and prescription NSAIDs – including ibuprofen, naproxen, diclofenac, and celecoxib – will be required to update their labeling with the new warning.

Low-dose (81-mg) aspirin is excluded from this warning.

“Low-dose aspirin may be an important treatment for some women during pregnancy and should be taken under the direction of a healthcare professional,” the agency stated in a news release.

“It is important that women understand the benefits and risks of the medications they may take over the course of their pregnancy,” Patrizia Cavazzoni, MD, acting director of FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, states in the release. “To this end, the agency is using its regulatory authority to inform women and their healthcare providers about the risks if NSAIDs are used after around 20 weeks of pregnancy and beyond.”

Oligohydramnios can arise quickly – in as little as 2 days – or weeks after starting regular NSAID use in this patient population. The condition usually resolves if a pregnant woman stops taking the NSAID, the agency notes.

If a health care provider believes NSAIDs are necessary between about 20 and 30 weeks of pregnancy, use should be limited to the lowest effective dose and shortest duration possible, the Drug Safety Communication notes.

As a reminder, health care professionals and patients should report side effects from NSAIDs to the FDA’s MedWatch program.

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

Upadacitinib (Rinvoq) proved superior to abatacept in both disease activity and remission in rheumatoid arthritis patients yet led to more adverse events, according to a new study that compared the two drugs.

“Additional data from longer and larger trials are needed to better understand long-term outcomes and safety of upadacitinib as compared with other drugs for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis,” wrote Andrea Rubbert-Roth, MD, of the Cantonal Clinic St. Gallen in St. Gallen, Switzerland, and her colleagues. The study was published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The Food and Drug Administration approved upadacitinib for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis in August 2019.

To compare the Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor upadacitinib and the biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) abatacept as safe and effective treatments for RA, the researchers launched a randomized, double-blind, phase 3 clinical trial dubbed SELECT-CHOICE at 120 sites in 28 countries. All patients had moderate to severe active disease after previously having inadequate responses to at least one biologic DMARD. Slightly more than 82% of the participants were female, with a mean age of 55 years and mean RA duration of 12 years.

Patients were assigned either 15 mg of oral upadacitinib daily (n = 303) or intravenous abatacept at day 1 and weeks 2, 4, 8, 12, 16 and 20 (n = 309) with dosage tied to body weight, each in combination with stable synthetic DMARDs. Disease activity was measured after 12 weeks via the Disease Activity Score for 28 joints using C-reactive protein (DAS28-CRP). A DAS28-CRP of more than 5.1 was categorized as high disease activity, while 3.2-5.1 meant moderate disease activity, 2.6-3.2 meant low disease activity, and less than 2.6 indicated remission.

The mean DAS28-CRP at baseline was 5.70 in the upadacitinib group and 5.88 in the abatacept group. After 12 weeks, the mean change from baseline was –2.52 points and –2.00 points, respectively (difference, –0.52 points; 95% confidence interval, –0.69 to –0.35; P < .001 for noninferiority; P < .001 for superiority). In patients with a DAS28-CRP of less than 2.6, the percentage of those having remission was 30% with upadacitinib and 13.3% with abatacept (difference, 16.8 percentage points; 95% CI, 10.4 to 23.2; P < .001 for superiority).

Over the 24-week trial period, the incidence of all adverse events (209 vs. 189) and serious adverse events (10 vs. 5) was higher in the upadacitinib group than in the abatacept group. There were 23 cases of hepatic disorder with upadacitinib, compared with 5 with abatacept; 2 thromboembolic events with upadacitinib, compared with 0 with abatacept; and 2 deaths with upadacitinib, compared with 1 with abatacept.

“The thing that bothers me, actually, is the adverse events,” Daniel E. Furst, MD, professor of medicine (emeritus) and rheumatology at the University of California, Los Angeles, said in an interview. “There were a fair number of them, all of which were a little higher in upadacitinib. They certainly made very little of those.”

He noted several other concerns about the study, including a potential geographic effect stemming from 60% of the study’s centers being in South and Central America and Eastern Europe. “Those patients don’t always have very good medical care,” he said. “They have an inherent, underlying placebo response that can be much different than Western Europe and North America.”

He also questioned their choice of primary endpoint metric.

“I think a much more legitimate way at looking at remission is the CDAI [Clinical Disease Activity Index] rather than the DAS28,” he said. “The DAS28, even at its best, is low disease activity, not true remission.”

“Bottom line,” he added, “this is a legitimate study that supports previous findings. One more important thing that is overlooked, though, is an economic analysis. A true economic analysis would be very important to place this in the armamentarium.”
 

Study affirms upadacitinib’s place in the RA treatment pecking order

By showing that upadacitinib was not only noninferior but superior to abatacept in decreasing disease activity, Rubbert-Roth and colleagues have positioned the JAK inhibitor at “the forefront of treatment for rheumatoid arthritis,” wrote Guro L. Goll, MD, PhD, and Tore K. Kvien, MD, PhD, of Diakonhjemmet Hospital in Oslo, in an accompanying editorial.

Though the authors noted that the 24-week trial was likely too short to make meaningful assumptions about long-term outcomes, they recognized the notably improved treatment outcomes over the study period and stated the importance of “head-to-head trials ... to inform evidence-based clinical decisions.” Similar to Dr. Furst, however, they stated an interest in “detailed data on changes in the CDAI score as a continuous measure.”

They also acknowledged the significant increase in adverse events among patients in the upadacitinib group, underlining the need to learn more in forthcoming, lengthier trials. “Rheumatologists will be looking hard at future data,” they wrote, “to assess whether improved treatment outcomes justify an increased risk of adverse events.”

The study was supported by AbbVie. The authors acknowledged numerous potential conflicts of interest, including receiving research grants and fees from various pharmaceutical companies for consulting, lectures, and being on advisory boards.

SOURCE: Rubbert-Roth A et al. N Engl J Med. 2020 Oct 14. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2008250.

Upadacitinib (Rinvoq) proved superior to abatacept in both disease activity and remission in rheumatoid arthritis patients yet led to more adverse events, according to a new study that compared the two drugs.

“Additional data from longer and larger trials are needed to better understand long-term outcomes and safety of upadacitinib as compared with other drugs for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis,” wrote Andrea Rubbert-Roth, MD, of the Cantonal Clinic St. Gallen in St. Gallen, Switzerland, and her colleagues. The study was published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The Food and Drug Administration approved upadacitinib for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis in August 2019.

To compare the Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor upadacitinib and the biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) abatacept as safe and effective treatments for RA, the researchers launched a randomized, double-blind, phase 3 clinical trial dubbed SELECT-CHOICE at 120 sites in 28 countries. All patients had moderate to severe active disease after previously having inadequate responses to at least one biologic DMARD. Slightly more than 82% of the participants were female, with a mean age of 55 years and mean RA duration of 12 years.

Patients were assigned either 15 mg of oral upadacitinib daily (n = 303) or intravenous abatacept at day 1 and weeks 2, 4, 8, 12, 16 and 20 (n = 309) with dosage tied to body weight, each in combination with stable synthetic DMARDs. Disease activity was measured after 12 weeks via the Disease Activity Score for 28 joints using C-reactive protein (DAS28-CRP). A DAS28-CRP of more than 5.1 was categorized as high disease activity, while 3.2-5.1 meant moderate disease activity, 2.6-3.2 meant low disease activity, and less than 2.6 indicated remission.

The mean DAS28-CRP at baseline was 5.70 in the upadacitinib group and 5.88 in the abatacept group. After 12 weeks, the mean change from baseline was –2.52 points and –2.00 points, respectively (difference, –0.52 points; 95% confidence interval, –0.69 to –0.35; P < .001 for noninferiority; P < .001 for superiority). In patients with a DAS28-CRP of less than 2.6, the percentage of those having remission was 30% with upadacitinib and 13.3% with abatacept (difference, 16.8 percentage points; 95% CI, 10.4 to 23.2; P < .001 for superiority).

Over the 24-week trial period, the incidence of all adverse events (209 vs. 189) and serious adverse events (10 vs. 5) was higher in the upadacitinib group than in the abatacept group. There were 23 cases of hepatic disorder with upadacitinib, compared with 5 with abatacept; 2 thromboembolic events with upadacitinib, compared with 0 with abatacept; and 2 deaths with upadacitinib, compared with 1 with abatacept.

“The thing that bothers me, actually, is the adverse events,” Daniel E. Furst, MD, professor of medicine (emeritus) and rheumatology at the University of California, Los Angeles, said in an interview. “There were a fair number of them, all of which were a little higher in upadacitinib. They certainly made very little of those.”

He noted several other concerns about the study, including a potential geographic effect stemming from 60% of the study’s centers being in South and Central America and Eastern Europe. “Those patients don’t always have very good medical care,” he said. “They have an inherent, underlying placebo response that can be much different than Western Europe and North America.”

He also questioned their choice of primary endpoint metric.

“I think a much more legitimate way at looking at remission is the CDAI [Clinical Disease Activity Index] rather than the DAS28,” he said. “The DAS28, even at its best, is low disease activity, not true remission.”

“Bottom line,” he added, “this is a legitimate study that supports previous findings. One more important thing that is overlooked, though, is an economic analysis. A true economic analysis would be very important to place this in the armamentarium.”
 

Study affirms upadacitinib’s place in the RA treatment pecking order

By showing that upadacitinib was not only noninferior but superior to abatacept in decreasing disease activity, Rubbert-Roth and colleagues have positioned the JAK inhibitor at “the forefront of treatment for rheumatoid arthritis,” wrote Guro L. Goll, MD, PhD, and Tore K. Kvien, MD, PhD, of Diakonhjemmet Hospital in Oslo, in an accompanying editorial.

Though the authors noted that the 24-week trial was likely too short to make meaningful assumptions about long-term outcomes, they recognized the notably improved treatment outcomes over the study period and stated the importance of “head-to-head trials ... to inform evidence-based clinical decisions.” Similar to Dr. Furst, however, they stated an interest in “detailed data on changes in the CDAI score as a continuous measure.”

They also acknowledged the significant increase in adverse events among patients in the upadacitinib group, underlining the need to learn more in forthcoming, lengthier trials. “Rheumatologists will be looking hard at future data,” they wrote, “to assess whether improved treatment outcomes justify an increased risk of adverse events.”

The study was supported by AbbVie. The authors acknowledged numerous potential conflicts of interest, including receiving research grants and fees from various pharmaceutical companies for consulting, lectures, and being on advisory boards.

SOURCE: Rubbert-Roth A et al. N Engl J Med. 2020 Oct 14. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2008250.

Upadacitinib (Rinvoq) proved superior to abatacept in both disease activity and remission in rheumatoid arthritis patients yet led to more adverse events, according to a new study that compared the two drugs.

“Additional data from longer and larger trials are needed to better understand long-term outcomes and safety of upadacitinib as compared with other drugs for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis,” wrote Andrea Rubbert-Roth, MD, of the Cantonal Clinic St. Gallen in St. Gallen, Switzerland, and her colleagues. The study was published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The Food and Drug Administration approved upadacitinib for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis in August 2019.

To compare the Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor upadacitinib and the biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) abatacept as safe and effective treatments for RA, the researchers launched a randomized, double-blind, phase 3 clinical trial dubbed SELECT-CHOICE at 120 sites in 28 countries. All patients had moderate to severe active disease after previously having inadequate responses to at least one biologic DMARD. Slightly more than 82% of the participants were female, with a mean age of 55 years and mean RA duration of 12 years.

Patients were assigned either 15 mg of oral upadacitinib daily (n = 303) or intravenous abatacept at day 1 and weeks 2, 4, 8, 12, 16 and 20 (n = 309) with dosage tied to body weight, each in combination with stable synthetic DMARDs. Disease activity was measured after 12 weeks via the Disease Activity Score for 28 joints using C-reactive protein (DAS28-CRP). A DAS28-CRP of more than 5.1 was categorized as high disease activity, while 3.2-5.1 meant moderate disease activity, 2.6-3.2 meant low disease activity, and less than 2.6 indicated remission.

The mean DAS28-CRP at baseline was 5.70 in the upadacitinib group and 5.88 in the abatacept group. After 12 weeks, the mean change from baseline was –2.52 points and –2.00 points, respectively (difference, –0.52 points; 95% confidence interval, –0.69 to –0.35; P < .001 for noninferiority; P < .001 for superiority). In patients with a DAS28-CRP of less than 2.6, the percentage of those having remission was 30% with upadacitinib and 13.3% with abatacept (difference, 16.8 percentage points; 95% CI, 10.4 to 23.2; P < .001 for superiority).

Over the 24-week trial period, the incidence of all adverse events (209 vs. 189) and serious adverse events (10 vs. 5) was higher in the upadacitinib group than in the abatacept group. There were 23 cases of hepatic disorder with upadacitinib, compared with 5 with abatacept; 2 thromboembolic events with upadacitinib, compared with 0 with abatacept; and 2 deaths with upadacitinib, compared with 1 with abatacept.

“The thing that bothers me, actually, is the adverse events,” Daniel E. Furst, MD, professor of medicine (emeritus) and rheumatology at the University of California, Los Angeles, said in an interview. “There were a fair number of them, all of which were a little higher in upadacitinib. They certainly made very little of those.”

He noted several other concerns about the study, including a potential geographic effect stemming from 60% of the study’s centers being in South and Central America and Eastern Europe. “Those patients don’t always have very good medical care,” he said. “They have an inherent, underlying placebo response that can be much different than Western Europe and North America.”

He also questioned their choice of primary endpoint metric.

“I think a much more legitimate way at looking at remission is the CDAI [Clinical Disease Activity Index] rather than the DAS28,” he said. “The DAS28, even at its best, is low disease activity, not true remission.”

“Bottom line,” he added, “this is a legitimate study that supports previous findings. One more important thing that is overlooked, though, is an economic analysis. A true economic analysis would be very important to place this in the armamentarium.”
 

Study affirms upadacitinib’s place in the RA treatment pecking order

By showing that upadacitinib was not only noninferior but superior to abatacept in decreasing disease activity, Rubbert-Roth and colleagues have positioned the JAK inhibitor at “the forefront of treatment for rheumatoid arthritis,” wrote Guro L. Goll, MD, PhD, and Tore K. Kvien, MD, PhD, of Diakonhjemmet Hospital in Oslo, in an accompanying editorial.

Though the authors noted that the 24-week trial was likely too short to make meaningful assumptions about long-term outcomes, they recognized the notably improved treatment outcomes over the study period and stated the importance of “head-to-head trials ... to inform evidence-based clinical decisions.” Similar to Dr. Furst, however, they stated an interest in “detailed data on changes in the CDAI score as a continuous measure.”

They also acknowledged the significant increase in adverse events among patients in the upadacitinib group, underlining the need to learn more in forthcoming, lengthier trials. “Rheumatologists will be looking hard at future data,” they wrote, “to assess whether improved treatment outcomes justify an increased risk of adverse events.”

The study was supported by AbbVie. The authors acknowledged numerous potential conflicts of interest, including receiving research grants and fees from various pharmaceutical companies for consulting, lectures, and being on advisory boards.

SOURCE: Rubbert-Roth A et al. N Engl J Med. 2020 Oct 14. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2008250.