Drug Therapy

Study Overview

Objective. To assess the association between administration of systemic corticosteroids, compared with usual care or placebo, and 28-day all-cause mortality in critically ill patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).

Design. Prospective meta-analysis with data from 7 randomized clinical trials conducted in 12 countries.

Setting and participants. This prospective meta-analysis included randomized clinical trials conducted between February 26, 2020, and June 9, 2020, that examined the clinical efficacy of administration of corticosteroids in hospitalized COVID-19 patients who were critically ill. Trials were systematically identified from ClinicalTrials.gov, the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry, and the EU Clinical Trials Register, using the search terms COVID-19, corticosteroids, and steroids. Additional trials were identified by experts from the WHO Rapid Evidence Appraisal for COVID-19 Therapies (REACT) Working Group. Senior investigators of these identified trials were asked to participate in weekly calls to develop a protocol for the prospective meta-analysis.¹ Subsequently, trials that had randomly assigned critically ill patients to receive corticosteroids versus usual care or placebo were invited to participate in this meta-analysis. Data were pooled from patients recruited to the participating trials through June 9, 2020, and aggregated in overall and in predefined subgroups.

Main outcome measures. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality up to 30 days after randomization. Because 5 of the included trials reported mortality at 28 days after randomization, the primary outcome was reported as 28-day all-cause mortality. The secondary outcome was serious adverse events (SAEs). The authors also gathered data on the demographic and clinical characteristics of patients, the number of patients lost to follow-up, and outcomes according to intervention group, overall, and in subgroups (ie, patients receiving invasive mechanical ventilation or vasoactive medication; age ≤ 60 years or > 60 years [the median across trials]; sex [male or female]; and the duration patients were symptomatic [≤ 7 days or > 7 days]). For each trial, the risk of bias was assessed independently by 4 investigators using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Assessment Tool for the overall effects of corticosteroids on mortality and SAEs and the effect of assignment and allocated interventions. Inconsistency between trial results was evaluated using the I² statistic. The trials were classified according to the corticosteroids used in the intervention group and the dose administered using a priori-defined cutoffs (15 mg/day of dexamethasone, 400 mg/day of hydrocortisone, and 1 mg/kg/day of methylprednisolone). The primary analysis utilized was an inverse variance-weighted fixed-effect meta-analysis of odds ratios (ORs) for overall mortality. Random-effects meta-analyses with Paule-Mandel estimate of heterogeneity were also performed.

Main results. Seven trials (DEXA-COVID 19, CoDEX, RECOVERY, CAPE COVID, COVID STEROID, REMAP-CAP, and Steroids-SARI) were included in the final meta-analysis. The enrolled patients were from Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, Denmark, France, Ireland, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Spain, the United Kingdom, and the United States. The date of final follow-up was July 6, 2020. The corticosteroids groups included dexamethasone at low (6 mg/day orally or intravenously [IV]) and high (20 mg/day IV) doses; low-dose hydrocortisone (200 mg/day IV or 50 mg every 6 hr IV); and high-dose methylprednisolone (40 mg every 12 hr IV). In total, 1703 patients were randomized, with 678 assigned to the corticosteroids group and 1025 to the usual-care or placebo group. The median age of patients was 60 years (interquartile range, 52-68 years), and 29% were women. The larger number of patients in the usual-care/placebo group was a result of the 1:2 randomization (corticosteroids versus usual care or placebo) in the RECOVERY trial, which contributed 59.1% of patients included in this prospective meta-analysis. The majority of patients were receiving invasive mechanical ventilation at randomization (1559 patients). The administration of adjunctive treatments, such as azithromycin or antiviral agents, varied among the trials. The risk of bias was determined as low for 6 of the 7 mortality results.

A total of 222 of 678 patients in the corticosteroids group died, and 425 of 1025 patients in the usual care or placebo group died. The summary OR was 0.66 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.53-0.82; P < 0.001) based on a fixed-effect meta-analysis, and 0.70 (95% CI, 0.48-1.01; P = 0.053) based on the random-effects meta-analysis, for 28-day all-cause mortality comparing all corticosteroids with usual care or placebo. There was little inconsistency between trial results (I² = 15.6%; P = 0.31). The fixed-effect summary OR for the association with 28-day all-cause mortality was 0.64 (95% CI, 0.50-0.82; P < 0.001) for dexamethasone compared with usual care or placebo (3 trials, 1282 patients, and 527 deaths); the OR was 0.69 (95% CI, 0.43-1.12; P = 0.13) for hydrocortisone (3 trials, 374 patients, and 94 deaths); and the OR was 0.91 (95% CI, 0.29-2.87; P = 0.87) for methylprednisolone (1 trial, 47 patients, and 26 deaths). Moreover, in trials that administered low-dose corticosteroids, the overall fixed-effect OR for 28-day all-cause mortality was 0.61 (95% CI, 0.48-0.78; P < 0.001). In the subgroup analysis, the overall fixed-effect OR was 0.69 (95% CI, 0.55-0.86) in patients who were receiving invasive mechanical ventilation at randomization, and the OR was 0.41 (95% CI, 0.19-0.88) in patients who were not receiving invasive mechanical ventilation at randomization.

Six trials (all except the RECOVERY trial) reported SAEs, with 64 events occurring among 354 patients assigned to the corticosteroids group and 80 SAEs occurring among 342 patients assigned to the usual-care or placebo group. There was no suggestion that the risk of SAEs was higher in patients who were administered corticosteroids.

Conclusion. The administration of systemic corticosteroids was associated with a lower 28-day all-cause mortality in critically ill patients with COVID-19 compared to those who received usual care or placebo.

Commentary

Corticosteroids are anti-inflammatory and vasoconstrictive medications that have long been used in intensive care units for the treatment of acute respiratory distress syndrome and septic shock. However, the therapeutic role of corticosteroids for treating severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection was uncertain at the outset of the COVID-19 pandemic due to concerns that this class of medications may cause an impaired immune response in the setting of a life-threatening SARS-CoV-2 infection. Evidence supporting this notion included prior studies showing that corticosteroid therapy was associated with delayed viral clearance of Middle East respiratory syndrome or a higher viral load of SARS-CoV.^2,3 The uncertainty surrounding the therapeutic use of corticosteroids in treating COVID-19 led to a simultaneous global effort to conduct randomized controlled trials to urgently examine this important clinical question. The open-label Randomized Evaluation of COVID-19 Therapy (RECOVERY) trial, conducted in the UK, was the first large-scale randomized clinical trial that reported the clinical benefit of corticosteroids in treating patients hospitalized with COVID-19. Specifically, it showed that low-dose dexamethasone (6 mg/day) administered orally or IV for up to 10 days resulted in a 2.8% absolute reduction in 28-day mortality, with the greatest benefit, an absolute risk reduction of 12.1%, conferred to patients who were receiving invasive mechanical ventilation at the time of randomization.⁴ In response to these findings, the National Institutes of Health COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines Panel recommended the use of dexamethasone in patients with COVID-19 who are on mechanical ventilation or who require supplemental oxygen, and recommended against the use of dexamethasone for those not requiring supplemental oxygen.⁵

The meta-analysis discussed in this commentary, conducted by the WHO REACT Working Group, has replicated initial findings from the RECOVERY trial. This prospective meta-analysis pooled data from 7 randomized controlled trials of corticosteroid therapy in 1703 critically ill patients hospitalized with COVID-19. Similar to findings from the RECOVERY trial, corticosteroids were associated with lower all-cause mortality at 28 days after randomization, and this benefit was observed both in critically ill patients who were receiving mechanical ventilation or supplemental oxygen without mechanical ventilation. Interestingly, while the OR estimates were imprecise, the reduction in mortality rates was similar between patients who were administered dexamethasone and hydrocortisone, which may suggest a general drug class effect. In addition, the mortality benefit of corticosteroids appeared similar for those aged ≤ 60 years and those aged > 60 years, between female and male patients, and those who were symptomatic for ≤ 7 days or > 7 days before randomization. Moreover, the administration of corticosteroids did not appear to increase the risk of SAEs. While more data are needed, results from the RECOVERY trial and this prospective meta-analysis indicate that corticosteroids should be an essential pharmacologic treatment for COVID-19, and suggest its potential role as a standard of care for critically ill patients with COVID-19.

This study has several limitations. First, not all trials systematically identified participated in the meta-analysis. Second, long-term outcomes after hospital discharge were not captured, and thus the effect of corticosteroids on long-term mortality and other adverse outcomes, such as hospital readmission, remain unknown. Third, because children were excluded from study participation, the effect of corticosteroids on pediatric COVID-19 patients is unknown. Fourth, the RECOVERY trial contributed more than 50% of patients in the current analysis, although there was little inconsistency in the effects of corticosteroids on mortality between individual trials. Last, the meta-analysis was unable to establish the optimal dose or duration of corticosteroid intervention in critically ill COVID-19 patients, or determine its efficacy in patients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19, all of which are key clinical questions that will need to be addressed with further clinical investigations.

The development of effective treatments for COVID-19 is critical to mitigating the devastating consequences of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Several recent COVID-19 clinical trials have shown promise in this endeavor. For instance, the Adaptive COVID-19 Treatment Trial (ACCT-1) found that intravenous remdesivir, as compared to placebo, significantly shortened time to recovery in adult patients hospitalized with COVID-19 who had evidence of lower respiratory tract infection.⁶ Moreover, there is some evidence to suggest that convalescent plasma and aerosol inhalation of IFN-κ may have beneficial effects in treating COVID-19.^7,8 Thus, clinical trials designed to investigate combination therapy approaches including corticosteroids, remdesivir, convalescent plasma, and others are urgently needed to help identify interventions that most effectively treat COVID-19.

Applications for Clinical Practice

The use of corticosteroids in critically ill patients with COVID-19 reduces overall mortality. This treatment is inexpensive and available in most care settings, including low-resource regions, and provides hope for better outcomes in the COVID-19 pandemic.

Katerina Oikonomou, MD, PhD
General Hospital of Larissa, Larissa, Greece
Fred Ko, MD, MS

Study Overview

Objective. To assess the association between administration of systemic corticosteroids, compared with usual care or placebo, and 28-day all-cause mortality in critically ill patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).

Design. Prospective meta-analysis with data from 7 randomized clinical trials conducted in 12 countries.

Setting and participants. This prospective meta-analysis included randomized clinical trials conducted between February 26, 2020, and June 9, 2020, that examined the clinical efficacy of administration of corticosteroids in hospitalized COVID-19 patients who were critically ill. Trials were systematically identified from ClinicalTrials.gov, the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry, and the EU Clinical Trials Register, using the search terms COVID-19, corticosteroids, and steroids. Additional trials were identified by experts from the WHO Rapid Evidence Appraisal for COVID-19 Therapies (REACT) Working Group. Senior investigators of these identified trials were asked to participate in weekly calls to develop a protocol for the prospective meta-analysis.¹ Subsequently, trials that had randomly assigned critically ill patients to receive corticosteroids versus usual care or placebo were invited to participate in this meta-analysis. Data were pooled from patients recruited to the participating trials through June 9, 2020, and aggregated in overall and in predefined subgroups.

Main outcome measures. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality up to 30 days after randomization. Because 5 of the included trials reported mortality at 28 days after randomization, the primary outcome was reported as 28-day all-cause mortality. The secondary outcome was serious adverse events (SAEs). The authors also gathered data on the demographic and clinical characteristics of patients, the number of patients lost to follow-up, and outcomes according to intervention group, overall, and in subgroups (ie, patients receiving invasive mechanical ventilation or vasoactive medication; age ≤ 60 years or > 60 years [the median across trials]; sex [male or female]; and the duration patients were symptomatic [≤ 7 days or > 7 days]). For each trial, the risk of bias was assessed independently by 4 investigators using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Assessment Tool for the overall effects of corticosteroids on mortality and SAEs and the effect of assignment and allocated interventions. Inconsistency between trial results was evaluated using the I² statistic. The trials were classified according to the corticosteroids used in the intervention group and the dose administered using a priori-defined cutoffs (15 mg/day of dexamethasone, 400 mg/day of hydrocortisone, and 1 mg/kg/day of methylprednisolone). The primary analysis utilized was an inverse variance-weighted fixed-effect meta-analysis of odds ratios (ORs) for overall mortality. Random-effects meta-analyses with Paule-Mandel estimate of heterogeneity were also performed.

Main results. Seven trials (DEXA-COVID 19, CoDEX, RECOVERY, CAPE COVID, COVID STEROID, REMAP-CAP, and Steroids-SARI) were included in the final meta-analysis. The enrolled patients were from Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, Denmark, France, Ireland, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Spain, the United Kingdom, and the United States. The date of final follow-up was July 6, 2020. The corticosteroids groups included dexamethasone at low (6 mg/day orally or intravenously [IV]) and high (20 mg/day IV) doses; low-dose hydrocortisone (200 mg/day IV or 50 mg every 6 hr IV); and high-dose methylprednisolone (40 mg every 12 hr IV). In total, 1703 patients were randomized, with 678 assigned to the corticosteroids group and 1025 to the usual-care or placebo group. The median age of patients was 60 years (interquartile range, 52-68 years), and 29% were women. The larger number of patients in the usual-care/placebo group was a result of the 1:2 randomization (corticosteroids versus usual care or placebo) in the RECOVERY trial, which contributed 59.1% of patients included in this prospective meta-analysis. The majority of patients were receiving invasive mechanical ventilation at randomization (1559 patients). The administration of adjunctive treatments, such as azithromycin or antiviral agents, varied among the trials. The risk of bias was determined as low for 6 of the 7 mortality results.

A total of 222 of 678 patients in the corticosteroids group died, and 425 of 1025 patients in the usual care or placebo group died. The summary OR was 0.66 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.53-0.82; P < 0.001) based on a fixed-effect meta-analysis, and 0.70 (95% CI, 0.48-1.01; P = 0.053) based on the random-effects meta-analysis, for 28-day all-cause mortality comparing all corticosteroids with usual care or placebo. There was little inconsistency between trial results (I² = 15.6%; P = 0.31). The fixed-effect summary OR for the association with 28-day all-cause mortality was 0.64 (95% CI, 0.50-0.82; P < 0.001) for dexamethasone compared with usual care or placebo (3 trials, 1282 patients, and 527 deaths); the OR was 0.69 (95% CI, 0.43-1.12; P = 0.13) for hydrocortisone (3 trials, 374 patients, and 94 deaths); and the OR was 0.91 (95% CI, 0.29-2.87; P = 0.87) for methylprednisolone (1 trial, 47 patients, and 26 deaths). Moreover, in trials that administered low-dose corticosteroids, the overall fixed-effect OR for 28-day all-cause mortality was 0.61 (95% CI, 0.48-0.78; P < 0.001). In the subgroup analysis, the overall fixed-effect OR was 0.69 (95% CI, 0.55-0.86) in patients who were receiving invasive mechanical ventilation at randomization, and the OR was 0.41 (95% CI, 0.19-0.88) in patients who were not receiving invasive mechanical ventilation at randomization.

Six trials (all except the RECOVERY trial) reported SAEs, with 64 events occurring among 354 patients assigned to the corticosteroids group and 80 SAEs occurring among 342 patients assigned to the usual-care or placebo group. There was no suggestion that the risk of SAEs was higher in patients who were administered corticosteroids.

Conclusion. The administration of systemic corticosteroids was associated with a lower 28-day all-cause mortality in critically ill patients with COVID-19 compared to those who received usual care or placebo.

Commentary

Corticosteroids are anti-inflammatory and vasoconstrictive medications that have long been used in intensive care units for the treatment of acute respiratory distress syndrome and septic shock. However, the therapeutic role of corticosteroids for treating severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection was uncertain at the outset of the COVID-19 pandemic due to concerns that this class of medications may cause an impaired immune response in the setting of a life-threatening SARS-CoV-2 infection. Evidence supporting this notion included prior studies showing that corticosteroid therapy was associated with delayed viral clearance of Middle East respiratory syndrome or a higher viral load of SARS-CoV.^2,3 The uncertainty surrounding the therapeutic use of corticosteroids in treating COVID-19 led to a simultaneous global effort to conduct randomized controlled trials to urgently examine this important clinical question. The open-label Randomized Evaluation of COVID-19 Therapy (RECOVERY) trial, conducted in the UK, was the first large-scale randomized clinical trial that reported the clinical benefit of corticosteroids in treating patients hospitalized with COVID-19. Specifically, it showed that low-dose dexamethasone (6 mg/day) administered orally or IV for up to 10 days resulted in a 2.8% absolute reduction in 28-day mortality, with the greatest benefit, an absolute risk reduction of 12.1%, conferred to patients who were receiving invasive mechanical ventilation at the time of randomization.⁴ In response to these findings, the National Institutes of Health COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines Panel recommended the use of dexamethasone in patients with COVID-19 who are on mechanical ventilation or who require supplemental oxygen, and recommended against the use of dexamethasone for those not requiring supplemental oxygen.⁵

The meta-analysis discussed in this commentary, conducted by the WHO REACT Working Group, has replicated initial findings from the RECOVERY trial. This prospective meta-analysis pooled data from 7 randomized controlled trials of corticosteroid therapy in 1703 critically ill patients hospitalized with COVID-19. Similar to findings from the RECOVERY trial, corticosteroids were associated with lower all-cause mortality at 28 days after randomization, and this benefit was observed both in critically ill patients who were receiving mechanical ventilation or supplemental oxygen without mechanical ventilation. Interestingly, while the OR estimates were imprecise, the reduction in mortality rates was similar between patients who were administered dexamethasone and hydrocortisone, which may suggest a general drug class effect. In addition, the mortality benefit of corticosteroids appeared similar for those aged ≤ 60 years and those aged > 60 years, between female and male patients, and those who were symptomatic for ≤ 7 days or > 7 days before randomization. Moreover, the administration of corticosteroids did not appear to increase the risk of SAEs. While more data are needed, results from the RECOVERY trial and this prospective meta-analysis indicate that corticosteroids should be an essential pharmacologic treatment for COVID-19, and suggest its potential role as a standard of care for critically ill patients with COVID-19.

This study has several limitations. First, not all trials systematically identified participated in the meta-analysis. Second, long-term outcomes after hospital discharge were not captured, and thus the effect of corticosteroids on long-term mortality and other adverse outcomes, such as hospital readmission, remain unknown. Third, because children were excluded from study participation, the effect of corticosteroids on pediatric COVID-19 patients is unknown. Fourth, the RECOVERY trial contributed more than 50% of patients in the current analysis, although there was little inconsistency in the effects of corticosteroids on mortality between individual trials. Last, the meta-analysis was unable to establish the optimal dose or duration of corticosteroid intervention in critically ill COVID-19 patients, or determine its efficacy in patients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19, all of which are key clinical questions that will need to be addressed with further clinical investigations.

The development of effective treatments for COVID-19 is critical to mitigating the devastating consequences of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Several recent COVID-19 clinical trials have shown promise in this endeavor. For instance, the Adaptive COVID-19 Treatment Trial (ACCT-1) found that intravenous remdesivir, as compared to placebo, significantly shortened time to recovery in adult patients hospitalized with COVID-19 who had evidence of lower respiratory tract infection.⁶ Moreover, there is some evidence to suggest that convalescent plasma and aerosol inhalation of IFN-κ may have beneficial effects in treating COVID-19.^7,8 Thus, clinical trials designed to investigate combination therapy approaches including corticosteroids, remdesivir, convalescent plasma, and others are urgently needed to help identify interventions that most effectively treat COVID-19.

Applications for Clinical Practice

The use of corticosteroids in critically ill patients with COVID-19 reduces overall mortality. This treatment is inexpensive and available in most care settings, including low-resource regions, and provides hope for better outcomes in the COVID-19 pandemic.

Katerina Oikonomou, MD, PhD
General Hospital of Larissa, Larissa, Greece
Fred Ko, MD, MS

Study Overview

Objective. To assess the association between administration of systemic corticosteroids, compared with usual care or placebo, and 28-day all-cause mortality in critically ill patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).

Design. Prospective meta-analysis with data from 7 randomized clinical trials conducted in 12 countries.

Setting and participants. This prospective meta-analysis included randomized clinical trials conducted between February 26, 2020, and June 9, 2020, that examined the clinical efficacy of administration of corticosteroids in hospitalized COVID-19 patients who were critically ill. Trials were systematically identified from ClinicalTrials.gov, the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry, and the EU Clinical Trials Register, using the search terms COVID-19, corticosteroids, and steroids. Additional trials were identified by experts from the WHO Rapid Evidence Appraisal for COVID-19 Therapies (REACT) Working Group. Senior investigators of these identified trials were asked to participate in weekly calls to develop a protocol for the prospective meta-analysis.¹ Subsequently, trials that had randomly assigned critically ill patients to receive corticosteroids versus usual care or placebo were invited to participate in this meta-analysis. Data were pooled from patients recruited to the participating trials through June 9, 2020, and aggregated in overall and in predefined subgroups.

Main outcome measures. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality up to 30 days after randomization. Because 5 of the included trials reported mortality at 28 days after randomization, the primary outcome was reported as 28-day all-cause mortality. The secondary outcome was serious adverse events (SAEs). The authors also gathered data on the demographic and clinical characteristics of patients, the number of patients lost to follow-up, and outcomes according to intervention group, overall, and in subgroups (ie, patients receiving invasive mechanical ventilation or vasoactive medication; age ≤ 60 years or > 60 years [the median across trials]; sex [male or female]; and the duration patients were symptomatic [≤ 7 days or > 7 days]). For each trial, the risk of bias was assessed independently by 4 investigators using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Assessment Tool for the overall effects of corticosteroids on mortality and SAEs and the effect of assignment and allocated interventions. Inconsistency between trial results was evaluated using the I² statistic. The trials were classified according to the corticosteroids used in the intervention group and the dose administered using a priori-defined cutoffs (15 mg/day of dexamethasone, 400 mg/day of hydrocortisone, and 1 mg/kg/day of methylprednisolone). The primary analysis utilized was an inverse variance-weighted fixed-effect meta-analysis of odds ratios (ORs) for overall mortality. Random-effects meta-analyses with Paule-Mandel estimate of heterogeneity were also performed.

Main results. Seven trials (DEXA-COVID 19, CoDEX, RECOVERY, CAPE COVID, COVID STEROID, REMAP-CAP, and Steroids-SARI) were included in the final meta-analysis. The enrolled patients were from Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, Denmark, France, Ireland, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Spain, the United Kingdom, and the United States. The date of final follow-up was July 6, 2020. The corticosteroids groups included dexamethasone at low (6 mg/day orally or intravenously [IV]) and high (20 mg/day IV) doses; low-dose hydrocortisone (200 mg/day IV or 50 mg every 6 hr IV); and high-dose methylprednisolone (40 mg every 12 hr IV). In total, 1703 patients were randomized, with 678 assigned to the corticosteroids group and 1025 to the usual-care or placebo group. The median age of patients was 60 years (interquartile range, 52-68 years), and 29% were women. The larger number of patients in the usual-care/placebo group was a result of the 1:2 randomization (corticosteroids versus usual care or placebo) in the RECOVERY trial, which contributed 59.1% of patients included in this prospective meta-analysis. The majority of patients were receiving invasive mechanical ventilation at randomization (1559 patients). The administration of adjunctive treatments, such as azithromycin or antiviral agents, varied among the trials. The risk of bias was determined as low for 6 of the 7 mortality results.

A total of 222 of 678 patients in the corticosteroids group died, and 425 of 1025 patients in the usual care or placebo group died. The summary OR was 0.66 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.53-0.82; P < 0.001) based on a fixed-effect meta-analysis, and 0.70 (95% CI, 0.48-1.01; P = 0.053) based on the random-effects meta-analysis, for 28-day all-cause mortality comparing all corticosteroids with usual care or placebo. There was little inconsistency between trial results (I² = 15.6%; P = 0.31). The fixed-effect summary OR for the association with 28-day all-cause mortality was 0.64 (95% CI, 0.50-0.82; P < 0.001) for dexamethasone compared with usual care or placebo (3 trials, 1282 patients, and 527 deaths); the OR was 0.69 (95% CI, 0.43-1.12; P = 0.13) for hydrocortisone (3 trials, 374 patients, and 94 deaths); and the OR was 0.91 (95% CI, 0.29-2.87; P = 0.87) for methylprednisolone (1 trial, 47 patients, and 26 deaths). Moreover, in trials that administered low-dose corticosteroids, the overall fixed-effect OR for 28-day all-cause mortality was 0.61 (95% CI, 0.48-0.78; P < 0.001). In the subgroup analysis, the overall fixed-effect OR was 0.69 (95% CI, 0.55-0.86) in patients who were receiving invasive mechanical ventilation at randomization, and the OR was 0.41 (95% CI, 0.19-0.88) in patients who were not receiving invasive mechanical ventilation at randomization.

Six trials (all except the RECOVERY trial) reported SAEs, with 64 events occurring among 354 patients assigned to the corticosteroids group and 80 SAEs occurring among 342 patients assigned to the usual-care or placebo group. There was no suggestion that the risk of SAEs was higher in patients who were administered corticosteroids.

Conclusion. The administration of systemic corticosteroids was associated with a lower 28-day all-cause mortality in critically ill patients with COVID-19 compared to those who received usual care or placebo.

Commentary

Corticosteroids are anti-inflammatory and vasoconstrictive medications that have long been used in intensive care units for the treatment of acute respiratory distress syndrome and septic shock. However, the therapeutic role of corticosteroids for treating severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection was uncertain at the outset of the COVID-19 pandemic due to concerns that this class of medications may cause an impaired immune response in the setting of a life-threatening SARS-CoV-2 infection. Evidence supporting this notion included prior studies showing that corticosteroid therapy was associated with delayed viral clearance of Middle East respiratory syndrome or a higher viral load of SARS-CoV.^2,3 The uncertainty surrounding the therapeutic use of corticosteroids in treating COVID-19 led to a simultaneous global effort to conduct randomized controlled trials to urgently examine this important clinical question. The open-label Randomized Evaluation of COVID-19 Therapy (RECOVERY) trial, conducted in the UK, was the first large-scale randomized clinical trial that reported the clinical benefit of corticosteroids in treating patients hospitalized with COVID-19. Specifically, it showed that low-dose dexamethasone (6 mg/day) administered orally or IV for up to 10 days resulted in a 2.8% absolute reduction in 28-day mortality, with the greatest benefit, an absolute risk reduction of 12.1%, conferred to patients who were receiving invasive mechanical ventilation at the time of randomization.⁴ In response to these findings, the National Institutes of Health COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines Panel recommended the use of dexamethasone in patients with COVID-19 who are on mechanical ventilation or who require supplemental oxygen, and recommended against the use of dexamethasone for those not requiring supplemental oxygen.⁵

The meta-analysis discussed in this commentary, conducted by the WHO REACT Working Group, has replicated initial findings from the RECOVERY trial. This prospective meta-analysis pooled data from 7 randomized controlled trials of corticosteroid therapy in 1703 critically ill patients hospitalized with COVID-19. Similar to findings from the RECOVERY trial, corticosteroids were associated with lower all-cause mortality at 28 days after randomization, and this benefit was observed both in critically ill patients who were receiving mechanical ventilation or supplemental oxygen without mechanical ventilation. Interestingly, while the OR estimates were imprecise, the reduction in mortality rates was similar between patients who were administered dexamethasone and hydrocortisone, which may suggest a general drug class effect. In addition, the mortality benefit of corticosteroids appeared similar for those aged ≤ 60 years and those aged > 60 years, between female and male patients, and those who were symptomatic for ≤ 7 days or > 7 days before randomization. Moreover, the administration of corticosteroids did not appear to increase the risk of SAEs. While more data are needed, results from the RECOVERY trial and this prospective meta-analysis indicate that corticosteroids should be an essential pharmacologic treatment for COVID-19, and suggest its potential role as a standard of care for critically ill patients with COVID-19.

This study has several limitations. First, not all trials systematically identified participated in the meta-analysis. Second, long-term outcomes after hospital discharge were not captured, and thus the effect of corticosteroids on long-term mortality and other adverse outcomes, such as hospital readmission, remain unknown. Third, because children were excluded from study participation, the effect of corticosteroids on pediatric COVID-19 patients is unknown. Fourth, the RECOVERY trial contributed more than 50% of patients in the current analysis, although there was little inconsistency in the effects of corticosteroids on mortality between individual trials. Last, the meta-analysis was unable to establish the optimal dose or duration of corticosteroid intervention in critically ill COVID-19 patients, or determine its efficacy in patients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19, all of which are key clinical questions that will need to be addressed with further clinical investigations.

The development of effective treatments for COVID-19 is critical to mitigating the devastating consequences of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Several recent COVID-19 clinical trials have shown promise in this endeavor. For instance, the Adaptive COVID-19 Treatment Trial (ACCT-1) found that intravenous remdesivir, as compared to placebo, significantly shortened time to recovery in adult patients hospitalized with COVID-19 who had evidence of lower respiratory tract infection.⁶ Moreover, there is some evidence to suggest that convalescent plasma and aerosol inhalation of IFN-κ may have beneficial effects in treating COVID-19.^7,8 Thus, clinical trials designed to investigate combination therapy approaches including corticosteroids, remdesivir, convalescent plasma, and others are urgently needed to help identify interventions that most effectively treat COVID-19.

Applications for Clinical Practice

The use of corticosteroids in critically ill patients with COVID-19 reduces overall mortality. This treatment is inexpensive and available in most care settings, including low-resource regions, and provides hope for better outcomes in the COVID-19 pandemic.

Katerina Oikonomou, MD, PhD
General Hospital of Larissa, Larissa, Greece
Fred Ko, MD, MS

Study Overview

Objective. To evaluate the effects of dapagliflozin in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction in the presence or absence of type 2 diabetes.

Design. Multicenter, international, double-blind, prospective, randomized, controlled trial.

Setting and participants. Adult patients with symptomatic heart failure with an ejection fraction of 40% or less and elevated heart failure biomarkers who were already on appropriate guideline-directed therapies were eligible for the study.

Intervention. A total of 4744 patients were randomly assigned to receive dapagliflozin (10 mg once daily) or placebo, in addition to recommended therapy. Randomization was stratified by the presence or absence of type 2 diabetes.

Main outcome measures. The primary outcome was the composite of a first episode of worsening heart failure (hospitalization or urgent intravenous therapy) or cardiovascular death.

Main results. Median follow-up was 18.2 months; during this time, the primary outcome occurred in 16.3% (386 of 2373) of patients in the dapagliflozin group and in 21.2% (502 of 2371) of patients in the placebo group (hazard ratio [HR], 0.74; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.65-0.85; P < 0.001). In the dapagliflozin group, 237 patients (10.0%) experienced a first worsening heart failure event, as compared with 326 patients (13.7%) in the placebo group (HR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.59-0.83). The dapagliflozin group hadlower rates of death from cardiovascular causes (9.6% vs 11.5%; HR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.69-0.98) and from any causes (11.6% vs 13.9%; HR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.71-0.97), compared to the placebo group. Findings in patients with diabetes were similar to those in patients without diabetes.

Conclusion. Among patients with heart failure and a reduced ejection fraction, the risk of worsening heart failure or death from cardiovascular causes was lower among those who received dapagliflozin than among those who received placebo, regardless of the presence or absence of diabetes.

Inhibitors of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT-2) are a novel class of diabetic medication that decrease renal glucose reabsorption, thereby increasing urinary glucose excretion. In several large clinical trials of these medications for patients with diabetes, which were designed to meet the regulatory requirements for cardiovascular safety in novel diabetic agents, investigators unexpectedly found that SGLT-2 inhibitors were associated with a reduction in cardiovascular events, driven by a reduction in heart failure hospitalizations. The results of EMPA-REG OUTCOME, the first of these trials, showed significantly lower risks of both death from any cause and hospitalization for heart failure in patients treated with empagliflozin.¹ This improvement in cardiovascular outcomes was subsequently confirmed as a class effect of SGLT-2 inhibitors in the CANVAS Program (canagliflozin) and DECLARE TIMI 58 (dapagliflozin) trials.^2,3

While these trials were designed for patients with type 2 diabetes who had either established cardiovascular disease or multiple risk factors for it, most patients did not have heart failure at baseline. Accordingly, despite a signal toward benefit of SGLT-2 inhibitors in patients with heart failure, the trials were not powered to test the hypothesis that SGLT-2 inhibitors benefit patients with heart failure, regardless of diabetes status. Therefore, McMurray et al designed the DAPA-HF trial to investigate whether SGLT-2 inhibitors can improve cardiovascular outcomes in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, with or without diabetes. The trial included 4744 patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, who were randomly assigned to dapagliflozin 10 mg once daily or placebo, atop guideline-directed heart failure therapy, with randomization stratified by presence or absence of type 2 diabetes. Investigators found that the composite primary outcome, a first episode of worsening heart failure or cardiovascular death, occurred less frequently in patients in the dapagliflozin group compared to the placebo group (16.3% vs 21.2%; HR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.65-0.85; P < 0.001). Individual components of the primary outcome and death from any cause were all significantly lower, and heart failure–related quality of life was significantly improved in the dapagliflozin group compared to placebo.

DAPA-HF was the first randomized study to investigate the effect of SGLT-2 inhibitors on patients with heart failure regardless of the presence of diabetes. In addition to the reduction in the above-mentioned primary and secondary endpoints, the study yielded other important findings worth noting. First, the consistent benefit of dapagliflozin on cardiovascular outcomes in patients with and without diabetes suggests that the cardioprotective effect of dapagliflozin is independent of its glucose-lowering effect. Prior studies have proposed alternative mechanisms, such as diuretic function and related hemodynamic actions, effects on myocardial metabolism, ion transporters, fibrosis, adipokines, vascular function, and the preservation of renal function. Future studies are needed to fully understand the likely pleiotropic effects of this class of medication on patients with heart failure. Second, there was no difference in the safety endpoints between the groups, including renal adverse events and major hypoglycemia, implying dapagliflozin is as safe as placebo.

There are a few limitations of this trial. First, as the authors point out, the study included mostly white males—less than 5% of participants were African Americans—and the finding may not be generalizable to all patient populations. Second, although all patients were already treated with guideline-directed heart failure therapy, only 10% of patients were on sacubitril–valsartan, which is more effective than renin–angiotensin system blockade alone at reducing the incidence of hospitalization for heart failure and death from cardiovascular causes. Also, mineralocorticoid receptor blockers were used in only 70% of the population. Finally, since the doses were not provided, whether patients were on the maximal tolerated dose of heart failure therapy prior to enrollment is unclear.

Based on the results of the DAPA-HF trial, the Food and Drug Administration approved dapagliflozin for the treatment of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction on May 5, 2020. This is the first diabetic drug approved for the treatment of heart failure.

Applications for Clinical Practice

SGLT-2 inhibitors represent a fourth class of medication that patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction should be initiated on, in addition to beta blocker, ACE inhibitor/angiotensin receptor blocker/neprilysin inhibitor, and mineralocorticoid receptor blocker. SGLT-2 inhibitors may be especially applicable in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction and relative hypotension, as these agents are not associated with a significant blood-pressure-lowering effect, which can often limit our ability to initiate or uptitrate the other main 3 classes of guideline-directed medical therapy.

—Rie Hirai, MD, Fukui Kosei Hospital, Fukui, Japan
—Taishi Hirai, MD, University of Missouri Medical Center, Columbia, MO
—Timothy Fendler, MD, St. Luke’s Mid America Heart Institute, Kansas City, MO

Study Overview

Objective. To evaluate the effects of dapagliflozin in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction in the presence or absence of type 2 diabetes.

Design. Multicenter, international, double-blind, prospective, randomized, controlled trial.

Setting and participants. Adult patients with symptomatic heart failure with an ejection fraction of 40% or less and elevated heart failure biomarkers who were already on appropriate guideline-directed therapies were eligible for the study.

Intervention. A total of 4744 patients were randomly assigned to receive dapagliflozin (10 mg once daily) or placebo, in addition to recommended therapy. Randomization was stratified by the presence or absence of type 2 diabetes.

Main outcome measures. The primary outcome was the composite of a first episode of worsening heart failure (hospitalization or urgent intravenous therapy) or cardiovascular death.

Main results. Median follow-up was 18.2 months; during this time, the primary outcome occurred in 16.3% (386 of 2373) of patients in the dapagliflozin group and in 21.2% (502 of 2371) of patients in the placebo group (hazard ratio [HR], 0.74; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.65-0.85; P < 0.001). In the dapagliflozin group, 237 patients (10.0%) experienced a first worsening heart failure event, as compared with 326 patients (13.7%) in the placebo group (HR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.59-0.83). The dapagliflozin group hadlower rates of death from cardiovascular causes (9.6% vs 11.5%; HR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.69-0.98) and from any causes (11.6% vs 13.9%; HR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.71-0.97), compared to the placebo group. Findings in patients with diabetes were similar to those in patients without diabetes.

Conclusion. Among patients with heart failure and a reduced ejection fraction, the risk of worsening heart failure or death from cardiovascular causes was lower among those who received dapagliflozin than among those who received placebo, regardless of the presence or absence of diabetes.

Inhibitors of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT-2) are a novel class of diabetic medication that decrease renal glucose reabsorption, thereby increasing urinary glucose excretion. In several large clinical trials of these medications for patients with diabetes, which were designed to meet the regulatory requirements for cardiovascular safety in novel diabetic agents, investigators unexpectedly found that SGLT-2 inhibitors were associated with a reduction in cardiovascular events, driven by a reduction in heart failure hospitalizations. The results of EMPA-REG OUTCOME, the first of these trials, showed significantly lower risks of both death from any cause and hospitalization for heart failure in patients treated with empagliflozin.¹ This improvement in cardiovascular outcomes was subsequently confirmed as a class effect of SGLT-2 inhibitors in the CANVAS Program (canagliflozin) and DECLARE TIMI 58 (dapagliflozin) trials.^2,3

While these trials were designed for patients with type 2 diabetes who had either established cardiovascular disease or multiple risk factors for it, most patients did not have heart failure at baseline. Accordingly, despite a signal toward benefit of SGLT-2 inhibitors in patients with heart failure, the trials were not powered to test the hypothesis that SGLT-2 inhibitors benefit patients with heart failure, regardless of diabetes status. Therefore, McMurray et al designed the DAPA-HF trial to investigate whether SGLT-2 inhibitors can improve cardiovascular outcomes in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, with or without diabetes. The trial included 4744 patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, who were randomly assigned to dapagliflozin 10 mg once daily or placebo, atop guideline-directed heart failure therapy, with randomization stratified by presence or absence of type 2 diabetes. Investigators found that the composite primary outcome, a first episode of worsening heart failure or cardiovascular death, occurred less frequently in patients in the dapagliflozin group compared to the placebo group (16.3% vs 21.2%; HR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.65-0.85; P < 0.001). Individual components of the primary outcome and death from any cause were all significantly lower, and heart failure–related quality of life was significantly improved in the dapagliflozin group compared to placebo.

DAPA-HF was the first randomized study to investigate the effect of SGLT-2 inhibitors on patients with heart failure regardless of the presence of diabetes. In addition to the reduction in the above-mentioned primary and secondary endpoints, the study yielded other important findings worth noting. First, the consistent benefit of dapagliflozin on cardiovascular outcomes in patients with and without diabetes suggests that the cardioprotective effect of dapagliflozin is independent of its glucose-lowering effect. Prior studies have proposed alternative mechanisms, such as diuretic function and related hemodynamic actions, effects on myocardial metabolism, ion transporters, fibrosis, adipokines, vascular function, and the preservation of renal function. Future studies are needed to fully understand the likely pleiotropic effects of this class of medication on patients with heart failure. Second, there was no difference in the safety endpoints between the groups, including renal adverse events and major hypoglycemia, implying dapagliflozin is as safe as placebo.

There are a few limitations of this trial. First, as the authors point out, the study included mostly white males—less than 5% of participants were African Americans—and the finding may not be generalizable to all patient populations. Second, although all patients were already treated with guideline-directed heart failure therapy, only 10% of patients were on sacubitril–valsartan, which is more effective than renin–angiotensin system blockade alone at reducing the incidence of hospitalization for heart failure and death from cardiovascular causes. Also, mineralocorticoid receptor blockers were used in only 70% of the population. Finally, since the doses were not provided, whether patients were on the maximal tolerated dose of heart failure therapy prior to enrollment is unclear.

Based on the results of the DAPA-HF trial, the Food and Drug Administration approved dapagliflozin for the treatment of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction on May 5, 2020. This is the first diabetic drug approved for the treatment of heart failure.

Applications for Clinical Practice

SGLT-2 inhibitors represent a fourth class of medication that patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction should be initiated on, in addition to beta blocker, ACE inhibitor/angiotensin receptor blocker/neprilysin inhibitor, and mineralocorticoid receptor blocker. SGLT-2 inhibitors may be especially applicable in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction and relative hypotension, as these agents are not associated with a significant blood-pressure-lowering effect, which can often limit our ability to initiate or uptitrate the other main 3 classes of guideline-directed medical therapy.

—Rie Hirai, MD, Fukui Kosei Hospital, Fukui, Japan
—Taishi Hirai, MD, University of Missouri Medical Center, Columbia, MO
—Timothy Fendler, MD, St. Luke’s Mid America Heart Institute, Kansas City, MO

Study Overview

Objective. To evaluate the effects of dapagliflozin in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction in the presence or absence of type 2 diabetes.

Design. Multicenter, international, double-blind, prospective, randomized, controlled trial.

Setting and participants. Adult patients with symptomatic heart failure with an ejection fraction of 40% or less and elevated heart failure biomarkers who were already on appropriate guideline-directed therapies were eligible for the study.

Intervention. A total of 4744 patients were randomly assigned to receive dapagliflozin (10 mg once daily) or placebo, in addition to recommended therapy. Randomization was stratified by the presence or absence of type 2 diabetes.

Main outcome measures. The primary outcome was the composite of a first episode of worsening heart failure (hospitalization or urgent intravenous therapy) or cardiovascular death.

Main results. Median follow-up was 18.2 months; during this time, the primary outcome occurred in 16.3% (386 of 2373) of patients in the dapagliflozin group and in 21.2% (502 of 2371) of patients in the placebo group (hazard ratio [HR], 0.74; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.65-0.85; P < 0.001). In the dapagliflozin group, 237 patients (10.0%) experienced a first worsening heart failure event, as compared with 326 patients (13.7%) in the placebo group (HR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.59-0.83). The dapagliflozin group hadlower rates of death from cardiovascular causes (9.6% vs 11.5%; HR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.69-0.98) and from any causes (11.6% vs 13.9%; HR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.71-0.97), compared to the placebo group. Findings in patients with diabetes were similar to those in patients without diabetes.

Conclusion. Among patients with heart failure and a reduced ejection fraction, the risk of worsening heart failure or death from cardiovascular causes was lower among those who received dapagliflozin than among those who received placebo, regardless of the presence or absence of diabetes.

Inhibitors of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT-2) are a novel class of diabetic medication that decrease renal glucose reabsorption, thereby increasing urinary glucose excretion. In several large clinical trials of these medications for patients with diabetes, which were designed to meet the regulatory requirements for cardiovascular safety in novel diabetic agents, investigators unexpectedly found that SGLT-2 inhibitors were associated with a reduction in cardiovascular events, driven by a reduction in heart failure hospitalizations. The results of EMPA-REG OUTCOME, the first of these trials, showed significantly lower risks of both death from any cause and hospitalization for heart failure in patients treated with empagliflozin.¹ This improvement in cardiovascular outcomes was subsequently confirmed as a class effect of SGLT-2 inhibitors in the CANVAS Program (canagliflozin) and DECLARE TIMI 58 (dapagliflozin) trials.^2,3

While these trials were designed for patients with type 2 diabetes who had either established cardiovascular disease or multiple risk factors for it, most patients did not have heart failure at baseline. Accordingly, despite a signal toward benefit of SGLT-2 inhibitors in patients with heart failure, the trials were not powered to test the hypothesis that SGLT-2 inhibitors benefit patients with heart failure, regardless of diabetes status. Therefore, McMurray et al designed the DAPA-HF trial to investigate whether SGLT-2 inhibitors can improve cardiovascular outcomes in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, with or without diabetes. The trial included 4744 patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, who were randomly assigned to dapagliflozin 10 mg once daily or placebo, atop guideline-directed heart failure therapy, with randomization stratified by presence or absence of type 2 diabetes. Investigators found that the composite primary outcome, a first episode of worsening heart failure or cardiovascular death, occurred less frequently in patients in the dapagliflozin group compared to the placebo group (16.3% vs 21.2%; HR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.65-0.85; P < 0.001). Individual components of the primary outcome and death from any cause were all significantly lower, and heart failure–related quality of life was significantly improved in the dapagliflozin group compared to placebo.

DAPA-HF was the first randomized study to investigate the effect of SGLT-2 inhibitors on patients with heart failure regardless of the presence of diabetes. In addition to the reduction in the above-mentioned primary and secondary endpoints, the study yielded other important findings worth noting. First, the consistent benefit of dapagliflozin on cardiovascular outcomes in patients with and without diabetes suggests that the cardioprotective effect of dapagliflozin is independent of its glucose-lowering effect. Prior studies have proposed alternative mechanisms, such as diuretic function and related hemodynamic actions, effects on myocardial metabolism, ion transporters, fibrosis, adipokines, vascular function, and the preservation of renal function. Future studies are needed to fully understand the likely pleiotropic effects of this class of medication on patients with heart failure. Second, there was no difference in the safety endpoints between the groups, including renal adverse events and major hypoglycemia, implying dapagliflozin is as safe as placebo.

There are a few limitations of this trial. First, as the authors point out, the study included mostly white males—less than 5% of participants were African Americans—and the finding may not be generalizable to all patient populations. Second, although all patients were already treated with guideline-directed heart failure therapy, only 10% of patients were on sacubitril–valsartan, which is more effective than renin–angiotensin system blockade alone at reducing the incidence of hospitalization for heart failure and death from cardiovascular causes. Also, mineralocorticoid receptor blockers were used in only 70% of the population. Finally, since the doses were not provided, whether patients were on the maximal tolerated dose of heart failure therapy prior to enrollment is unclear.

Based on the results of the DAPA-HF trial, the Food and Drug Administration approved dapagliflozin for the treatment of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction on May 5, 2020. This is the first diabetic drug approved for the treatment of heart failure.

Applications for Clinical Practice

SGLT-2 inhibitors represent a fourth class of medication that patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction should be initiated on, in addition to beta blocker, ACE inhibitor/angiotensin receptor blocker/neprilysin inhibitor, and mineralocorticoid receptor blocker. SGLT-2 inhibitors may be especially applicable in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction and relative hypotension, as these agents are not associated with a significant blood-pressure-lowering effect, which can often limit our ability to initiate or uptitrate the other main 3 classes of guideline-directed medical therapy.

—Rie Hirai, MD, Fukui Kosei Hospital, Fukui, Japan
—Taishi Hirai, MD, University of Missouri Medical Center, Columbia, MO
—Timothy Fendler, MD, St. Luke’s Mid America Heart Institute, Kansas City, MO

Study Overview

Objective. To evaluate the safety and efficacy of the highly selective oral gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist relugolix in men with advanced prostate cancer.

Design. Global, multicenter, randomized, open-label, phase 3 trial.

Intervention. Patients were randomized in a 2:1 ratio to receive either relugolix 120 mg once daily after receiving a single loading dose of 360 mg, or 22.5 mg of leuprolide acetate every 3 months. Patients in Japan and Taiwan received 11.25 mg of leuprolide. The randomization was stratified by age (> 75 years or ≤ 75 years), metastatic disease status, and geographic region (Asia, Europe, North and South America). The intervention period was 48 weeks.

Setting and participants. 1327 patients were screened, and 934 patients underwent randomization: 622 patients to the relugolix group and 308 to the leuprolide group. Patients had histologically or cytologically confirmed adenocarcinoma of the prostate. All patients had to have 1 of the following: evidence of biochemical or clinical relapse after primary curative therapy, newly diagnosed hormone-sensitive metastatic disease, or advance localized disease unlikely to be cured by local primary intervention. The patients with disease progression or rising prostate-specific antigen (PSA) had the option to receive enzalutamide or docetaxel after the confirmation of progression. Patients were excluded if they had a major cardiovascular event within 6 months of enrollment.

Main outcome measures. The primary endpoint was sustained castration rate, defined as the cumulative probability of testosterone suppression to ≤ 50 ng/dL while on study treatment from week 5 through week 48. Secondary endpoints included noninferiority of relugolix to leuprolide in regard to sustained castration rate. Superiority testing was performed if the noninferiority margin of –10 percentage points was met. Additional secondary endpoints were probability of testosterone suppression to ≤ 50 ng/dL on day 4 and day 15 and the percentage of patients with a > 50% decrease in PSA at day 15 and follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) levels at the end of week 24.

Main results. The baseline characteristics were well balanced between the treatment groups. Approximately 30% of the patients in each group had metastatic disease. Approximately 50% of patients enrolled had biochemical recurrence following primary treatment for prostate cancer. The mean PSA was 104.2 ng/mL in the relugolix group and 68.6 ng/mL in the leuprolide group. The majority of patients had at least 1 cardiovascular risk factor (ie, tobacco use, obesity, diabetes, hypertension, or a history of a major adverse cardiac event [MACE]). Adherence to oral therapy was reported as 99% in both groups. The median follow-up time was 52 weeks; 90% of patients in the relugolix arm and 89% in the leuprolide arm completed 48 weeks of treatment.

Sustained testosterone suppression to ≤ 50 ng/dL from day 29 through week 48 was seen in 96.7% of patients in the relugolix group and 88.8% in the leuprolide group, which was determined to be noninferior. Additionally, relugolix was also found to be superior to leuprolide in regard to sustained testosterone suppression (P < 0.001). These results were consistent across all subgroups. Relugolix was also found to be superior to leuprolide for all secondary endpoints, including cumulative probability of castration on day 4 (56% vs 0%) and day 15 (98.7% vs 12%) and testosterone suppression to ≤ 20 ng/dL on day 15 (78.4% vs 1%). Confirmed PSA response on day 15 was seen in 79.4% of patients in the relugolix arm and in 19.8% in the leuprolide arm (P < 0.001). FSH suppression was greater in the relugolix arm compared with the leuprolide arm by the end of week 24. An increase of testosterone levels from baseline was noted in the leuprolide patients at day 4, with the level decreasing to castrate level by day 29. In contrast, relugolix patients maintained castrate testosterone levels from day 4 throughout the intervention period. Testosterone recovery at 90 days was seen in 54% of patients in the relugolix group compared with 3% in the leuprolide group (P = 0.002).

The most frequent adverse event seen in both groups was hot flashes (54.3% in the relugolix group and 51.6% in the leuprolide group). The second most common adverse event report was fatigue, which occurred in 21.5% of patients in the relugolix arm and 18.5% in the leuprolide arm. Diarrhea was reported more frequently with relugolix than with leuprolide (12.2% vs 6.8%); however, diarrhea did not lead to discontinuation of therapy in any patient. Fatal events were reported more frequently in the leuprolide group (2.9%) compared with the relugolix group (1.1%). MACE were defined as nonfatal myocardial infarction, stroke, and death from any cause. After completing the intervention period of 48 weeks, the relugolix group had a 2.9% incidence of major cardiovascular events, compared with 6.2% in the leuprolide group. In patients having a medical history of cardiovascular events, the adverse event rate during the trial period was 3.6% in the relugolix group and 17.8% in leuprolide group. This translated into a 54% lower risk of MACE in the relugolix arm compared with the leuprolide arm.

Conclusion. The use of relugolix in advanced prostate cancer led to rapid, sustained suppression and faster recovery of testosterone level compared with leuprolide. Relugolix appeared safer to use for men with a medical history of cardiovascular events and showed a 54% lower risk of MACE than leuprolide.

Commentary

Relugolix is a highly selective oral GnRH antagonist that rapidly inhibits pituitary release of luteinizing hormone and FSH. The current phase 3 HERO trial highlights the efficacy of relugolix in regard to testosterone suppression, adding to potential therapeutic options for these men. Relugolix yielded superior sustained testosterone suppression to less than 50 ng/dL throughout the 48-week study period, meeting its primary endpoint. Additionally, relugolix showed superiority in all secondary endpoints across all subgroups of patients. To date, the only GnRH antagonist on the market is degarelix, which is given as a monthly subcutaneous injection.¹ Injection-site reactions remain an issue with this formulation.

Cardiovascular disease is the leading cause of death in the United States, and it is known that men with prostate cancer have a higher incidence of cardiovascular disease.² While data regarding adverse cardiac outcomes with androgen deprivation therapy have been mixed, it is thought that this therapy increases the risk for MACE. There is mounting evidence that GnRH antagonists may have a less detrimental effect on cardiovascular outcomes compared with GnRH agonists. For example, a pooled analysis of 6 phase 3 trials showed a lower incidence of cardiovascular events in men with preexisting cardiovascular disease using the GnRH antagonist degarelix compared with GnRH agonists after 12 months of treatment.³ Furthermore, a more recent phase 2 randomized trial showed that 20% of patients treated with a GnRH agonist developed cardiovascular events, compared to 3% in the GnRH antagonist group. The absolute risk reduction of cardiovascular events at 12 months was 18%.⁴ The results of the current trial support such findings, showing a 54% reduction in MACE after 48 weeks of therapy when compared with leuprolide (2.9% in relugolix arm vs 6.2% in leuprolide arm). More importantly perhaps, in the subgroup of men with preexisting cardiovascular disease, the benefit was even greater, with a MACE incidence of 3.6% with relugolix compared with 17.8% with leuprolide.

Studies have also shown that second-generation antiandrogens such as enzalutamide are associated with an increased risk of death from cardiovascular causes. For example, data from the recently updated PROSPER trial, which evaluated the use of enzalutamide in men with nonmetastatic, castration-resistant prostate cancer, showed an increased risk of adverse events, including falls, fatigue, hypertension, and death from cardiovascular events.⁵ Furthermore, adding second-generation antiandrogens to GnRH-agonist therapy is associated with a high risk of cardiovascular events in men with preexisting cardiovascular disease.³ These results were noted in all of the trials of second-generation antiandrogens, including enzalutamide, apalutamide, and darolutamide, in combination with GnRH agonists.^6-8 Taken together, one might consider whether the use of a GnRH antagonist would result in improved cardiovascular outcomes in high-risk patients.

In light of the efficacy of relugolix in regard to testosterone suppression highlighted in the current trial, it is likely that its efficacy in regard to cancer outcomes will be similar; however, to date there is no level 1 evidence to support this. Nevertheless, there is a clear association of adverse cardiovascular outcomes in men treated with GnRH agonists, and the notable 54% risk reduction seen in the current trial certainly would support considering the use of a GnRH antagonist for the subgroup of patients with preexisting cardiovascular disease or those at high risk for MACE. Further work is needed to define the role of GnRH antagonists in conjunction with second-generation antiandrogens to help mitigate cardiovascular toxicities.

Clinical Implications

The use of GnRH antagonists should be considered in men with advanced prostate cancer who have underlying cardiovascular disease to help mitigate the risk of MACE. Currently, degarelix is the only commercially available agent; however, pending regulatory approval, oral relugolix may be considered an appropriate oral option in such patients, with data supporting superior testosterone suppressive effects. Further follow-up will be needed.

–Saud Alsubait, MD, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI
–Daniel Isaac, MD, MS

Study Overview

Objective. To evaluate the safety and efficacy of the highly selective oral gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist relugolix in men with advanced prostate cancer.

Design. Global, multicenter, randomized, open-label, phase 3 trial.

Intervention. Patients were randomized in a 2:1 ratio to receive either relugolix 120 mg once daily after receiving a single loading dose of 360 mg, or 22.5 mg of leuprolide acetate every 3 months. Patients in Japan and Taiwan received 11.25 mg of leuprolide. The randomization was stratified by age (> 75 years or ≤ 75 years), metastatic disease status, and geographic region (Asia, Europe, North and South America). The intervention period was 48 weeks.

Setting and participants. 1327 patients were screened, and 934 patients underwent randomization: 622 patients to the relugolix group and 308 to the leuprolide group. Patients had histologically or cytologically confirmed adenocarcinoma of the prostate. All patients had to have 1 of the following: evidence of biochemical or clinical relapse after primary curative therapy, newly diagnosed hormone-sensitive metastatic disease, or advance localized disease unlikely to be cured by local primary intervention. The patients with disease progression or rising prostate-specific antigen (PSA) had the option to receive enzalutamide or docetaxel after the confirmation of progression. Patients were excluded if they had a major cardiovascular event within 6 months of enrollment.

Main outcome measures. The primary endpoint was sustained castration rate, defined as the cumulative probability of testosterone suppression to ≤ 50 ng/dL while on study treatment from week 5 through week 48. Secondary endpoints included noninferiority of relugolix to leuprolide in regard to sustained castration rate. Superiority testing was performed if the noninferiority margin of –10 percentage points was met. Additional secondary endpoints were probability of testosterone suppression to ≤ 50 ng/dL on day 4 and day 15 and the percentage of patients with a > 50% decrease in PSA at day 15 and follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) levels at the end of week 24.

Main results. The baseline characteristics were well balanced between the treatment groups. Approximately 30% of the patients in each group had metastatic disease. Approximately 50% of patients enrolled had biochemical recurrence following primary treatment for prostate cancer. The mean PSA was 104.2 ng/mL in the relugolix group and 68.6 ng/mL in the leuprolide group. The majority of patients had at least 1 cardiovascular risk factor (ie, tobacco use, obesity, diabetes, hypertension, or a history of a major adverse cardiac event [MACE]). Adherence to oral therapy was reported as 99% in both groups. The median follow-up time was 52 weeks; 90% of patients in the relugolix arm and 89% in the leuprolide arm completed 48 weeks of treatment.

Sustained testosterone suppression to ≤ 50 ng/dL from day 29 through week 48 was seen in 96.7% of patients in the relugolix group and 88.8% in the leuprolide group, which was determined to be noninferior. Additionally, relugolix was also found to be superior to leuprolide in regard to sustained testosterone suppression (P < 0.001). These results were consistent across all subgroups. Relugolix was also found to be superior to leuprolide for all secondary endpoints, including cumulative probability of castration on day 4 (56% vs 0%) and day 15 (98.7% vs 12%) and testosterone suppression to ≤ 20 ng/dL on day 15 (78.4% vs 1%). Confirmed PSA response on day 15 was seen in 79.4% of patients in the relugolix arm and in 19.8% in the leuprolide arm (P < 0.001). FSH suppression was greater in the relugolix arm compared with the leuprolide arm by the end of week 24. An increase of testosterone levels from baseline was noted in the leuprolide patients at day 4, with the level decreasing to castrate level by day 29. In contrast, relugolix patients maintained castrate testosterone levels from day 4 throughout the intervention period. Testosterone recovery at 90 days was seen in 54% of patients in the relugolix group compared with 3% in the leuprolide group (P = 0.002).

The most frequent adverse event seen in both groups was hot flashes (54.3% in the relugolix group and 51.6% in the leuprolide group). The second most common adverse event report was fatigue, which occurred in 21.5% of patients in the relugolix arm and 18.5% in the leuprolide arm. Diarrhea was reported more frequently with relugolix than with leuprolide (12.2% vs 6.8%); however, diarrhea did not lead to discontinuation of therapy in any patient. Fatal events were reported more frequently in the leuprolide group (2.9%) compared with the relugolix group (1.1%). MACE were defined as nonfatal myocardial infarction, stroke, and death from any cause. After completing the intervention period of 48 weeks, the relugolix group had a 2.9% incidence of major cardiovascular events, compared with 6.2% in the leuprolide group. In patients having a medical history of cardiovascular events, the adverse event rate during the trial period was 3.6% in the relugolix group and 17.8% in leuprolide group. This translated into a 54% lower risk of MACE in the relugolix arm compared with the leuprolide arm.

Conclusion. The use of relugolix in advanced prostate cancer led to rapid, sustained suppression and faster recovery of testosterone level compared with leuprolide. Relugolix appeared safer to use for men with a medical history of cardiovascular events and showed a 54% lower risk of MACE than leuprolide.

Commentary

Relugolix is a highly selective oral GnRH antagonist that rapidly inhibits pituitary release of luteinizing hormone and FSH. The current phase 3 HERO trial highlights the efficacy of relugolix in regard to testosterone suppression, adding to potential therapeutic options for these men. Relugolix yielded superior sustained testosterone suppression to less than 50 ng/dL throughout the 48-week study period, meeting its primary endpoint. Additionally, relugolix showed superiority in all secondary endpoints across all subgroups of patients. To date, the only GnRH antagonist on the market is degarelix, which is given as a monthly subcutaneous injection.¹ Injection-site reactions remain an issue with this formulation.

Cardiovascular disease is the leading cause of death in the United States, and it is known that men with prostate cancer have a higher incidence of cardiovascular disease.² While data regarding adverse cardiac outcomes with androgen deprivation therapy have been mixed, it is thought that this therapy increases the risk for MACE. There is mounting evidence that GnRH antagonists may have a less detrimental effect on cardiovascular outcomes compared with GnRH agonists. For example, a pooled analysis of 6 phase 3 trials showed a lower incidence of cardiovascular events in men with preexisting cardiovascular disease using the GnRH antagonist degarelix compared with GnRH agonists after 12 months of treatment.³ Furthermore, a more recent phase 2 randomized trial showed that 20% of patients treated with a GnRH agonist developed cardiovascular events, compared to 3% in the GnRH antagonist group. The absolute risk reduction of cardiovascular events at 12 months was 18%.⁴ The results of the current trial support such findings, showing a 54% reduction in MACE after 48 weeks of therapy when compared with leuprolide (2.9% in relugolix arm vs 6.2% in leuprolide arm). More importantly perhaps, in the subgroup of men with preexisting cardiovascular disease, the benefit was even greater, with a MACE incidence of 3.6% with relugolix compared with 17.8% with leuprolide.

Studies have also shown that second-generation antiandrogens such as enzalutamide are associated with an increased risk of death from cardiovascular causes. For example, data from the recently updated PROSPER trial, which evaluated the use of enzalutamide in men with nonmetastatic, castration-resistant prostate cancer, showed an increased risk of adverse events, including falls, fatigue, hypertension, and death from cardiovascular events.⁵ Furthermore, adding second-generation antiandrogens to GnRH-agonist therapy is associated with a high risk of cardiovascular events in men with preexisting cardiovascular disease.³ These results were noted in all of the trials of second-generation antiandrogens, including enzalutamide, apalutamide, and darolutamide, in combination with GnRH agonists.^6-8 Taken together, one might consider whether the use of a GnRH antagonist would result in improved cardiovascular outcomes in high-risk patients.

In light of the efficacy of relugolix in regard to testosterone suppression highlighted in the current trial, it is likely that its efficacy in regard to cancer outcomes will be similar; however, to date there is no level 1 evidence to support this. Nevertheless, there is a clear association of adverse cardiovascular outcomes in men treated with GnRH agonists, and the notable 54% risk reduction seen in the current trial certainly would support considering the use of a GnRH antagonist for the subgroup of patients with preexisting cardiovascular disease or those at high risk for MACE. Further work is needed to define the role of GnRH antagonists in conjunction with second-generation antiandrogens to help mitigate cardiovascular toxicities.

Clinical Implications

The use of GnRH antagonists should be considered in men with advanced prostate cancer who have underlying cardiovascular disease to help mitigate the risk of MACE. Currently, degarelix is the only commercially available agent; however, pending regulatory approval, oral relugolix may be considered an appropriate oral option in such patients, with data supporting superior testosterone suppressive effects. Further follow-up will be needed.

–Saud Alsubait, MD, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI
–Daniel Isaac, MD, MS

Study Overview

Objective. To evaluate the safety and efficacy of the highly selective oral gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist relugolix in men with advanced prostate cancer.

Design. Global, multicenter, randomized, open-label, phase 3 trial.

Intervention. Patients were randomized in a 2:1 ratio to receive either relugolix 120 mg once daily after receiving a single loading dose of 360 mg, or 22.5 mg of leuprolide acetate every 3 months. Patients in Japan and Taiwan received 11.25 mg of leuprolide. The randomization was stratified by age (> 75 years or ≤ 75 years), metastatic disease status, and geographic region (Asia, Europe, North and South America). The intervention period was 48 weeks.

Setting and participants. 1327 patients were screened, and 934 patients underwent randomization: 622 patients to the relugolix group and 308 to the leuprolide group. Patients had histologically or cytologically confirmed adenocarcinoma of the prostate. All patients had to have 1 of the following: evidence of biochemical or clinical relapse after primary curative therapy, newly diagnosed hormone-sensitive metastatic disease, or advance localized disease unlikely to be cured by local primary intervention. The patients with disease progression or rising prostate-specific antigen (PSA) had the option to receive enzalutamide or docetaxel after the confirmation of progression. Patients were excluded if they had a major cardiovascular event within 6 months of enrollment.

Main outcome measures. The primary endpoint was sustained castration rate, defined as the cumulative probability of testosterone suppression to ≤ 50 ng/dL while on study treatment from week 5 through week 48. Secondary endpoints included noninferiority of relugolix to leuprolide in regard to sustained castration rate. Superiority testing was performed if the noninferiority margin of –10 percentage points was met. Additional secondary endpoints were probability of testosterone suppression to ≤ 50 ng/dL on day 4 and day 15 and the percentage of patients with a > 50% decrease in PSA at day 15 and follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) levels at the end of week 24.

Main results. The baseline characteristics were well balanced between the treatment groups. Approximately 30% of the patients in each group had metastatic disease. Approximately 50% of patients enrolled had biochemical recurrence following primary treatment for prostate cancer. The mean PSA was 104.2 ng/mL in the relugolix group and 68.6 ng/mL in the leuprolide group. The majority of patients had at least 1 cardiovascular risk factor (ie, tobacco use, obesity, diabetes, hypertension, or a history of a major adverse cardiac event [MACE]). Adherence to oral therapy was reported as 99% in both groups. The median follow-up time was 52 weeks; 90% of patients in the relugolix arm and 89% in the leuprolide arm completed 48 weeks of treatment.

Sustained testosterone suppression to ≤ 50 ng/dL from day 29 through week 48 was seen in 96.7% of patients in the relugolix group and 88.8% in the leuprolide group, which was determined to be noninferior. Additionally, relugolix was also found to be superior to leuprolide in regard to sustained testosterone suppression (P < 0.001). These results were consistent across all subgroups. Relugolix was also found to be superior to leuprolide for all secondary endpoints, including cumulative probability of castration on day 4 (56% vs 0%) and day 15 (98.7% vs 12%) and testosterone suppression to ≤ 20 ng/dL on day 15 (78.4% vs 1%). Confirmed PSA response on day 15 was seen in 79.4% of patients in the relugolix arm and in 19.8% in the leuprolide arm (P < 0.001). FSH suppression was greater in the relugolix arm compared with the leuprolide arm by the end of week 24. An increase of testosterone levels from baseline was noted in the leuprolide patients at day 4, with the level decreasing to castrate level by day 29. In contrast, relugolix patients maintained castrate testosterone levels from day 4 throughout the intervention period. Testosterone recovery at 90 days was seen in 54% of patients in the relugolix group compared with 3% in the leuprolide group (P = 0.002).

The most frequent adverse event seen in both groups was hot flashes (54.3% in the relugolix group and 51.6% in the leuprolide group). The second most common adverse event report was fatigue, which occurred in 21.5% of patients in the relugolix arm and 18.5% in the leuprolide arm. Diarrhea was reported more frequently with relugolix than with leuprolide (12.2% vs 6.8%); however, diarrhea did not lead to discontinuation of therapy in any patient. Fatal events were reported more frequently in the leuprolide group (2.9%) compared with the relugolix group (1.1%). MACE were defined as nonfatal myocardial infarction, stroke, and death from any cause. After completing the intervention period of 48 weeks, the relugolix group had a 2.9% incidence of major cardiovascular events, compared with 6.2% in the leuprolide group. In patients having a medical history of cardiovascular events, the adverse event rate during the trial period was 3.6% in the relugolix group and 17.8% in leuprolide group. This translated into a 54% lower risk of MACE in the relugolix arm compared with the leuprolide arm.

Conclusion. The use of relugolix in advanced prostate cancer led to rapid, sustained suppression and faster recovery of testosterone level compared with leuprolide. Relugolix appeared safer to use for men with a medical history of cardiovascular events and showed a 54% lower risk of MACE than leuprolide.

Commentary

Relugolix is a highly selective oral GnRH antagonist that rapidly inhibits pituitary release of luteinizing hormone and FSH. The current phase 3 HERO trial highlights the efficacy of relugolix in regard to testosterone suppression, adding to potential therapeutic options for these men. Relugolix yielded superior sustained testosterone suppression to less than 50 ng/dL throughout the 48-week study period, meeting its primary endpoint. Additionally, relugolix showed superiority in all secondary endpoints across all subgroups of patients. To date, the only GnRH antagonist on the market is degarelix, which is given as a monthly subcutaneous injection.¹ Injection-site reactions remain an issue with this formulation.

Cardiovascular disease is the leading cause of death in the United States, and it is known that men with prostate cancer have a higher incidence of cardiovascular disease.² While data regarding adverse cardiac outcomes with androgen deprivation therapy have been mixed, it is thought that this therapy increases the risk for MACE. There is mounting evidence that GnRH antagonists may have a less detrimental effect on cardiovascular outcomes compared with GnRH agonists. For example, a pooled analysis of 6 phase 3 trials showed a lower incidence of cardiovascular events in men with preexisting cardiovascular disease using the GnRH antagonist degarelix compared with GnRH agonists after 12 months of treatment.³ Furthermore, a more recent phase 2 randomized trial showed that 20% of patients treated with a GnRH agonist developed cardiovascular events, compared to 3% in the GnRH antagonist group. The absolute risk reduction of cardiovascular events at 12 months was 18%.⁴ The results of the current trial support such findings, showing a 54% reduction in MACE after 48 weeks of therapy when compared with leuprolide (2.9% in relugolix arm vs 6.2% in leuprolide arm). More importantly perhaps, in the subgroup of men with preexisting cardiovascular disease, the benefit was even greater, with a MACE incidence of 3.6% with relugolix compared with 17.8% with leuprolide.

Studies have also shown that second-generation antiandrogens such as enzalutamide are associated with an increased risk of death from cardiovascular causes. For example, data from the recently updated PROSPER trial, which evaluated the use of enzalutamide in men with nonmetastatic, castration-resistant prostate cancer, showed an increased risk of adverse events, including falls, fatigue, hypertension, and death from cardiovascular events.⁵ Furthermore, adding second-generation antiandrogens to GnRH-agonist therapy is associated with a high risk of cardiovascular events in men with preexisting cardiovascular disease.³ These results were noted in all of the trials of second-generation antiandrogens, including enzalutamide, apalutamide, and darolutamide, in combination with GnRH agonists.^6-8 Taken together, one might consider whether the use of a GnRH antagonist would result in improved cardiovascular outcomes in high-risk patients.

In light of the efficacy of relugolix in regard to testosterone suppression highlighted in the current trial, it is likely that its efficacy in regard to cancer outcomes will be similar; however, to date there is no level 1 evidence to support this. Nevertheless, there is a clear association of adverse cardiovascular outcomes in men treated with GnRH agonists, and the notable 54% risk reduction seen in the current trial certainly would support considering the use of a GnRH antagonist for the subgroup of patients with preexisting cardiovascular disease or those at high risk for MACE. Further work is needed to define the role of GnRH antagonists in conjunction with second-generation antiandrogens to help mitigate cardiovascular toxicities.

Clinical Implications

The use of GnRH antagonists should be considered in men with advanced prostate cancer who have underlying cardiovascular disease to help mitigate the risk of MACE. Currently, degarelix is the only commercially available agent; however, pending regulatory approval, oral relugolix may be considered an appropriate oral option in such patients, with data supporting superior testosterone suppressive effects. Further follow-up will be needed.

–Saud Alsubait, MD, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI
–Daniel Isaac, MD, MS

Study Overview

Objective. To assess the clinical efficacy and safety of remdesivir in hospitalized adults with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 and with evidence of lower respiratory tract involvement.

Design. Double-blinded, randomized, placebo-controlled, multicenter trial.

Setting and participants. Enrollment for the study took place between February 21, 2020, and April 19, 2020, at 60 trial sites and 13 subsites in the United States, Denmark, the United Kingdom, Greece, Germany, Korea, Mexico, Spain, Japan, and Singapore. Study participants included patients aged ≥ 18 years who were hospitalized and had laboratory-confirmed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection, as determined by a positive reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction assay on a respiratory specimen. Participants had evidence of lower respiratory tract infection at the time of enrollment; this was defined as radiographic infiltrates by imaging study, peripheral oxygen saturation (SpO₂) ≤ 94% on room air, or requiring supplemental oxygen, mechanical ventilation, or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO). Exclusion criteria for study participation included abnormal liver enzymes (alanine aminotransferase, aspartate aminotransferase) more than 5 times the upper limit of normal range; impaired renal function or need for hemodialysis or hemofiltration; pregnancy or breastfeeding; or anticipated hospital discharge or transfer to another hospital within 72 hours of enrollment.

Intervention. Participants were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to the remdesivir group or the placebo group and were administered either intravenous infusions of remdesivir (200-mg loading dose on day 1, followed by a 100-mg maintenance dose daily on days 2 through 10, or until hospital discharge or death) or placebo for up to 10 days. Blinding was maintained by masking infusions with an opaque bag and tubing. Randomization was stratified by study site and disease severity at enrollment. Supportive care was delivered to all participants according to the standard of care at each trial site hospital. Clinical status, determined using an 8-category ordinal scale and the National Early Warning Score, was assessed daily for each participant while hospitalized (day 1 through day 29).

Blood samples for safety laboratory tests were collected, and oropharyngeal or nasopharyngeal swab testing was performed for viral RNA detection and quantification on days 1, 3, 5, 8, and 11. All serious adverse events (AEs) and grade 3/4 AEs that represented an increase in severity from day 1 and any grade 2 or higher suspected drug-related hypersensitivity reactions associated with the study drug or placebo administration were recorded.

Main outcome measures. The primary endpoint measure of this study was time to recovery, defined as the first day during the 28 days after enrollment on which a participant satisfied category 1 (ie, not hospitalized, no limitations of activities), 2 (ie, not hospitalized, limitation of activities, home oxygen requirement, or both), or 3 (ie, hospitalized, not requiring supplemental oxygen and no longer requiring ongoing medical care; hospitalization was extended for infection-control reason) on the 8-category ordinal scale. Secondary outcomes included all-cause mortality at 14 and 28 days after enrollment and grade 3/4 AEs and serious AEs that occurred during trial participation. Analysis of the primary outcome was performed using a log-rank test of the time to recovery comparing remdesivir with placebo group, stratified by disease severity.

The study’s primary outcome was initially defined as a difference in clinical status as ascertained by the 8-category ordinal scale between groups of participants who were administered remdesivir versus placebo on day 15. Because of new knowledge gained external to the study about a more protracted COVID-19 clinical course than previously recognized, a change in primary outcome to time to recovery was proposed by trial statisticians, who were unaware of treatment assignments (72 participants had been enrolled) or outcome data (no interim data) on March 22, 2020, with subsequent amendment approval on April 2, 2020. On April 27, 2020, the Data and Safety Monitoring Board (DSMB) reviewed the interim study analysis (with data cutoff date of April 22, 2020) and recommended the report and mortality data to be provided to trial team members from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; these findings were subsequently made public.

Main results. A total of 1107 patients were assessed for eligibility, of whom 1063 underwent randomization, with 541 assigned to remdesivir and 522 to placebo. Results were unblinded early at the recommendation of DSMB due to findings from the interim analysis that showed reduced time to recovery in the group that received remdesivir. As of April 28, 2020, a total of 391 participants in the remdesivir group and 340 participants in the placebo group had completed the trial (day 29), recovered, or died. The mean age of participants was 58.9 ± 15.0 years, the majority were men (64.3%) and were White (53.2%), and the most common prespecified coexisting conditions were hypertension (49.6%), obesity (37.0%), and type 2 diabetes mellitus (29.7%). The vast majority of participants (88.7%) had severe COVID-19 disease at enrollment, defined as requiring invasive or noninvasive mechanical ventilation, requiring supplemental oxygen, SpO₂ ≤ 94% on room air, or tachypnea (respiratory rate ≥ 24 breaths per minute).

Based on available data from 1059 participants (538 from the remdesivir group and 521 from the placebo group), those in the remdesivir group had a shorter median recovery time of 11 days (95% confidence interval [CI], 9-12) as compared to 15 days (95% CI, 13-19) in the placebo group, with a rate ratio for recovery of 1.32 (95% CI, 1.12-1.55; P < 0.001). Moreover, the odds of improvement on day 15 in the 8-category ordinal scale score were higher in the remdesivir group, compared to the placebo group (proportional odds model; odds ratio, 1.50; 95% CI, 1.18-1.91; P = 0.001; 844 participants).

Mortality rate by 14 days was numerically lower in the remdesivir group (7.1%) compared to the placebo group (11.9%), but the difference was not statistically significant (Kaplan-Meier, hazard ratio for death, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.47-1.04). Serious AEs were reported in 114 of the 541 (21.1%) participants in the remdesivir group and 141 of the 522 (27.0%) participants in the placebo group. Moreover, grade 3/4 AEs occurred in 156 (28.8%) participants in the remdesivir group and in 172 (33.0%) in the placebo group.

Conclusion. The study found that remdesivir, compared to placebo, significantly shortened time to recovery in adult patients hospitalized with COVID-19 who had evidence of lower respiratory tract infection.

Commentary

Since the initial reporting of a cluster of cases of pneumonia in Wuhan, China, on December 31, 2019, SARS-CoV-2 has been identified as the cause of this new disease (COVID-19), and to-date SARS-CoV-2 infection has affected more than 15.2 million people globally, with more than 3.9 million cases in the United States alone.¹ Despite an unprecedented global research effort, as well as public-private research partnerships, both in terms of scale and scope, an effective pharmacologic therapy for COVID-19 has so far eluded the scientific and medical community. Early trials of hydroxychloroquine and lopinavir-ritonavir did not demonstrate a clinical benefit in patients with COVID-19.^2,3 Moreover, the first randomized controlled trial of remdesivir in COVID-19, a nucleoside analogue prodrug and a broad-spectrum antiviral agent previously shown to have inhibitory effects on pathogenic coronaviruses, was an underpowered study, and thus inconclusive.⁴ Thus, given the persistence of the COVID-19 pandemic and a current lack of effective vaccines or curative treatments, the study reported by Beigel and colleagues is timely and provides much needed knowledge in developing potential therapies for COVID-19.

The present report described the preliminary results of the first stage of the Adaptive Covid-19 Treatment Trial (ACCT-1), which aimed to evaluate the clinical efficacy and safety of intravenous remdesivir, as compared to placebo, in hospitalized adults with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19. The study itself was well-designed and conducted. The successful enrollment of more than 1000 participants randomized in a 1:1 ratio within a 2-month recruitment window, involving 60 international trial sites, shortly after the emergence of a new global pandemic was remarkable. This study provided the first evidence that remdesivir, an antiviral, can shorten time to recovery by approximately 31% compared to placebo in COVID-19 patients with lower respiratory tract involvement.

Interestingly, this beneficial effect of remdesivir on time to recovery was primarily observed in participants within the severe disease stratum (those requiring supplemental oxygen) at baseline (12 days in remdesivir group versus 18 days in placebo group), but not in those with mild-moderate disease at the time of study enrollment (5 days in either remdesivir or placebo group). Moreover, the beneficial effects of remdesivir on reducing time to recovery was not observed in participants who required mechanical ventilation or ECMO at enrollment. Thus, these preliminary results suggest that COVID-19 disease severity and timing, particularly in patients who require supplemental oxygen but prior to disease progression towards requiring mechanical ventilation, may present a window of opportunity to initiate remdesivir treatment in order to improve outcomes. Further analysis utilizing data from the entire cohort, including outcomes data from the full 28-day follow-up period, may better delineate the subgroup of hospitalized COVID-19 patients who may benefit most from remdesivir. Last, safety data from the present study, along with that reported by Wang and colleagues,⁴ provides evidence that intravenous remdesivir administration is likely safe in adults during the treatment period.

The preliminary results from the ACCT-1 provide early evidence that remdesivir shortens time to recovery in adult patients hospitalized for COVID-19 with pulmonary involvement. In light of these results, the US Food and Drug Administration issued an emergency use authorization for remdesivir on May 1, 2020, for the treatment of suspected or laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 in adults and children hospitalized with severe disease.⁵ In addition, remdesivir has also recently been approved as a therapy for COVID-19 in Japan, Taiwan, India, Singapore, and the United Arab Emirates, and has received conditional approval for use by the European Commission.⁶

Although these are encouraging developments in the race to identify effective therapeutics for COVID-19, a number of unanswered questions regarding the administration of remdesivir in the treatment of this disease remain. For instance, in an open-label, randomized, multicenter trial of patients with severe COVID-19 not requiring mechanical ventilation, treatment with a 5-day course versus a 10-day course of intravenous remdesivir did not result in a significant difference in efficacy.⁷ Thus, more studies are needed to better determine the shortest effective duration of remdesivir therapy in COVID-19 patients with different disease severity. Also, the mortality rate in COVID-19 patients who were treated with remdesivir remained high in the current study. Therefore, there is ample opportunity to evaluate treatment strategies, including multidrug interventions with remdesivir, to reduce mortality and improve clinical outcomes in patients hospitalized with COVID-19.

Applications for Clinical Practice

Remdesivir shortens time to recovery in adult patients hospitalized with COVID-19 who require supplemental oxygen therapy. While much needs to be learned in order to optimize treatment of COVID-19, preliminary findings from the current study provide an important first step towards these discoveries.

–Fred Ko, MD, MS

Study Overview

Objective. To assess the clinical efficacy and safety of remdesivir in hospitalized adults with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 and with evidence of lower respiratory tract involvement.

Design. Double-blinded, randomized, placebo-controlled, multicenter trial.

Setting and participants. Enrollment for the study took place between February 21, 2020, and April 19, 2020, at 60 trial sites and 13 subsites in the United States, Denmark, the United Kingdom, Greece, Germany, Korea, Mexico, Spain, Japan, and Singapore. Study participants included patients aged ≥ 18 years who were hospitalized and had laboratory-confirmed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection, as determined by a positive reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction assay on a respiratory specimen. Participants had evidence of lower respiratory tract infection at the time of enrollment; this was defined as radiographic infiltrates by imaging study, peripheral oxygen saturation (SpO₂) ≤ 94% on room air, or requiring supplemental oxygen, mechanical ventilation, or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO). Exclusion criteria for study participation included abnormal liver enzymes (alanine aminotransferase, aspartate aminotransferase) more than 5 times the upper limit of normal range; impaired renal function or need for hemodialysis or hemofiltration; pregnancy or breastfeeding; or anticipated hospital discharge or transfer to another hospital within 72 hours of enrollment.

Intervention. Participants were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to the remdesivir group or the placebo group and were administered either intravenous infusions of remdesivir (200-mg loading dose on day 1, followed by a 100-mg maintenance dose daily on days 2 through 10, or until hospital discharge or death) or placebo for up to 10 days. Blinding was maintained by masking infusions with an opaque bag and tubing. Randomization was stratified by study site and disease severity at enrollment. Supportive care was delivered to all participants according to the standard of care at each trial site hospital. Clinical status, determined using an 8-category ordinal scale and the National Early Warning Score, was assessed daily for each participant while hospitalized (day 1 through day 29).

Blood samples for safety laboratory tests were collected, and oropharyngeal or nasopharyngeal swab testing was performed for viral RNA detection and quantification on days 1, 3, 5, 8, and 11. All serious adverse events (AEs) and grade 3/4 AEs that represented an increase in severity from day 1 and any grade 2 or higher suspected drug-related hypersensitivity reactions associated with the study drug or placebo administration were recorded.

Main outcome measures. The primary endpoint measure of this study was time to recovery, defined as the first day during the 28 days after enrollment on which a participant satisfied category 1 (ie, not hospitalized, no limitations of activities), 2 (ie, not hospitalized, limitation of activities, home oxygen requirement, or both), or 3 (ie, hospitalized, not requiring supplemental oxygen and no longer requiring ongoing medical care; hospitalization was extended for infection-control reason) on the 8-category ordinal scale. Secondary outcomes included all-cause mortality at 14 and 28 days after enrollment and grade 3/4 AEs and serious AEs that occurred during trial participation. Analysis of the primary outcome was performed using a log-rank test of the time to recovery comparing remdesivir with placebo group, stratified by disease severity.

The study’s primary outcome was initially defined as a difference in clinical status as ascertained by the 8-category ordinal scale between groups of participants who were administered remdesivir versus placebo on day 15. Because of new knowledge gained external to the study about a more protracted COVID-19 clinical course than previously recognized, a change in primary outcome to time to recovery was proposed by trial statisticians, who were unaware of treatment assignments (72 participants had been enrolled) or outcome data (no interim data) on March 22, 2020, with subsequent amendment approval on April 2, 2020. On April 27, 2020, the Data and Safety Monitoring Board (DSMB) reviewed the interim study analysis (with data cutoff date of April 22, 2020) and recommended the report and mortality data to be provided to trial team members from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; these findings were subsequently made public.

Main results. A total of 1107 patients were assessed for eligibility, of whom 1063 underwent randomization, with 541 assigned to remdesivir and 522 to placebo. Results were unblinded early at the recommendation of DSMB due to findings from the interim analysis that showed reduced time to recovery in the group that received remdesivir. As of April 28, 2020, a total of 391 participants in the remdesivir group and 340 participants in the placebo group had completed the trial (day 29), recovered, or died. The mean age of participants was 58.9 ± 15.0 years, the majority were men (64.3%) and were White (53.2%), and the most common prespecified coexisting conditions were hypertension (49.6%), obesity (37.0%), and type 2 diabetes mellitus (29.7%). The vast majority of participants (88.7%) had severe COVID-19 disease at enrollment, defined as requiring invasive or noninvasive mechanical ventilation, requiring supplemental oxygen, SpO₂ ≤ 94% on room air, or tachypnea (respiratory rate ≥ 24 breaths per minute).

Based on available data from 1059 participants (538 from the remdesivir group and 521 from the placebo group), those in the remdesivir group had a shorter median recovery time of 11 days (95% confidence interval [CI], 9-12) as compared to 15 days (95% CI, 13-19) in the placebo group, with a rate ratio for recovery of 1.32 (95% CI, 1.12-1.55; P < 0.001). Moreover, the odds of improvement on day 15 in the 8-category ordinal scale score were higher in the remdesivir group, compared to the placebo group (proportional odds model; odds ratio, 1.50; 95% CI, 1.18-1.91; P = 0.001; 844 participants).

Mortality rate by 14 days was numerically lower in the remdesivir group (7.1%) compared to the placebo group (11.9%), but the difference was not statistically significant (Kaplan-Meier, hazard ratio for death, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.47-1.04). Serious AEs were reported in 114 of the 541 (21.1%) participants in the remdesivir group and 141 of the 522 (27.0%) participants in the placebo group. Moreover, grade 3/4 AEs occurred in 156 (28.8%) participants in the remdesivir group and in 172 (33.0%) in the placebo group.

Conclusion. The study found that remdesivir, compared to placebo, significantly shortened time to recovery in adult patients hospitalized with COVID-19 who had evidence of lower respiratory tract infection.

Commentary

Since the initial reporting of a cluster of cases of pneumonia in Wuhan, China, on December 31, 2019, SARS-CoV-2 has been identified as the cause of this new disease (COVID-19), and to-date SARS-CoV-2 infection has affected more than 15.2 million people globally, with more than 3.9 million cases in the United States alone.¹ Despite an unprecedented global research effort, as well as public-private research partnerships, both in terms of scale and scope, an effective pharmacologic therapy for COVID-19 has so far eluded the scientific and medical community. Early trials of hydroxychloroquine and lopinavir-ritonavir did not demonstrate a clinical benefit in patients with COVID-19.^2,3 Moreover, the first randomized controlled trial of remdesivir in COVID-19, a nucleoside analogue prodrug and a broad-spectrum antiviral agent previously shown to have inhibitory effects on pathogenic coronaviruses, was an underpowered study, and thus inconclusive.⁴ Thus, given the persistence of the COVID-19 pandemic and a current lack of effective vaccines or curative treatments, the study reported by Beigel and colleagues is timely and provides much needed knowledge in developing potential therapies for COVID-19.

The present report described the preliminary results of the first stage of the Adaptive Covid-19 Treatment Trial (ACCT-1), which aimed to evaluate the clinical efficacy and safety of intravenous remdesivir, as compared to placebo, in hospitalized adults with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19. The study itself was well-designed and conducted. The successful enrollment of more than 1000 participants randomized in a 1:1 ratio within a 2-month recruitment window, involving 60 international trial sites, shortly after the emergence of a new global pandemic was remarkable. This study provided the first evidence that remdesivir, an antiviral, can shorten time to recovery by approximately 31% compared to placebo in COVID-19 patients with lower respiratory tract involvement.

Interestingly, this beneficial effect of remdesivir on time to recovery was primarily observed in participants within the severe disease stratum (those requiring supplemental oxygen) at baseline (12 days in remdesivir group versus 18 days in placebo group), but not in those with mild-moderate disease at the time of study enrollment (5 days in either remdesivir or placebo group). Moreover, the beneficial effects of remdesivir on reducing time to recovery was not observed in participants who required mechanical ventilation or ECMO at enrollment. Thus, these preliminary results suggest that COVID-19 disease severity and timing, particularly in patients who require supplemental oxygen but prior to disease progression towards requiring mechanical ventilation, may present a window of opportunity to initiate remdesivir treatment in order to improve outcomes. Further analysis utilizing data from the entire cohort, including outcomes data from the full 28-day follow-up period, may better delineate the subgroup of hospitalized COVID-19 patients who may benefit most from remdesivir. Last, safety data from the present study, along with that reported by Wang and colleagues,⁴ provides evidence that intravenous remdesivir administration is likely safe in adults during the treatment period.

The preliminary results from the ACCT-1 provide early evidence that remdesivir shortens time to recovery in adult patients hospitalized for COVID-19 with pulmonary involvement. In light of these results, the US Food and Drug Administration issued an emergency use authorization for remdesivir on May 1, 2020, for the treatment of suspected or laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 in adults and children hospitalized with severe disease.⁵ In addition, remdesivir has also recently been approved as a therapy for COVID-19 in Japan, Taiwan, India, Singapore, and the United Arab Emirates, and has received conditional approval for use by the European Commission.⁶

Although these are encouraging developments in the race to identify effective therapeutics for COVID-19, a number of unanswered questions regarding the administration of remdesivir in the treatment of this disease remain. For instance, in an open-label, randomized, multicenter trial of patients with severe COVID-19 not requiring mechanical ventilation, treatment with a 5-day course versus a 10-day course of intravenous remdesivir did not result in a significant difference in efficacy.⁷ Thus, more studies are needed to better determine the shortest effective duration of remdesivir therapy in COVID-19 patients with different disease severity. Also, the mortality rate in COVID-19 patients who were treated with remdesivir remained high in the current study. Therefore, there is ample opportunity to evaluate treatment strategies, including multidrug interventions with remdesivir, to reduce mortality and improve clinical outcomes in patients hospitalized with COVID-19.

Applications for Clinical Practice

Remdesivir shortens time to recovery in adult patients hospitalized with COVID-19 who require supplemental oxygen therapy. While much needs to be learned in order to optimize treatment of COVID-19, preliminary findings from the current study provide an important first step towards these discoveries.

–Fred Ko, MD, MS

Study Overview

Objective. To assess the clinical efficacy and safety of remdesivir in hospitalized adults with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 and with evidence of lower respiratory tract involvement.

Design. Double-blinded, randomized, placebo-controlled, multicenter trial.

Setting and participants. Enrollment for the study took place between February 21, 2020, and April 19, 2020, at 60 trial sites and 13 subsites in the United States, Denmark, the United Kingdom, Greece, Germany, Korea, Mexico, Spain, Japan, and Singapore. Study participants included patients aged ≥ 18 years who were hospitalized and had laboratory-confirmed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection, as determined by a positive reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction assay on a respiratory specimen. Participants had evidence of lower respiratory tract infection at the time of enrollment; this was defined as radiographic infiltrates by imaging study, peripheral oxygen saturation (SpO₂) ≤ 94% on room air, or requiring supplemental oxygen, mechanical ventilation, or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO). Exclusion criteria for study participation included abnormal liver enzymes (alanine aminotransferase, aspartate aminotransferase) more than 5 times the upper limit of normal range; impaired renal function or need for hemodialysis or hemofiltration; pregnancy or breastfeeding; or anticipated hospital discharge or transfer to another hospital within 72 hours of enrollment.

Intervention. Participants were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to the remdesivir group or the placebo group and were administered either intravenous infusions of remdesivir (200-mg loading dose on day 1, followed by a 100-mg maintenance dose daily on days 2 through 10, or until hospital discharge or death) or placebo for up to 10 days. Blinding was maintained by masking infusions with an opaque bag and tubing. Randomization was stratified by study site and disease severity at enrollment. Supportive care was delivered to all participants according to the standard of care at each trial site hospital. Clinical status, determined using an 8-category ordinal scale and the National Early Warning Score, was assessed daily for each participant while hospitalized (day 1 through day 29).

Blood samples for safety laboratory tests were collected, and oropharyngeal or nasopharyngeal swab testing was performed for viral RNA detection and quantification on days 1, 3, 5, 8, and 11. All serious adverse events (AEs) and grade 3/4 AEs that represented an increase in severity from day 1 and any grade 2 or higher suspected drug-related hypersensitivity reactions associated with the study drug or placebo administration were recorded.

Main outcome measures. The primary endpoint measure of this study was time to recovery, defined as the first day during the 28 days after enrollment on which a participant satisfied category 1 (ie, not hospitalized, no limitations of activities), 2 (ie, not hospitalized, limitation of activities, home oxygen requirement, or both), or 3 (ie, hospitalized, not requiring supplemental oxygen and no longer requiring ongoing medical care; hospitalization was extended for infection-control reason) on the 8-category ordinal scale. Secondary outcomes included all-cause mortality at 14 and 28 days after enrollment and grade 3/4 AEs and serious AEs that occurred during trial participation. Analysis of the primary outcome was performed using a log-rank test of the time to recovery comparing remdesivir with placebo group, stratified by disease severity.

The study’s primary outcome was initially defined as a difference in clinical status as ascertained by the 8-category ordinal scale between groups of participants who were administered remdesivir versus placebo on day 15. Because of new knowledge gained external to the study about a more protracted COVID-19 clinical course than previously recognized, a change in primary outcome to time to recovery was proposed by trial statisticians, who were unaware of treatment assignments (72 participants had been enrolled) or outcome data (no interim data) on March 22, 2020, with subsequent amendment approval on April 2, 2020. On April 27, 2020, the Data and Safety Monitoring Board (DSMB) reviewed the interim study analysis (with data cutoff date of April 22, 2020) and recommended the report and mortality data to be provided to trial team members from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; these findings were subsequently made public.

Main results. A total of 1107 patients were assessed for eligibility, of whom 1063 underwent randomization, with 541 assigned to remdesivir and 522 to placebo. Results were unblinded early at the recommendation of DSMB due to findings from the interim analysis that showed reduced time to recovery in the group that received remdesivir. As of April 28, 2020, a total of 391 participants in the remdesivir group and 340 participants in the placebo group had completed the trial (day 29), recovered, or died. The mean age of participants was 58.9 ± 15.0 years, the majority were men (64.3%) and were White (53.2%), and the most common prespecified coexisting conditions were hypertension (49.6%), obesity (37.0%), and type 2 diabetes mellitus (29.7%). The vast majority of participants (88.7%) had severe COVID-19 disease at enrollment, defined as requiring invasive or noninvasive mechanical ventilation, requiring supplemental oxygen, SpO₂ ≤ 94% on room air, or tachypnea (respiratory rate ≥ 24 breaths per minute).

Based on available data from 1059 participants (538 from the remdesivir group and 521 from the placebo group), those in the remdesivir group had a shorter median recovery time of 11 days (95% confidence interval [CI], 9-12) as compared to 15 days (95% CI, 13-19) in the placebo group, with a rate ratio for recovery of 1.32 (95% CI, 1.12-1.55; P < 0.001). Moreover, the odds of improvement on day 15 in the 8-category ordinal scale score were higher in the remdesivir group, compared to the placebo group (proportional odds model; odds ratio, 1.50; 95% CI, 1.18-1.91; P = 0.001; 844 participants).

Mortality rate by 14 days was numerically lower in the remdesivir group (7.1%) compared to the placebo group (11.9%), but the difference was not statistically significant (Kaplan-Meier, hazard ratio for death, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.47-1.04). Serious AEs were reported in 114 of the 541 (21.1%) participants in the remdesivir group and 141 of the 522 (27.0%) participants in the placebo group. Moreover, grade 3/4 AEs occurred in 156 (28.8%) participants in the remdesivir group and in 172 (33.0%) in the placebo group.

Conclusion. The study found that remdesivir, compared to placebo, significantly shortened time to recovery in adult patients hospitalized with COVID-19 who had evidence of lower respiratory tract infection.

Commentary

Since the initial reporting of a cluster of cases of pneumonia in Wuhan, China, on December 31, 2019, SARS-CoV-2 has been identified as the cause of this new disease (COVID-19), and to-date SARS-CoV-2 infection has affected more than 15.2 million people globally, with more than 3.9 million cases in the United States alone.¹ Despite an unprecedented global research effort, as well as public-private research partnerships, both in terms of scale and scope, an effective pharmacologic therapy for COVID-19 has so far eluded the scientific and medical community. Early trials of hydroxychloroquine and lopinavir-ritonavir did not demonstrate a clinical benefit in patients with COVID-19.^2,3 Moreover, the first randomized controlled trial of remdesivir in COVID-19, a nucleoside analogue prodrug and a broad-spectrum antiviral agent previously shown to have inhibitory effects on pathogenic coronaviruses, was an underpowered study, and thus inconclusive.⁴ Thus, given the persistence of the COVID-19 pandemic and a current lack of effective vaccines or curative treatments, the study reported by Beigel and colleagues is timely and provides much needed knowledge in developing potential therapies for COVID-19.

The present report described the preliminary results of the first stage of the Adaptive Covid-19 Treatment Trial (ACCT-1), which aimed to evaluate the clinical efficacy and safety of intravenous remdesivir, as compared to placebo, in hospitalized adults with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19. The study itself was well-designed and conducted. The successful enrollment of more than 1000 participants randomized in a 1:1 ratio within a 2-month recruitment window, involving 60 international trial sites, shortly after the emergence of a new global pandemic was remarkable. This study provided the first evidence that remdesivir, an antiviral, can shorten time to recovery by approximately 31% compared to placebo in COVID-19 patients with lower respiratory tract involvement.

Interestingly, this beneficial effect of remdesivir on time to recovery was primarily observed in participants within the severe disease stratum (those requiring supplemental oxygen) at baseline (12 days in remdesivir group versus 18 days in placebo group), but not in those with mild-moderate disease at the time of study enrollment (5 days in either remdesivir or placebo group). Moreover, the beneficial effects of remdesivir on reducing time to recovery was not observed in participants who required mechanical ventilation or ECMO at enrollment. Thus, these preliminary results suggest that COVID-19 disease severity and timing, particularly in patients who require supplemental oxygen but prior to disease progression towards requiring mechanical ventilation, may present a window of opportunity to initiate remdesivir treatment in order to improve outcomes. Further analysis utilizing data from the entire cohort, including outcomes data from the full 28-day follow-up period, may better delineate the subgroup of hospitalized COVID-19 patients who may benefit most from remdesivir. Last, safety data from the present study, along with that reported by Wang and colleagues,⁴ provides evidence that intravenous remdesivir administration is likely safe in adults during the treatment period.

The preliminary results from the ACCT-1 provide early evidence that remdesivir shortens time to recovery in adult patients hospitalized for COVID-19 with pulmonary involvement. In light of these results, the US Food and Drug Administration issued an emergency use authorization for remdesivir on May 1, 2020, for the treatment of suspected or laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 in adults and children hospitalized with severe disease.⁵ In addition, remdesivir has also recently been approved as a therapy for COVID-19 in Japan, Taiwan, India, Singapore, and the United Arab Emirates, and has received conditional approval for use by the European Commission.⁶

Although these are encouraging developments in the race to identify effective therapeutics for COVID-19, a number of unanswered questions regarding the administration of remdesivir in the treatment of this disease remain. For instance, in an open-label, randomized, multicenter trial of patients with severe COVID-19 not requiring mechanical ventilation, treatment with a 5-day course versus a 10-day course of intravenous remdesivir did not result in a significant difference in efficacy.⁷ Thus, more studies are needed to better determine the shortest effective duration of remdesivir therapy in COVID-19 patients with different disease severity. Also, the mortality rate in COVID-19 patients who were treated with remdesivir remained high in the current study. Therefore, there is ample opportunity to evaluate treatment strategies, including multidrug interventions with remdesivir, to reduce mortality and improve clinical outcomes in patients hospitalized with COVID-19.

Applications for Clinical Practice

Remdesivir shortens time to recovery in adult patients hospitalized with COVID-19 who require supplemental oxygen therapy. While much needs to be learned in order to optimize treatment of COVID-19, preliminary findings from the current study provide an important first step towards these discoveries.

–Fred Ko, MD, MS

From Western Michigan University, Homer Stryker MD School of Medicine, Kalamazoo, MI (Dr. Vaillant and Dr. Kavanaugh), Ferris State University, Grand Rapids, MI (Dr. Mersfelder), and Bronson Methodist Hospital, Kalamazoo, MI (Dr. Maynard).

Abstract

• Background: Procalcitonin has emerged as an important marker of sepsis and lung infections of bacterial origin. The role of procalcitonin in guiding antibiotic stewardship in lower respiratory tract infections and sepsis has been extensively studied, and use of this biomarker has been shown to decrease antibiotic usage in clinical trials. We sought to evaluate the impact of a pharmacist-driven initiative regarding discontinuation of antibiotics utilizing procalcitonin levels at a community teaching hospital.
• Methods: We retrospectively gathered baseline data on adult patients admitted to a community teaching hospital who were 18 years of age and older, under the care of an inpatient service, and had a single procalcitonin level < 0.25 mcg/L obtained during admission. We then prospectively identified an intervention group of similar patients using a web-based, real-time clinical surveillance system. When a low procalcitonin level was identified in the intervention group, the participating clinical pharmacists screened for antibiotic use and the indication(s), determined whether the antibiotic could be discontinued based on the low procalcitonin level and the absence of another indication for antibiotics, and, when appropriate, contacted the patient’s health care provider via telephone to discuss possible antibiotic discontinuation. The total antibiotic treatment duration was compared between the baseline and intervention groups.
• Results: A total of 172 patients were included in this study (86 in each group). The duration of antibiotic use was not significantly different between the baseline (3.14 ± 4.04 days) and the intervention (3.34 ± 2.8 days) groups (P = 0.1083). Other patient demographics did not influence antibiotic duration.
• Conclusion: Our study did not demonstrate a difference in total antibiotic treatment duration with the utilization of procalcitonin and an oral communication intervention made by a clinical pharmacist at a community-based teaching hospital. Outside of clinical trials, and in the absence of an algorithmic approach, procalcitonin has not consistently been shown to aid in the diagnosis and treatment of infectious diseases. It is important to have a comprehensive antimicrobial stewardship program to reduce antibiotic use and effectively use laboratory values.

Keywords: antibiotic use; bacterial infection; biomarkers; procalcitonin.

Procalcitonin is the precursor of the hormone calcitonin, which is normally produced in the parafollicular cells of the thyroid gland under physiological conditions.¹ However, procalcitonin is also released in response to a proinflammatory stimulus, especially that of bacterial origin.¹ The source of the procalcitonin surge seen during proinflammatory states is not the parafollicular cells of the thyroid, but rather the neuroendocrine cells of the lung and intestine.¹ Stimulants of procalcitonin in these scenarios include bacterial endotoxin, tumor necrosis factor, and interleukin-6.^1,2 Due to these observations, procalcitonin has emerged as an important marker of sepsis and lung infections of bacterial origin.³

The role of procalcitonin in guiding antibiotic stewardship in lower respiratory tract infections and sepsis has been extensively studied.^4,5 Various randomized controlled trials have shown that antibiotic stewardship guided by procalcitonin levels resulted in lower rates of antibiotic initiation and shorter duration of antibiotic use.^4-6 Similar results were obtained in prospective studies evaluating its role in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and sepsis.^7,8 Based on these data, protocol-driven procalcitonin-guided antibiotic stewardship appears beneficial.

Many of these studies employed rigorous protocols. Studies of procalcitonin use in a so-called real-world setting, in which the provider can order and use procalcitonin levels without the use of protocols, are limited. The objective of our study was to evaluate the impact of a pharmacist-driven initiative on discontinuing antibiotics, if indicated, utilizing single procalcitonin measurement results of < 0.25 mcg/L at a community teaching hospital.

Methods

Our study utilized a 2-phase approach. The first phase was a retrospective chart review to establish baseline data regarding adult inpatients with a low procalcitonin level; these patients were randomly selected over a 1-year period (2017). Patients were included if they were 18 years of age or older, under the care of an inpatient service, and had a single procalcitonin level < 0.25 mcg/L obtained during their admission. Patients admitted to the intensive care unit were excluded. In the second phase, we prospectively identified similar patients admitted between January and March 2018 using a web-based, real-time clinical surveillance system. When patients with low procalcitonin levels were identified, 2 participating clinical pharmacists screened for antibiotic use and indication. If it was determined that the antibiotic could be discontinued as a result of the low procalcitonin level and no additional indication for antibiotics was present, the pharmacist contacted the patient’s health care provider via telephone to discuss possible antibiotic discontinuation. Data collected before and after the intervention included total antibiotic treatment duration, white blood cell count, maximum temperature, age, and procalcitonin level.

A sample size of 86 was calculated to provide an alpha of 0.05 and a power of 0.8. A nonparametric Wilcoxon 2-sample test was used to test for a difference in duration of antibiotic treatment between the baseline and intervention groups. A nonparametric test was used due to right-skewed data. All patients were included in the group analysis, regardless of antibiotic use, as the procalcitonin level may have been used in the decision to initiate antibiotics, and this is more representative of a real-world application of the test. This allowed for detection of a significant decrease of 2 days in antibiotic duration post intervention, with a 10% margin to compensate for potential missing data. Data from 86 patients obtained prior to the pharmacist intervention acted as a control comparison group. Statistical analysis was performed using SAS 9.4.

Results

A total of 172 patients were included in this study: 86 patients prior to the intervention, and 86 after implementation. Baseline demographics, laboratory values, vitals, and principal diagnoses for both groups are shown in Table 1 and Table 2. The most common indications for procalcitonin measurement were pneumonia (45.9%), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (15.7%), and sepsis (14.5%). The remaining diagnoses were encephalopathy, fever and leukocytosis, skin and soft tissue infection, urinary tract infection or pyelonephritis, bone and joint infection, meningitis, intra-abdominal infection, and asthma exacerbation.

Antibiotic therapy was initiated in 68% of the patients overall, 59% in the baseline group and 76% in the intervention group. The duration of antibiotic use was not significantly different between the baseline (3.14 ± 4.04 days) and intervention (3.34 ± 2.8 days) groups (P = 0.1083). Furthermore, antibiotic treatment duration did not vary significantly with patient age, white blood cell count, maximum temperature, or procalcitonin level in either group. Although there was no difference in total antibiotic treatment duration, a post-hoc analysis revealed a 0.6-day decrease in the interval between the date of procalcitonin measurement and the stop date of antibiotics in the intervention group. The average time from admission to obtaining a procalcitonin level was 3 days in the baseline group and 2 days in the intervention group.

Discussion

Our study did not demonstrate a difference in total antibiotic treatment duration with procalcitonin measurement and an oral communication intervention made by a clinical pharmacist at a community teaching hospital with a well-established antimicrobial stewardship program. This may be due to several factors. First, the providers did not receive ongoing education regarding the appropriate use or interpretation of procalcitonin. The procalcitonin result in the electronic health record references the risk for progression to severe sepsis and/or septic shock, but does not indicate how to use procalcitonin as an aid in antibiotic decision-making. However, a recent study in patients with lower respiratory tract infections treated by providers who had been educated on the use of procalcitonin failed to find a reduction in total antibiotic use.⁹ Second, our study included hospital-wide use of procalcitonin, and was not limited to infections for which procalcitonin use has the strongest evidence (eg, upper respiratory tract infections, pneumonia, sepsis). Thus, providers may have been less likely to use protocolized guidelines. Last, we did not limit the data on antibiotic duration to patients with a procalcitonin level obtained within a defined time frame from antibiotic initiation or time of admission, and some patients had procalcitonin levels measured several days into their hospital stay. While this is likely to have skewed the data in favor of longer antibiotic treatment courses, it also represents a more realistic way in which this laboratory test is being used. Our post-hoc finding of earlier discontinuation of antibiotics after procalcitonin measurement suggests that our intervention may have influenced the decision to discontinue antibiotics. Such an effect may be augmented if procalcitonin is measured earlier in a hospital admission.

Previous studies have also failed to show that the use of procalcitonin decreased duration of antibiotics.^9,10 In the aforementioned study regarding real-world outcomes in patients with lower respiratory tract infections, antibiotic duration was not reduced, despite provider education.⁹ A large observational study that evaluated real-world outcomes in intensive care unit patients did not find decreased antibiotic use or improved outcomes with procalcitonin use.¹⁰ With these large studies evaluating the 2 most common infectious diseases for which procalcitonin has previously been found to have clinical benefit, it is important for institutions to re-evaluate how procalcitonin is being utilized by providers. Furthermore, institutions should explore ways to optimize procalcitonin use and decrease unnecessary health care costs. Notably, the current community-acquired pneumonia guidelines recommend against routine use of procalcitonin.¹¹

Conclusion

Outside of clinical trials, and in the absence of an algorithmic approach, procalcitonin has not consistently been shown to aid in the diagnosis or treatment of infectious diseases. It is important to have a comprehensive antimicrobial stewardship program that includes an algorithmic protocol to promote appropriate laboratory testing and reduce total antibiotic use. In addition to improved communication with providers, other interventions need to be investigated to effectively use this biomarker or limit its use.

Acknowledgment: The authors thank the Western Michigan University Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics for their assistance in preparing this article.

Corresponding author: James Vaillant, MD, Western Michigan University, Homer Stryker MD School of Medicine, 1000 Oakland Drive, Kalamazoo, MI, 49008; [email protected].

Financial disclosures: None.

From Western Michigan University, Homer Stryker MD School of Medicine, Kalamazoo, MI (Dr. Vaillant and Dr. Kavanaugh), Ferris State University, Grand Rapids, MI (Dr. Mersfelder), and Bronson Methodist Hospital, Kalamazoo, MI (Dr. Maynard).

Abstract

• Background: Procalcitonin has emerged as an important marker of sepsis and lung infections of bacterial origin. The role of procalcitonin in guiding antibiotic stewardship in lower respiratory tract infections and sepsis has been extensively studied, and use of this biomarker has been shown to decrease antibiotic usage in clinical trials. We sought to evaluate the impact of a pharmacist-driven initiative regarding discontinuation of antibiotics utilizing procalcitonin levels at a community teaching hospital.
• Methods: We retrospectively gathered baseline data on adult patients admitted to a community teaching hospital who were 18 years of age and older, under the care of an inpatient service, and had a single procalcitonin level < 0.25 mcg/L obtained during admission. We then prospectively identified an intervention group of similar patients using a web-based, real-time clinical surveillance system. When a low procalcitonin level was identified in the intervention group, the participating clinical pharmacists screened for antibiotic use and the indication(s), determined whether the antibiotic could be discontinued based on the low procalcitonin level and the absence of another indication for antibiotics, and, when appropriate, contacted the patient’s health care provider via telephone to discuss possible antibiotic discontinuation. The total antibiotic treatment duration was compared between the baseline and intervention groups.
• Results: A total of 172 patients were included in this study (86 in each group). The duration of antibiotic use was not significantly different between the baseline (3.14 ± 4.04 days) and the intervention (3.34 ± 2.8 days) groups (P = 0.1083). Other patient demographics did not influence antibiotic duration.
• Conclusion: Our study did not demonstrate a difference in total antibiotic treatment duration with the utilization of procalcitonin and an oral communication intervention made by a clinical pharmacist at a community-based teaching hospital. Outside of clinical trials, and in the absence of an algorithmic approach, procalcitonin has not consistently been shown to aid in the diagnosis and treatment of infectious diseases. It is important to have a comprehensive antimicrobial stewardship program to reduce antibiotic use and effectively use laboratory values.

Keywords: antibiotic use; bacterial infection; biomarkers; procalcitonin.

Procalcitonin is the precursor of the hormone calcitonin, which is normally produced in the parafollicular cells of the thyroid gland under physiological conditions.¹ However, procalcitonin is also released in response to a proinflammatory stimulus, especially that of bacterial origin.¹ The source of the procalcitonin surge seen during proinflammatory states is not the parafollicular cells of the thyroid, but rather the neuroendocrine cells of the lung and intestine.¹ Stimulants of procalcitonin in these scenarios include bacterial endotoxin, tumor necrosis factor, and interleukin-6.^1,2 Due to these observations, procalcitonin has emerged as an important marker of sepsis and lung infections of bacterial origin.³

The role of procalcitonin in guiding antibiotic stewardship in lower respiratory tract infections and sepsis has been extensively studied.^4,5 Various randomized controlled trials have shown that antibiotic stewardship guided by procalcitonin levels resulted in lower rates of antibiotic initiation and shorter duration of antibiotic use.^4-6 Similar results were obtained in prospective studies evaluating its role in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and sepsis.^7,8 Based on these data, protocol-driven procalcitonin-guided antibiotic stewardship appears beneficial.

Many of these studies employed rigorous protocols. Studies of procalcitonin use in a so-called real-world setting, in which the provider can order and use procalcitonin levels without the use of protocols, are limited. The objective of our study was to evaluate the impact of a pharmacist-driven initiative on discontinuing antibiotics, if indicated, utilizing single procalcitonin measurement results of < 0.25 mcg/L at a community teaching hospital.

Methods

Our study utilized a 2-phase approach. The first phase was a retrospective chart review to establish baseline data regarding adult inpatients with a low procalcitonin level; these patients were randomly selected over a 1-year period (2017). Patients were included if they were 18 years of age or older, under the care of an inpatient service, and had a single procalcitonin level < 0.25 mcg/L obtained during their admission. Patients admitted to the intensive care unit were excluded. In the second phase, we prospectively identified similar patients admitted between January and March 2018 using a web-based, real-time clinical surveillance system. When patients with low procalcitonin levels were identified, 2 participating clinical pharmacists screened for antibiotic use and indication. If it was determined that the antibiotic could be discontinued as a result of the low procalcitonin level and no additional indication for antibiotics was present, the pharmacist contacted the patient’s health care provider via telephone to discuss possible antibiotic discontinuation. Data collected before and after the intervention included total antibiotic treatment duration, white blood cell count, maximum temperature, age, and procalcitonin level.

A sample size of 86 was calculated to provide an alpha of 0.05 and a power of 0.8. A nonparametric Wilcoxon 2-sample test was used to test for a difference in duration of antibiotic treatment between the baseline and intervention groups. A nonparametric test was used due to right-skewed data. All patients were included in the group analysis, regardless of antibiotic use, as the procalcitonin level may have been used in the decision to initiate antibiotics, and this is more representative of a real-world application of the test. This allowed for detection of a significant decrease of 2 days in antibiotic duration post intervention, with a 10% margin to compensate for potential missing data. Data from 86 patients obtained prior to the pharmacist intervention acted as a control comparison group. Statistical analysis was performed using SAS 9.4.

Results

A total of 172 patients were included in this study: 86 patients prior to the intervention, and 86 after implementation. Baseline demographics, laboratory values, vitals, and principal diagnoses for both groups are shown in Table 1 and Table 2. The most common indications for procalcitonin measurement were pneumonia (45.9%), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (15.7%), and sepsis (14.5%). The remaining diagnoses were encephalopathy, fever and leukocytosis, skin and soft tissue infection, urinary tract infection or pyelonephritis, bone and joint infection, meningitis, intra-abdominal infection, and asthma exacerbation.

Antibiotic therapy was initiated in 68% of the patients overall, 59% in the baseline group and 76% in the intervention group. The duration of antibiotic use was not significantly different between the baseline (3.14 ± 4.04 days) and intervention (3.34 ± 2.8 days) groups (P = 0.1083). Furthermore, antibiotic treatment duration did not vary significantly with patient age, white blood cell count, maximum temperature, or procalcitonin level in either group. Although there was no difference in total antibiotic treatment duration, a post-hoc analysis revealed a 0.6-day decrease in the interval between the date of procalcitonin measurement and the stop date of antibiotics in the intervention group. The average time from admission to obtaining a procalcitonin level was 3 days in the baseline group and 2 days in the intervention group.

Discussion

Our study did not demonstrate a difference in total antibiotic treatment duration with procalcitonin measurement and an oral communication intervention made by a clinical pharmacist at a community teaching hospital with a well-established antimicrobial stewardship program. This may be due to several factors. First, the providers did not receive ongoing education regarding the appropriate use or interpretation of procalcitonin. The procalcitonin result in the electronic health record references the risk for progression to severe sepsis and/or septic shock, but does not indicate how to use procalcitonin as an aid in antibiotic decision-making. However, a recent study in patients with lower respiratory tract infections treated by providers who had been educated on the use of procalcitonin failed to find a reduction in total antibiotic use.⁹ Second, our study included hospital-wide use of procalcitonin, and was not limited to infections for which procalcitonin use has the strongest evidence (eg, upper respiratory tract infections, pneumonia, sepsis). Thus, providers may have been less likely to use protocolized guidelines. Last, we did not limit the data on antibiotic duration to patients with a procalcitonin level obtained within a defined time frame from antibiotic initiation or time of admission, and some patients had procalcitonin levels measured several days into their hospital stay. While this is likely to have skewed the data in favor of longer antibiotic treatment courses, it also represents a more realistic way in which this laboratory test is being used. Our post-hoc finding of earlier discontinuation of antibiotics after procalcitonin measurement suggests that our intervention may have influenced the decision to discontinue antibiotics. Such an effect may be augmented if procalcitonin is measured earlier in a hospital admission.

Previous studies have also failed to show that the use of procalcitonin decreased duration of antibiotics.^9,10 In the aforementioned study regarding real-world outcomes in patients with lower respiratory tract infections, antibiotic duration was not reduced, despite provider education.⁹ A large observational study that evaluated real-world outcomes in intensive care unit patients did not find decreased antibiotic use or improved outcomes with procalcitonin use.¹⁰ With these large studies evaluating the 2 most common infectious diseases for which procalcitonin has previously been found to have clinical benefit, it is important for institutions to re-evaluate how procalcitonin is being utilized by providers. Furthermore, institutions should explore ways to optimize procalcitonin use and decrease unnecessary health care costs. Notably, the current community-acquired pneumonia guidelines recommend against routine use of procalcitonin.¹¹

Conclusion

Outside of clinical trials, and in the absence of an algorithmic approach, procalcitonin has not consistently been shown to aid in the diagnosis or treatment of infectious diseases. It is important to have a comprehensive antimicrobial stewardship program that includes an algorithmic protocol to promote appropriate laboratory testing and reduce total antibiotic use. In addition to improved communication with providers, other interventions need to be investigated to effectively use this biomarker or limit its use.

Acknowledgment: The authors thank the Western Michigan University Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics for their assistance in preparing this article.

Corresponding author: James Vaillant, MD, Western Michigan University, Homer Stryker MD School of Medicine, 1000 Oakland Drive, Kalamazoo, MI, 49008; [email protected].

Financial disclosures: None.

From Western Michigan University, Homer Stryker MD School of Medicine, Kalamazoo, MI (Dr. Vaillant and Dr. Kavanaugh), Ferris State University, Grand Rapids, MI (Dr. Mersfelder), and Bronson Methodist Hospital, Kalamazoo, MI (Dr. Maynard).

Abstract

• Background: Procalcitonin has emerged as an important marker of sepsis and lung infections of bacterial origin. The role of procalcitonin in guiding antibiotic stewardship in lower respiratory tract infections and sepsis has been extensively studied, and use of this biomarker has been shown to decrease antibiotic usage in clinical trials. We sought to evaluate the impact of a pharmacist-driven initiative regarding discontinuation of antibiotics utilizing procalcitonin levels at a community teaching hospital.
• Methods: We retrospectively gathered baseline data on adult patients admitted to a community teaching hospital who were 18 years of age and older, under the care of an inpatient service, and had a single procalcitonin level < 0.25 mcg/L obtained during admission. We then prospectively identified an intervention group of similar patients using a web-based, real-time clinical surveillance system. When a low procalcitonin level was identified in the intervention group, the participating clinical pharmacists screened for antibiotic use and the indication(s), determined whether the antibiotic could be discontinued based on the low procalcitonin level and the absence of another indication for antibiotics, and, when appropriate, contacted the patient’s health care provider via telephone to discuss possible antibiotic discontinuation. The total antibiotic treatment duration was compared between the baseline and intervention groups.
• Results: A total of 172 patients were included in this study (86 in each group). The duration of antibiotic use was not significantly different between the baseline (3.14 ± 4.04 days) and the intervention (3.34 ± 2.8 days) groups (P = 0.1083). Other patient demographics did not influence antibiotic duration.
• Conclusion: Our study did not demonstrate a difference in total antibiotic treatment duration with the utilization of procalcitonin and an oral communication intervention made by a clinical pharmacist at a community-based teaching hospital. Outside of clinical trials, and in the absence of an algorithmic approach, procalcitonin has not consistently been shown to aid in the diagnosis and treatment of infectious diseases. It is important to have a comprehensive antimicrobial stewardship program to reduce antibiotic use and effectively use laboratory values.

Keywords: antibiotic use; bacterial infection; biomarkers; procalcitonin.

Procalcitonin is the precursor of the hormone calcitonin, which is normally produced in the parafollicular cells of the thyroid gland under physiological conditions.¹ However, procalcitonin is also released in response to a proinflammatory stimulus, especially that of bacterial origin.¹ The source of the procalcitonin surge seen during proinflammatory states is not the parafollicular cells of the thyroid, but rather the neuroendocrine cells of the lung and intestine.¹ Stimulants of procalcitonin in these scenarios include bacterial endotoxin, tumor necrosis factor, and interleukin-6.^1,2 Due to these observations, procalcitonin has emerged as an important marker of sepsis and lung infections of bacterial origin.³

The role of procalcitonin in guiding antibiotic stewardship in lower respiratory tract infections and sepsis has been extensively studied.^4,5 Various randomized controlled trials have shown that antibiotic stewardship guided by procalcitonin levels resulted in lower rates of antibiotic initiation and shorter duration of antibiotic use.^4-6 Similar results were obtained in prospective studies evaluating its role in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and sepsis.^7,8 Based on these data, protocol-driven procalcitonin-guided antibiotic stewardship appears beneficial.

Many of these studies employed rigorous protocols. Studies of procalcitonin use in a so-called real-world setting, in which the provider can order and use procalcitonin levels without the use of protocols, are limited. The objective of our study was to evaluate the impact of a pharmacist-driven initiative on discontinuing antibiotics, if indicated, utilizing single procalcitonin measurement results of < 0.25 mcg/L at a community teaching hospital.

Methods

Our study utilized a 2-phase approach. The first phase was a retrospective chart review to establish baseline data regarding adult inpatients with a low procalcitonin level; these patients were randomly selected over a 1-year period (2017). Patients were included if they were 18 years of age or older, under the care of an inpatient service, and had a single procalcitonin level < 0.25 mcg/L obtained during their admission. Patients admitted to the intensive care unit were excluded. In the second phase, we prospectively identified similar patients admitted between January and March 2018 using a web-based, real-time clinical surveillance system. When patients with low procalcitonin levels were identified, 2 participating clinical pharmacists screened for antibiotic use and indication. If it was determined that the antibiotic could be discontinued as a result of the low procalcitonin level and no additional indication for antibiotics was present, the pharmacist contacted the patient’s health care provider via telephone to discuss possible antibiotic discontinuation. Data collected before and after the intervention included total antibiotic treatment duration, white blood cell count, maximum temperature, age, and procalcitonin level.

A sample size of 86 was calculated to provide an alpha of 0.05 and a power of 0.8. A nonparametric Wilcoxon 2-sample test was used to test for a difference in duration of antibiotic treatment between the baseline and intervention groups. A nonparametric test was used due to right-skewed data. All patients were included in the group analysis, regardless of antibiotic use, as the procalcitonin level may have been used in the decision to initiate antibiotics, and this is more representative of a real-world application of the test. This allowed for detection of a significant decrease of 2 days in antibiotic duration post intervention, with a 10% margin to compensate for potential missing data. Data from 86 patients obtained prior to the pharmacist intervention acted as a control comparison group. Statistical analysis was performed using SAS 9.4.

Results

A total of 172 patients were included in this study: 86 patients prior to the intervention, and 86 after implementation. Baseline demographics, laboratory values, vitals, and principal diagnoses for both groups are shown in Table 1 and Table 2. The most common indications for procalcitonin measurement were pneumonia (45.9%), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (15.7%), and sepsis (14.5%). The remaining diagnoses were encephalopathy, fever and leukocytosis, skin and soft tissue infection, urinary tract infection or pyelonephritis, bone and joint infection, meningitis, intra-abdominal infection, and asthma exacerbation.

Antibiotic therapy was initiated in 68% of the patients overall, 59% in the baseline group and 76% in the intervention group. The duration of antibiotic use was not significantly different between the baseline (3.14 ± 4.04 days) and intervention (3.34 ± 2.8 days) groups (P = 0.1083). Furthermore, antibiotic treatment duration did not vary significantly with patient age, white blood cell count, maximum temperature, or procalcitonin level in either group. Although there was no difference in total antibiotic treatment duration, a post-hoc analysis revealed a 0.6-day decrease in the interval between the date of procalcitonin measurement and the stop date of antibiotics in the intervention group. The average time from admission to obtaining a procalcitonin level was 3 days in the baseline group and 2 days in the intervention group.

Discussion

Our study did not demonstrate a difference in total antibiotic treatment duration with procalcitonin measurement and an oral communication intervention made by a clinical pharmacist at a community teaching hospital with a well-established antimicrobial stewardship program. This may be due to several factors. First, the providers did not receive ongoing education regarding the appropriate use or interpretation of procalcitonin. The procalcitonin result in the electronic health record references the risk for progression to severe sepsis and/or septic shock, but does not indicate how to use procalcitonin as an aid in antibiotic decision-making. However, a recent study in patients with lower respiratory tract infections treated by providers who had been educated on the use of procalcitonin failed to find a reduction in total antibiotic use.⁹ Second, our study included hospital-wide use of procalcitonin, and was not limited to infections for which procalcitonin use has the strongest evidence (eg, upper respiratory tract infections, pneumonia, sepsis). Thus, providers may have been less likely to use protocolized guidelines. Last, we did not limit the data on antibiotic duration to patients with a procalcitonin level obtained within a defined time frame from antibiotic initiation or time of admission, and some patients had procalcitonin levels measured several days into their hospital stay. While this is likely to have skewed the data in favor of longer antibiotic treatment courses, it also represents a more realistic way in which this laboratory test is being used. Our post-hoc finding of earlier discontinuation of antibiotics after procalcitonin measurement suggests that our intervention may have influenced the decision to discontinue antibiotics. Such an effect may be augmented if procalcitonin is measured earlier in a hospital admission.

Previous studies have also failed to show that the use of procalcitonin decreased duration of antibiotics.^9,10 In the aforementioned study regarding real-world outcomes in patients with lower respiratory tract infections, antibiotic duration was not reduced, despite provider education.⁹ A large observational study that evaluated real-world outcomes in intensive care unit patients did not find decreased antibiotic use or improved outcomes with procalcitonin use.¹⁰ With these large studies evaluating the 2 most common infectious diseases for which procalcitonin has previously been found to have clinical benefit, it is important for institutions to re-evaluate how procalcitonin is being utilized by providers. Furthermore, institutions should explore ways to optimize procalcitonin use and decrease unnecessary health care costs. Notably, the current community-acquired pneumonia guidelines recommend against routine use of procalcitonin.¹¹

Conclusion

Outside of clinical trials, and in the absence of an algorithmic approach, procalcitonin has not consistently been shown to aid in the diagnosis or treatment of infectious diseases. It is important to have a comprehensive antimicrobial stewardship program that includes an algorithmic protocol to promote appropriate laboratory testing and reduce total antibiotic use. In addition to improved communication with providers, other interventions need to be investigated to effectively use this biomarker or limit its use.

Acknowledgment: The authors thank the Western Michigan University Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics for their assistance in preparing this article.

Corresponding author: James Vaillant, MD, Western Michigan University, Homer Stryker MD School of Medicine, 1000 Oakland Drive, Kalamazoo, MI, 49008; [email protected].

Financial disclosures: None.

Study Overview

Objective. To assess the efficacy, safety, and clinical benefit of remdesivir in hospitalized adults with confirmed pneumonia due to severe SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Design. Randomized, investigator-initiated, placebo-controlled, double-blind, multicenter trial.

Setting and participants. The trial took place between February 6, 2020 and March 12, 2020, at 10 hospitals in Wuhan, China. Study participants included adult patients (aged ≥ 18 years) admitted to hospital who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 by reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction assay and had the following clinical characteristics: radiographic evidence of pneumonia; hypoxia with oxygen saturation ≤ 94% on room air or a ratio of arterial oxygen partial pressure to fractional inspired oxygen ≤ 300 mm Hg; and symptom onset to enrollment ≤ 12 days. Some of the exclusion criteria for participation in the study were pregnancy or breast feeding, liver cirrhosis, abnormal liver enzymes ≥ 5 times the upper limit of normal, severe renal impairment or receipt of renal replacement therapy, plan for transfer to a non-study hospital, and enrollment in a trial for COVID-19 within the previous month.

Intervention. Participants were randomized in a 2:1 ratio to the remdesivir group or the placebo group and were administered either intravenous infusions of remdesivir (200 mg on day 1 followed by 100 mg daily on days 2-10) or the same volume of placebo for 10 days. Clinical and safety data assessed included laboratory testing, electrocardiogram, and medication adverse effects. Testing of oropharyngeal and nasopharyngeal swab samples, anal swab samples, sputum, and stool was performed for viral RNA detection and quantification on days 1, 3, 5, 7, 10, 14, 21, and 28.

Main outcome measures. The primary endpoint of this study was time to clinical improvement within 28 days after randomization. Clinical improvement was defined as a 2-point reduction in participants’ admission status on a 6-point ordinal scale (1 = discharged or clinical recovery, 6 = death) or live discharge from hospital, whichever came first. Secondary outcomes included all-cause mortality at day 28 and duration of hospital admission, oxygen support, and invasive mechanical ventilation. Virological measures and safety outcomes ascertained included treatment-emergent adverse events, serious adverse events, and premature discontinuation of remdesivir.

The sample size estimate for the original study design was a total of 453 patients (302 in the remdesivir group and 151 in the placebo group). This sample size would provide 80% power, assuming a hazard ratio (HR) of 1.4 comparing remdesivir to placebo, and corresponding to a change in time to clinical improvement of 6 days. The analysis of primary outcome was performed on an intention-to-treat basis. Time to clinical improvement within 28 days was assessed with Kaplan-Meier plots.

Main results. A total of 255 patients were screened, of whom 237 were enrolled and randomized to remdesivir (158) or placebo (79) group. Of the participants in the remdesivir group, 155 started study treatment and 150 completed treatment per protocol. For the participants in the placebo group, 78 started study treatment and 76 completed treatment per-protocol. Study enrollment was terminated after March 12, 2020, before attaining the prespecified sample size, because no additional patients met study eligibility criteria due to various public health measures implemented in Wuhan. The median age of participants was 65 years (IQR, 56-71), the majority were men (56% in remdesivir group vs 65% in placebo group), and the most common comorbidities included hypertension, diabetes, and coronary artery disease. Median time from symptom onset to study enrollment was 10 days (IQR, 9-12). The time to clinical improvement between treatments (21 days for remdesivir group vs 23 days for placebo group) was not significantly different (HR, 1.23; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.87-1.75). In addition, in participants who received treatment within 10 days of symptom onset, those who were administered remdesivir had a nonsignificant (HR, 1.52; 95% CI, 0.95-2.43) but faster time (18 days) to clinical improvement, compared to those administered placebo (23 days). Moreover, treatment with remdesivir versus placebo did not lead to differences in secondary outcomes (eg, 28-day mortality and duration of hospital stay, oxygen support, and invasive mechanical ventilation), changes in viral load over time, or adverse events between the groups.

Conclusion. This study found that, compared with placebo, intravenous remdesivir did not significantly improve the time to clinical improvement, mortality, or time to clearance of SARS-CoV-2 in hospitalized adults with severe COVID-19. A numeric reduction in time to clinical improvement with early remdesivir treatment (ie, within 10 days of symptom onset) that approached statistical significance was observed in this underpowered study.

Commentary

Within a few short months since its emergence. SARS-CoV-2 infection has caused a global pandemic, posing a dire threat to public health due to its adverse effects on morbidity (eg, respiratory failure, thromboembolic diseases, multiorgan failure) and mortality. To date, no pharmacologic treatment has been shown to effectively improve clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19. Multiple ongoing clinical trials are being conducted globally to determine potential therapeutic treatments for severe COVID-19. The first clinical trials of hydroxychloroquine and lopinavir-ritonavir, agents traditionally used for other indications, such as malaria and HIV, did not show a clear benefit in COVID-19.^1,2 Remdesivir, a nucleoside analogue prodrug, is a broad-spectrum antiviral agent that was previously used for treatment of Ebola and has been shown to have inhibitory effects on pathogenic coronaviruses. The study reported by Wang and colleagues was the first randomized controlled trial (RCT) aimed at evaluating whether remdesivir improves outcomes in patients with severe COVID-19. Thus, the worsening COVID-19 pandemic, coupled with the absence of a curative treatment, underscore the urgency of this trial.

The study was grounded on observational data from several recent case reports and case series centering on the potential efficacy of remdesivir in treating COVID-19.³ The study itself was designed well (ie, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind, multicenter) and carefully implemented (ie, high protocol adherence to treatments, no loss to follow-up). The principal limitation of this study was its inability to reach the estimated statistical power of study. Due to successful epidemic control in Wuhan, which led to marked reductions in hospital admission of patients with COVID-19, and implementation of stringent termination criteria per the study protocol, only 237 participants were enrolled, instead of the 453, as specified by the sample estimate. This corresponded to a reduction of statistical power from 80% to 58%. Due to this limitation, the study was underpowered, rendering its findings inconclusive.

Despite this limitation, the study found that those treated with remdesivir within 10 days of symptom onset had a numerically faster time (although not statistically significant) to clinical improvement. This leads to an interesting question: whether remdesivir administration early in COVID-19 course could improve clinical outcomes, a question that warrants further investigation by an adequately powered trial. Also, data from this study provided evidence that intravenous remdesivir administration is likely safe in adults during the treatment period, although the long-term drug effects, as well as the safety profile in pediatric patients, remain unknown at this time.

While the study reported by Wang and colleagues was underpowered and is thus inconclusive, several other ongoing RCTs are evaluating the potential clinical benefit of remdesivir treatment in patients hospitalized with COVID-19. On the date of online publication of this report in The Lancet, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) published a news release summarizing preliminary findings from the Adaptive COVID-19 Treatment Trial (ACTT), which showed positive effects of remdesivir on clinical recovery from advanced COVID-19.⁴ The ACTT, the first RCT launched in the United States to evaluate experimental treatment for COVID-19, included 1063 hospitalized participants with advanced COVID-19 and lung involvement. Participants who were administered remdesivir had a 31% faster time to recovery compared to those in the placebo group (median time to recovery, 11 days vs 15 days, respectively; P < 0.001), and had near statistically significant improved survival (mortality rate, 8.0% vs 11.6%, respectively; P = 0.059). In response to these findings, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued an emergency use authorization for remdesivir on May 1, 2020, for the treatment of suspected or laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 in adults and children hospitalized with severe disease.⁵ While the findings noted from the NIH news release are very encouraging and provide the first evidence of a potentially beneficial antiviral treatment for severe COVID-19 in humans, the scientific community awaits the peer-reviewed publication of the ACTT to better assess the safety and effectiveness of remdesivir therapy and determine the trial’s implications in the management of COVID-19.

The discovery of an effective pharmacologic intervention for COVID-19 is of utmost urgency. While the present study was unable to answer the question of whether remdesivir is effective in improving clinical outcomes in patients with severe COVID-19, other ongoing or completed (ie, ACTT) studies will likely address this knowledge gap in the coming months. The FDA’s emergency use authorization for remdesivir provides a glimpse into this possibility.

–Katerina Oikonomou, MD, Brookdale Department of Geriatrics & Palliative Medicine, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY

–Fred Ko, MD

Study Overview

Objective. To assess the efficacy, safety, and clinical benefit of remdesivir in hospitalized adults with confirmed pneumonia due to severe SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Design. Randomized, investigator-initiated, placebo-controlled, double-blind, multicenter trial.

Setting and participants. The trial took place between February 6, 2020 and March 12, 2020, at 10 hospitals in Wuhan, China. Study participants included adult patients (aged ≥ 18 years) admitted to hospital who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 by reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction assay and had the following clinical characteristics: radiographic evidence of pneumonia; hypoxia with oxygen saturation ≤ 94% on room air or a ratio of arterial oxygen partial pressure to fractional inspired oxygen ≤ 300 mm Hg; and symptom onset to enrollment ≤ 12 days. Some of the exclusion criteria for participation in the study were pregnancy or breast feeding, liver cirrhosis, abnormal liver enzymes ≥ 5 times the upper limit of normal, severe renal impairment or receipt of renal replacement therapy, plan for transfer to a non-study hospital, and enrollment in a trial for COVID-19 within the previous month.

Intervention. Participants were randomized in a 2:1 ratio to the remdesivir group or the placebo group and were administered either intravenous infusions of remdesivir (200 mg on day 1 followed by 100 mg daily on days 2-10) or the same volume of placebo for 10 days. Clinical and safety data assessed included laboratory testing, electrocardiogram, and medication adverse effects. Testing of oropharyngeal and nasopharyngeal swab samples, anal swab samples, sputum, and stool was performed for viral RNA detection and quantification on days 1, 3, 5, 7, 10, 14, 21, and 28.

Main outcome measures. The primary endpoint of this study was time to clinical improvement within 28 days after randomization. Clinical improvement was defined as a 2-point reduction in participants’ admission status on a 6-point ordinal scale (1 = discharged or clinical recovery, 6 = death) or live discharge from hospital, whichever came first. Secondary outcomes included all-cause mortality at day 28 and duration of hospital admission, oxygen support, and invasive mechanical ventilation. Virological measures and safety outcomes ascertained included treatment-emergent adverse events, serious adverse events, and premature discontinuation of remdesivir.

The sample size estimate for the original study design was a total of 453 patients (302 in the remdesivir group and 151 in the placebo group). This sample size would provide 80% power, assuming a hazard ratio (HR) of 1.4 comparing remdesivir to placebo, and corresponding to a change in time to clinical improvement of 6 days. The analysis of primary outcome was performed on an intention-to-treat basis. Time to clinical improvement within 28 days was assessed with Kaplan-Meier plots.

Main results. A total of 255 patients were screened, of whom 237 were enrolled and randomized to remdesivir (158) or placebo (79) group. Of the participants in the remdesivir group, 155 started study treatment and 150 completed treatment per protocol. For the participants in the placebo group, 78 started study treatment and 76 completed treatment per-protocol. Study enrollment was terminated after March 12, 2020, before attaining the prespecified sample size, because no additional patients met study eligibility criteria due to various public health measures implemented in Wuhan. The median age of participants was 65 years (IQR, 56-71), the majority were men (56% in remdesivir group vs 65% in placebo group), and the most common comorbidities included hypertension, diabetes, and coronary artery disease. Median time from symptom onset to study enrollment was 10 days (IQR, 9-12). The time to clinical improvement between treatments (21 days for remdesivir group vs 23 days for placebo group) was not significantly different (HR, 1.23; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.87-1.75). In addition, in participants who received treatment within 10 days of symptom onset, those who were administered remdesivir had a nonsignificant (HR, 1.52; 95% CI, 0.95-2.43) but faster time (18 days) to clinical improvement, compared to those administered placebo (23 days). Moreover, treatment with remdesivir versus placebo did not lead to differences in secondary outcomes (eg, 28-day mortality and duration of hospital stay, oxygen support, and invasive mechanical ventilation), changes in viral load over time, or adverse events between the groups.

Conclusion. This study found that, compared with placebo, intravenous remdesivir did not significantly improve the time to clinical improvement, mortality, or time to clearance of SARS-CoV-2 in hospitalized adults with severe COVID-19. A numeric reduction in time to clinical improvement with early remdesivir treatment (ie, within 10 days of symptom onset) that approached statistical significance was observed in this underpowered study.

Commentary

Within a few short months since its emergence. SARS-CoV-2 infection has caused a global pandemic, posing a dire threat to public health due to its adverse effects on morbidity (eg, respiratory failure, thromboembolic diseases, multiorgan failure) and mortality. To date, no pharmacologic treatment has been shown to effectively improve clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19. Multiple ongoing clinical trials are being conducted globally to determine potential therapeutic treatments for severe COVID-19. The first clinical trials of hydroxychloroquine and lopinavir-ritonavir, agents traditionally used for other indications, such as malaria and HIV, did not show a clear benefit in COVID-19.^1,2 Remdesivir, a nucleoside analogue prodrug, is a broad-spectrum antiviral agent that was previously used for treatment of Ebola and has been shown to have inhibitory effects on pathogenic coronaviruses. The study reported by Wang and colleagues was the first randomized controlled trial (RCT) aimed at evaluating whether remdesivir improves outcomes in patients with severe COVID-19. Thus, the worsening COVID-19 pandemic, coupled with the absence of a curative treatment, underscore the urgency of this trial.

The study was grounded on observational data from several recent case reports and case series centering on the potential efficacy of remdesivir in treating COVID-19.³ The study itself was designed well (ie, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind, multicenter) and carefully implemented (ie, high protocol adherence to treatments, no loss to follow-up). The principal limitation of this study was its inability to reach the estimated statistical power of study. Due to successful epidemic control in Wuhan, which led to marked reductions in hospital admission of patients with COVID-19, and implementation of stringent termination criteria per the study protocol, only 237 participants were enrolled, instead of the 453, as specified by the sample estimate. This corresponded to a reduction of statistical power from 80% to 58%. Due to this limitation, the study was underpowered, rendering its findings inconclusive.

Despite this limitation, the study found that those treated with remdesivir within 10 days of symptom onset had a numerically faster time (although not statistically significant) to clinical improvement. This leads to an interesting question: whether remdesivir administration early in COVID-19 course could improve clinical outcomes, a question that warrants further investigation by an adequately powered trial. Also, data from this study provided evidence that intravenous remdesivir administration is likely safe in adults during the treatment period, although the long-term drug effects, as well as the safety profile in pediatric patients, remain unknown at this time.

While the study reported by Wang and colleagues was underpowered and is thus inconclusive, several other ongoing RCTs are evaluating the potential clinical benefit of remdesivir treatment in patients hospitalized with COVID-19. On the date of online publication of this report in The Lancet, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) published a news release summarizing preliminary findings from the Adaptive COVID-19 Treatment Trial (ACTT), which showed positive effects of remdesivir on clinical recovery from advanced COVID-19.⁴ The ACTT, the first RCT launched in the United States to evaluate experimental treatment for COVID-19, included 1063 hospitalized participants with advanced COVID-19 and lung involvement. Participants who were administered remdesivir had a 31% faster time to recovery compared to those in the placebo group (median time to recovery, 11 days vs 15 days, respectively; P < 0.001), and had near statistically significant improved survival (mortality rate, 8.0% vs 11.6%, respectively; P = 0.059). In response to these findings, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued an emergency use authorization for remdesivir on May 1, 2020, for the treatment of suspected or laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 in adults and children hospitalized with severe disease.⁵ While the findings noted from the NIH news release are very encouraging and provide the first evidence of a potentially beneficial antiviral treatment for severe COVID-19 in humans, the scientific community awaits the peer-reviewed publication of the ACTT to better assess the safety and effectiveness of remdesivir therapy and determine the trial’s implications in the management of COVID-19.

The discovery of an effective pharmacologic intervention for COVID-19 is of utmost urgency. While the present study was unable to answer the question of whether remdesivir is effective in improving clinical outcomes in patients with severe COVID-19, other ongoing or completed (ie, ACTT) studies will likely address this knowledge gap in the coming months. The FDA’s emergency use authorization for remdesivir provides a glimpse into this possibility.

–Katerina Oikonomou, MD, Brookdale Department of Geriatrics & Palliative Medicine, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY

–Fred Ko, MD

Study Overview

Objective. To assess the efficacy, safety, and clinical benefit of remdesivir in hospitalized adults with confirmed pneumonia due to severe SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Design. Randomized, investigator-initiated, placebo-controlled, double-blind, multicenter trial.

Setting and participants. The trial took place between February 6, 2020 and March 12, 2020, at 10 hospitals in Wuhan, China. Study participants included adult patients (aged ≥ 18 years) admitted to hospital who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 by reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction assay and had the following clinical characteristics: radiographic evidence of pneumonia; hypoxia with oxygen saturation ≤ 94% on room air or a ratio of arterial oxygen partial pressure to fractional inspired oxygen ≤ 300 mm Hg; and symptom onset to enrollment ≤ 12 days. Some of the exclusion criteria for participation in the study were pregnancy or breast feeding, liver cirrhosis, abnormal liver enzymes ≥ 5 times the upper limit of normal, severe renal impairment or receipt of renal replacement therapy, plan for transfer to a non-study hospital, and enrollment in a trial for COVID-19 within the previous month.

Intervention. Participants were randomized in a 2:1 ratio to the remdesivir group or the placebo group and were administered either intravenous infusions of remdesivir (200 mg on day 1 followed by 100 mg daily on days 2-10) or the same volume of placebo for 10 days. Clinical and safety data assessed included laboratory testing, electrocardiogram, and medication adverse effects. Testing of oropharyngeal and nasopharyngeal swab samples, anal swab samples, sputum, and stool was performed for viral RNA detection and quantification on days 1, 3, 5, 7, 10, 14, 21, and 28.

Main outcome measures. The primary endpoint of this study was time to clinical improvement within 28 days after randomization. Clinical improvement was defined as a 2-point reduction in participants’ admission status on a 6-point ordinal scale (1 = discharged or clinical recovery, 6 = death) or live discharge from hospital, whichever came first. Secondary outcomes included all-cause mortality at day 28 and duration of hospital admission, oxygen support, and invasive mechanical ventilation. Virological measures and safety outcomes ascertained included treatment-emergent adverse events, serious adverse events, and premature discontinuation of remdesivir.

The sample size estimate for the original study design was a total of 453 patients (302 in the remdesivir group and 151 in the placebo group). This sample size would provide 80% power, assuming a hazard ratio (HR) of 1.4 comparing remdesivir to placebo, and corresponding to a change in time to clinical improvement of 6 days. The analysis of primary outcome was performed on an intention-to-treat basis. Time to clinical improvement within 28 days was assessed with Kaplan-Meier plots.

Main results. A total of 255 patients were screened, of whom 237 were enrolled and randomized to remdesivir (158) or placebo (79) group. Of the participants in the remdesivir group, 155 started study treatment and 150 completed treatment per protocol. For the participants in the placebo group, 78 started study treatment and 76 completed treatment per-protocol. Study enrollment was terminated after March 12, 2020, before attaining the prespecified sample size, because no additional patients met study eligibility criteria due to various public health measures implemented in Wuhan. The median age of participants was 65 years (IQR, 56-71), the majority were men (56% in remdesivir group vs 65% in placebo group), and the most common comorbidities included hypertension, diabetes, and coronary artery disease. Median time from symptom onset to study enrollment was 10 days (IQR, 9-12). The time to clinical improvement between treatments (21 days for remdesivir group vs 23 days for placebo group) was not significantly different (HR, 1.23; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.87-1.75). In addition, in participants who received treatment within 10 days of symptom onset, those who were administered remdesivir had a nonsignificant (HR, 1.52; 95% CI, 0.95-2.43) but faster time (18 days) to clinical improvement, compared to those administered placebo (23 days). Moreover, treatment with remdesivir versus placebo did not lead to differences in secondary outcomes (eg, 28-day mortality and duration of hospital stay, oxygen support, and invasive mechanical ventilation), changes in viral load over time, or adverse events between the groups.

Conclusion. This study found that, compared with placebo, intravenous remdesivir did not significantly improve the time to clinical improvement, mortality, or time to clearance of SARS-CoV-2 in hospitalized adults with severe COVID-19. A numeric reduction in time to clinical improvement with early remdesivir treatment (ie, within 10 days of symptom onset) that approached statistical significance was observed in this underpowered study.

Commentary

Within a few short months since its emergence. SARS-CoV-2 infection has caused a global pandemic, posing a dire threat to public health due to its adverse effects on morbidity (eg, respiratory failure, thromboembolic diseases, multiorgan failure) and mortality. To date, no pharmacologic treatment has been shown to effectively improve clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19. Multiple ongoing clinical trials are being conducted globally to determine potential therapeutic treatments for severe COVID-19. The first clinical trials of hydroxychloroquine and lopinavir-ritonavir, agents traditionally used for other indications, such as malaria and HIV, did not show a clear benefit in COVID-19.^1,2 Remdesivir, a nucleoside analogue prodrug, is a broad-spectrum antiviral agent that was previously used for treatment of Ebola and has been shown to have inhibitory effects on pathogenic coronaviruses. The study reported by Wang and colleagues was the first randomized controlled trial (RCT) aimed at evaluating whether remdesivir improves outcomes in patients with severe COVID-19. Thus, the worsening COVID-19 pandemic, coupled with the absence of a curative treatment, underscore the urgency of this trial.

The study was grounded on observational data from several recent case reports and case series centering on the potential efficacy of remdesivir in treating COVID-19.³ The study itself was designed well (ie, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind, multicenter) and carefully implemented (ie, high protocol adherence to treatments, no loss to follow-up). The principal limitation of this study was its inability to reach the estimated statistical power of study. Due to successful epidemic control in Wuhan, which led to marked reductions in hospital admission of patients with COVID-19, and implementation of stringent termination criteria per the study protocol, only 237 participants were enrolled, instead of the 453, as specified by the sample estimate. This corresponded to a reduction of statistical power from 80% to 58%. Due to this limitation, the study was underpowered, rendering its findings inconclusive.

Despite this limitation, the study found that those treated with remdesivir within 10 days of symptom onset had a numerically faster time (although not statistically significant) to clinical improvement. This leads to an interesting question: whether remdesivir administration early in COVID-19 course could improve clinical outcomes, a question that warrants further investigation by an adequately powered trial. Also, data from this study provided evidence that intravenous remdesivir administration is likely safe in adults during the treatment period, although the long-term drug effects, as well as the safety profile in pediatric patients, remain unknown at this time.

While the study reported by Wang and colleagues was underpowered and is thus inconclusive, several other ongoing RCTs are evaluating the potential clinical benefit of remdesivir treatment in patients hospitalized with COVID-19. On the date of online publication of this report in The Lancet, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) published a news release summarizing preliminary findings from the Adaptive COVID-19 Treatment Trial (ACTT), which showed positive effects of remdesivir on clinical recovery from advanced COVID-19.⁴ The ACTT, the first RCT launched in the United States to evaluate experimental treatment for COVID-19, included 1063 hospitalized participants with advanced COVID-19 and lung involvement. Participants who were administered remdesivir had a 31% faster time to recovery compared to those in the placebo group (median time to recovery, 11 days vs 15 days, respectively; P < 0.001), and had near statistically significant improved survival (mortality rate, 8.0% vs 11.6%, respectively; P = 0.059). In response to these findings, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued an emergency use authorization for remdesivir on May 1, 2020, for the treatment of suspected or laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 in adults and children hospitalized with severe disease.⁵ While the findings noted from the NIH news release are very encouraging and provide the first evidence of a potentially beneficial antiviral treatment for severe COVID-19 in humans, the scientific community awaits the peer-reviewed publication of the ACTT to better assess the safety and effectiveness of remdesivir therapy and determine the trial’s implications in the management of COVID-19.

The discovery of an effective pharmacologic intervention for COVID-19 is of utmost urgency. While the present study was unable to answer the question of whether remdesivir is effective in improving clinical outcomes in patients with severe COVID-19, other ongoing or completed (ie, ACTT) studies will likely address this knowledge gap in the coming months. The FDA’s emergency use authorization for remdesivir provides a glimpse into this possibility.

–Katerina Oikonomou, MD, Brookdale Department of Geriatrics & Palliative Medicine, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY

–Fred Ko, MD

Ustekinumab or a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) are better used alone than with methotrexate in the treatment of psoriatic arthritis suggest the results of PsABio (A Study on Assessment of STELARA and Tumor Necrosis Factor Alpha Inhibitor Therapies in Participants With Psoriatic Arthritis), a large, ongoing, prospective observational study.

The percentages of patients achieving multiple psoriatic arthritis disease activity outcome measures at 6 months were higher if biologic monotherapy was used rather than a biologic in combination with methotrexate.

For example, minimal disease activity (MDA) was achieved by 27.5% of patients taking ustekinumab as monotherapy and by 32.1% of those taking a TNFi alone. When methotrexate was used in combination, the respective percentages of patients achieving MDA were 23.7% and 27.8%.

A similar pattern was seen for very-low disease activity (VLDA), with 9.8% of patients in the ustekinumab monotherapy arm and 12% of those in the TNFi monotherapy arm achieving this target, compared with 5.7% and 5.4% when these drugs were combined with methotrexate.

MDA is defined as meeting five or more cutoffs for seven domains of disease activity, and VLDA for all seven: 0-1 tender joints, 0-1 swollen joints, Psoriasis Area Severity Index 1 or less or body surface area involved 3% or less, 0-1 tender entheseal points, Health Assessment Questionnaire score of 0.5 or less, patient global disease activity visual analog scale score of 20 or lower, and patient pain visual analog scale score of 15 or lower.

Other outcome measures used that showed no advantage of adding methotrexate to these biologics were the Clinical Disease Activity in Psoriatic Arthritis low disease activity and remission scores, the patient acceptable symptoms rate of the 12-item Psoriatic Arthritis Impact of Disease Questionnaire, and improvement in skin involvement.

“Patients were no more likely to achieve lower disease activity or a remission target having received methotrexate than they did just on the biologic drug on its own,” Stefan Siebert, MBBCh, PhD, one of the PsABio investigators, said in an interview.

Dr. Siebert, who is clinical senior lecturer in inflammation and rheumatology at the University of Glasgow (Scotland), was scheduled to present the findings at the British Society for Rheumatology annual conference. The meeting was canceled because of the ongoing COVID-19 crisis. Abstracts and ePosters from the meeting have since been released in a supplement to Rheumatology and via the BSR’s conference app.
 

First data for ustekinumab

“There certainly doesn’t appear to be any added benefit from using methotrexate on a group level in patients getting ustekinumab and TNF inhibitors,” Dr. Siebert said. “We’ve looked at everything,” he emphasized, and “none of the single domains or composite measures were improved by the addition of methotrexate. I think we knew that for TNF inhibitors, but the key thing is we’ve never known that for ustekinumab, and this is the first study to show that.”

Indeed, the findings match up with those from the SEAM-PsA (Etanercept and Methotrexate in Subjects with Psoriatic Arthritis) study in which patients who were treated with the TNFi etanercept as monotherapy did much better than those given the TNFi in combination with methotrexate or methotrexate alone. While not a randomized trial, PsABio now shows that the same is true for ustekinumab.

Obviously, there are some clear differences between a clinical trial and an observational study such as PsABio. For one thing, there was no randomization and patients taking methotrexate were presumably doing so for good reason, Dr. Siebert said. Secondly, there was no methotrexate-only arm.

PsABio recruited patients who were starting treatment with either ustekinumab or a new TNFi as first-, second-, or third-line biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic therapy (DMARD). “These are all people starting on a biologic, so they’ve already got severe disease and have failed methotrexate on some level. So everything we’ve done is biologic without methotrexate or biologic with methotrexate,” Dr. Siebert explained. Patients may not have been taking methotrexate for a variety of reasons, such as inefficacy or side effects, so PsABio “doesn’t tell us anything about methotrexate on its own.”

Time to rethink ingrained methotrexate use

The rationale for using methotrexate in combination with biologics in psoriatic arthritis comes from its long-standing use in rheumatoid arthritis. Much of what is advocated in guidelines comes from experience in RA, Dr. Siebert said.

“In rheumatoid arthritis, we know that the TNF inhibitors work much better if you use methotrexate, that’s a given,” he noted. “We’ve been trained that you have to have methotrexate to have a biologic. However, PsABio, together with other studies, show that you don’t have to, and you should have a good reason to add methotrexate.”

Individual patients may still benefit from methotrexate use, but the decision to treat all patients the same is not supported by the current evidence. “It’s good that it shows that, actually, once you get someone on a decent biologic, it’s working: It’s doing what it ‘says on the tin’ for a lot of patients. I really think that is the key message, here, that you don’t have to; this reassures clinicians and actually makes them think ‘should this patient be on methotrexate?’ ” Dr. Siebert said.

The PsABio study was funded by Janssen. Dr. Siebert has acted as a consultant to and received research funding from Janssen, UCB, Pfizer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Novartis, and Celgene. He has also acted as a consultant for AbbVie and received research support from Bristol-Myers Squibb.

SOURCE: Siebert S et al. Rheumatology. 2020;59(Suppl 2). doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/keaa110.023, Abstract O24.

Ustekinumab or a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) are better used alone than with methotrexate in the treatment of psoriatic arthritis suggest the results of PsABio (A Study on Assessment of STELARA and Tumor Necrosis Factor Alpha Inhibitor Therapies in Participants With Psoriatic Arthritis), a large, ongoing, prospective observational study.

The percentages of patients achieving multiple psoriatic arthritis disease activity outcome measures at 6 months were higher if biologic monotherapy was used rather than a biologic in combination with methotrexate.

For example, minimal disease activity (MDA) was achieved by 27.5% of patients taking ustekinumab as monotherapy and by 32.1% of those taking a TNFi alone. When methotrexate was used in combination, the respective percentages of patients achieving MDA were 23.7% and 27.8%.

A similar pattern was seen for very-low disease activity (VLDA), with 9.8% of patients in the ustekinumab monotherapy arm and 12% of those in the TNFi monotherapy arm achieving this target, compared with 5.7% and 5.4% when these drugs were combined with methotrexate.

MDA is defined as meeting five or more cutoffs for seven domains of disease activity, and VLDA for all seven: 0-1 tender joints, 0-1 swollen joints, Psoriasis Area Severity Index 1 or less or body surface area involved 3% or less, 0-1 tender entheseal points, Health Assessment Questionnaire score of 0.5 or less, patient global disease activity visual analog scale score of 20 or lower, and patient pain visual analog scale score of 15 or lower.

Other outcome measures used that showed no advantage of adding methotrexate to these biologics were the Clinical Disease Activity in Psoriatic Arthritis low disease activity and remission scores, the patient acceptable symptoms rate of the 12-item Psoriatic Arthritis Impact of Disease Questionnaire, and improvement in skin involvement.

“Patients were no more likely to achieve lower disease activity or a remission target having received methotrexate than they did just on the biologic drug on its own,” Stefan Siebert, MBBCh, PhD, one of the PsABio investigators, said in an interview.

Dr. Siebert, who is clinical senior lecturer in inflammation and rheumatology at the University of Glasgow (Scotland), was scheduled to present the findings at the British Society for Rheumatology annual conference. The meeting was canceled because of the ongoing COVID-19 crisis. Abstracts and ePosters from the meeting have since been released in a supplement to Rheumatology and via the BSR’s conference app.
 

First data for ustekinumab

“There certainly doesn’t appear to be any added benefit from using methotrexate on a group level in patients getting ustekinumab and TNF inhibitors,” Dr. Siebert said. “We’ve looked at everything,” he emphasized, and “none of the single domains or composite measures were improved by the addition of methotrexate. I think we knew that for TNF inhibitors, but the key thing is we’ve never known that for ustekinumab, and this is the first study to show that.”

Indeed, the findings match up with those from the SEAM-PsA (Etanercept and Methotrexate in Subjects with Psoriatic Arthritis) study in which patients who were treated with the TNFi etanercept as monotherapy did much better than those given the TNFi in combination with methotrexate or methotrexate alone. While not a randomized trial, PsABio now shows that the same is true for ustekinumab.

Obviously, there are some clear differences between a clinical trial and an observational study such as PsABio. For one thing, there was no randomization and patients taking methotrexate were presumably doing so for good reason, Dr. Siebert said. Secondly, there was no methotrexate-only arm.

PsABio recruited patients who were starting treatment with either ustekinumab or a new TNFi as first-, second-, or third-line biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic therapy (DMARD). “These are all people starting on a biologic, so they’ve already got severe disease and have failed methotrexate on some level. So everything we’ve done is biologic without methotrexate or biologic with methotrexate,” Dr. Siebert explained. Patients may not have been taking methotrexate for a variety of reasons, such as inefficacy or side effects, so PsABio “doesn’t tell us anything about methotrexate on its own.”

Time to rethink ingrained methotrexate use

The rationale for using methotrexate in combination with biologics in psoriatic arthritis comes from its long-standing use in rheumatoid arthritis. Much of what is advocated in guidelines comes from experience in RA, Dr. Siebert said.

“In rheumatoid arthritis, we know that the TNF inhibitors work much better if you use methotrexate, that’s a given,” he noted. “We’ve been trained that you have to have methotrexate to have a biologic. However, PsABio, together with other studies, show that you don’t have to, and you should have a good reason to add methotrexate.”

Individual patients may still benefit from methotrexate use, but the decision to treat all patients the same is not supported by the current evidence. “It’s good that it shows that, actually, once you get someone on a decent biologic, it’s working: It’s doing what it ‘says on the tin’ for a lot of patients. I really think that is the key message, here, that you don’t have to; this reassures clinicians and actually makes them think ‘should this patient be on methotrexate?’ ” Dr. Siebert said.

The PsABio study was funded by Janssen. Dr. Siebert has acted as a consultant to and received research funding from Janssen, UCB, Pfizer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Novartis, and Celgene. He has also acted as a consultant for AbbVie and received research support from Bristol-Myers Squibb.

SOURCE: Siebert S et al. Rheumatology. 2020;59(Suppl 2). doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/keaa110.023, Abstract O24.

Ustekinumab or a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) are better used alone than with methotrexate in the treatment of psoriatic arthritis suggest the results of PsABio (A Study on Assessment of STELARA and Tumor Necrosis Factor Alpha Inhibitor Therapies in Participants With Psoriatic Arthritis), a large, ongoing, prospective observational study.

The percentages of patients achieving multiple psoriatic arthritis disease activity outcome measures at 6 months were higher if biologic monotherapy was used rather than a biologic in combination with methotrexate.

For example, minimal disease activity (MDA) was achieved by 27.5% of patients taking ustekinumab as monotherapy and by 32.1% of those taking a TNFi alone. When methotrexate was used in combination, the respective percentages of patients achieving MDA were 23.7% and 27.8%.

A similar pattern was seen for very-low disease activity (VLDA), with 9.8% of patients in the ustekinumab monotherapy arm and 12% of those in the TNFi monotherapy arm achieving this target, compared with 5.7% and 5.4% when these drugs were combined with methotrexate.

MDA is defined as meeting five or more cutoffs for seven domains of disease activity, and VLDA for all seven: 0-1 tender joints, 0-1 swollen joints, Psoriasis Area Severity Index 1 or less or body surface area involved 3% or less, 0-1 tender entheseal points, Health Assessment Questionnaire score of 0.5 or less, patient global disease activity visual analog scale score of 20 or lower, and patient pain visual analog scale score of 15 or lower.

Other outcome measures used that showed no advantage of adding methotrexate to these biologics were the Clinical Disease Activity in Psoriatic Arthritis low disease activity and remission scores, the patient acceptable symptoms rate of the 12-item Psoriatic Arthritis Impact of Disease Questionnaire, and improvement in skin involvement.

“Patients were no more likely to achieve lower disease activity or a remission target having received methotrexate than they did just on the biologic drug on its own,” Stefan Siebert, MBBCh, PhD, one of the PsABio investigators, said in an interview.

Dr. Siebert, who is clinical senior lecturer in inflammation and rheumatology at the University of Glasgow (Scotland), was scheduled to present the findings at the British Society for Rheumatology annual conference. The meeting was canceled because of the ongoing COVID-19 crisis. Abstracts and ePosters from the meeting have since been released in a supplement to Rheumatology and via the BSR’s conference app.
 

First data for ustekinumab

“There certainly doesn’t appear to be any added benefit from using methotrexate on a group level in patients getting ustekinumab and TNF inhibitors,” Dr. Siebert said. “We’ve looked at everything,” he emphasized, and “none of the single domains or composite measures were improved by the addition of methotrexate. I think we knew that for TNF inhibitors, but the key thing is we’ve never known that for ustekinumab, and this is the first study to show that.”

Indeed, the findings match up with those from the SEAM-PsA (Etanercept and Methotrexate in Subjects with Psoriatic Arthritis) study in which patients who were treated with the TNFi etanercept as monotherapy did much better than those given the TNFi in combination with methotrexate or methotrexate alone. While not a randomized trial, PsABio now shows that the same is true for ustekinumab.

Obviously, there are some clear differences between a clinical trial and an observational study such as PsABio. For one thing, there was no randomization and patients taking methotrexate were presumably doing so for good reason, Dr. Siebert said. Secondly, there was no methotrexate-only arm.

PsABio recruited patients who were starting treatment with either ustekinumab or a new TNFi as first-, second-, or third-line biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic therapy (DMARD). “These are all people starting on a biologic, so they’ve already got severe disease and have failed methotrexate on some level. So everything we’ve done is biologic without methotrexate or biologic with methotrexate,” Dr. Siebert explained. Patients may not have been taking methotrexate for a variety of reasons, such as inefficacy or side effects, so PsABio “doesn’t tell us anything about methotrexate on its own.”

Time to rethink ingrained methotrexate use

The rationale for using methotrexate in combination with biologics in psoriatic arthritis comes from its long-standing use in rheumatoid arthritis. Much of what is advocated in guidelines comes from experience in RA, Dr. Siebert said.

“In rheumatoid arthritis, we know that the TNF inhibitors work much better if you use methotrexate, that’s a given,” he noted. “We’ve been trained that you have to have methotrexate to have a biologic. However, PsABio, together with other studies, show that you don’t have to, and you should have a good reason to add methotrexate.”

Individual patients may still benefit from methotrexate use, but the decision to treat all patients the same is not supported by the current evidence. “It’s good that it shows that, actually, once you get someone on a decent biologic, it’s working: It’s doing what it ‘says on the tin’ for a lot of patients. I really think that is the key message, here, that you don’t have to; this reassures clinicians and actually makes them think ‘should this patient be on methotrexate?’ ” Dr. Siebert said.

The PsABio study was funded by Janssen. Dr. Siebert has acted as a consultant to and received research funding from Janssen, UCB, Pfizer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Novartis, and Celgene. He has also acted as a consultant for AbbVie and received research support from Bristol-Myers Squibb.

SOURCE: Siebert S et al. Rheumatology. 2020;59(Suppl 2). doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/keaa110.023, Abstract O24.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved ixekizumab for treatment of moderate to severe plaque psoriasis in patients aged 6-17 years, according to an announcement from Lilly.

Patients need to be candidates for systemic therapy or phototherapy and have no known hypersensitivity to the biologic.

The safety, tolerability, and efficacy of the interleukin-17a antagonist were demonstrated in a phase 3 study that included 171 patients aged 6-17 years with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis. At 12 weeks, 89% those on ixekizumab achieved a 75% improvement on Psoriasis Area and Severity Index score, compared with 25% of those on placebo, and 81% achieved a static Physician’s Global Assessment of clear or almost clear, compared with 11% of those on placebo, according to the Lilly statement.

The safety profile seen with ixekizumab (Taltz) among the pediatric patients with plaque psoriasis is consistent with what has been observed among adult patients, although there were higher rates of conjunctivitis, influenza, and urticaria among the pediatric patients, the statement noted. The biologic may increase the risk of infection, and patients should be evaluated for tuberculosis, hypersensitivity, and inflammatory bowel disease. It is also recommended that routine immunizations be completed before initiating treatment.

Ixekizumab was initially approved for treating adults with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis in 2016, followed by approvals for treatment of adults with active psoriatic arthritis in 2017, and for adults with ankylosing spondylitis in August 2019.

The biologic therapies – etanercept, a tumor necrosis factor blocker, and ustekinumab (Stelara), an IL-12/23 antagonist – were previously approved by the FDA for pediatric psoriasis, in children ages 4 years and older and 12 years and older, respectively.

Updated prescribing information for ixekizumab can be found on the Lilly website.

[email protected]

The Food and Drug Administration has approved ixekizumab for treatment of moderate to severe plaque psoriasis in patients aged 6-17 years, according to an announcement from Lilly.

Patients need to be candidates for systemic therapy or phototherapy and have no known hypersensitivity to the biologic.

The safety, tolerability, and efficacy of the interleukin-17a antagonist were demonstrated in a phase 3 study that included 171 patients aged 6-17 years with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis. At 12 weeks, 89% those on ixekizumab achieved a 75% improvement on Psoriasis Area and Severity Index score, compared with 25% of those on placebo, and 81% achieved a static Physician’s Global Assessment of clear or almost clear, compared with 11% of those on placebo, according to the Lilly statement.

The safety profile seen with ixekizumab (Taltz) among the pediatric patients with plaque psoriasis is consistent with what has been observed among adult patients, although there were higher rates of conjunctivitis, influenza, and urticaria among the pediatric patients, the statement noted. The biologic may increase the risk of infection, and patients should be evaluated for tuberculosis, hypersensitivity, and inflammatory bowel disease. It is also recommended that routine immunizations be completed before initiating treatment.

Ixekizumab was initially approved for treating adults with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis in 2016, followed by approvals for treatment of adults with active psoriatic arthritis in 2017, and for adults with ankylosing spondylitis in August 2019.

The biologic therapies – etanercept, a tumor necrosis factor blocker, and ustekinumab (Stelara), an IL-12/23 antagonist – were previously approved by the FDA for pediatric psoriasis, in children ages 4 years and older and 12 years and older, respectively.

Updated prescribing information for ixekizumab can be found on the Lilly website.

[email protected]

The Food and Drug Administration has approved ixekizumab for treatment of moderate to severe plaque psoriasis in patients aged 6-17 years, according to an announcement from Lilly.

Patients need to be candidates for systemic therapy or phototherapy and have no known hypersensitivity to the biologic.

The safety, tolerability, and efficacy of the interleukin-17a antagonist were demonstrated in a phase 3 study that included 171 patients aged 6-17 years with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis. At 12 weeks, 89% those on ixekizumab achieved a 75% improvement on Psoriasis Area and Severity Index score, compared with 25% of those on placebo, and 81% achieved a static Physician’s Global Assessment of clear or almost clear, compared with 11% of those on placebo, according to the Lilly statement.

The safety profile seen with ixekizumab (Taltz) among the pediatric patients with plaque psoriasis is consistent with what has been observed among adult patients, although there were higher rates of conjunctivitis, influenza, and urticaria among the pediatric patients, the statement noted. The biologic may increase the risk of infection, and patients should be evaluated for tuberculosis, hypersensitivity, and inflammatory bowel disease. It is also recommended that routine immunizations be completed before initiating treatment.

Ixekizumab was initially approved for treating adults with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis in 2016, followed by approvals for treatment of adults with active psoriatic arthritis in 2017, and for adults with ankylosing spondylitis in August 2019.

The biologic therapies – etanercept, a tumor necrosis factor blocker, and ustekinumab (Stelara), an IL-12/23 antagonist – were previously approved by the FDA for pediatric psoriasis, in children ages 4 years and older and 12 years and older, respectively.

Updated prescribing information for ixekizumab can be found on the Lilly website.

[email protected]

AstraZeneca has announced that the phase 3 DAPA-CKD trial for dapagliflozin (Farxiga) in patients with chronic kidney disease has been halted early because of overwhelming efficacy of the drug, at the recommendation of an independent data monitoring committee.

DAPA-CKD is an international, multicenter, randomized, double-blinded trial in 4,245 patients with stage 2-4 chronic kidney disease. Patients received either 10 mg of the dapagliflozin once-daily or a placebo. The primary composite endpoint is worsening of renal function, defined as a composite of an estimated glomerular filtration rate decline of at least 50%, onset of end-stage kidney disease, and death from cardiovascular or renal cause.

The decision to stop the trial came after a routine assessment of efficacy and safety that showed dapagliflozin’s benefits significantly earlier than expected. AstraZeneca will initiate closure of the study, and results will be published and submitted for presentation at a forthcoming medical meeting.

Dapagliflozin is a sodium-glucose transporter 2 inhibitor currently indicated for the treatment type 2 diabetes patients with inadequately controlled type 2 diabetes and for reduction of the risk of hospitalization for heart failure. In August 2019, the drug was granted Fast Track status by the Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of chronic kidney disease. In January 2020, the agency also granted Fast Track status for the reduction of risk of cardiovascular death or worsening of heart failure in adult patients, regardless of diabetes status, with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction.

“Chronic kidney disease patients have limited treatment options, particularly those without type-2 diabetes. We are very pleased the data monitoring committee concluded that patients experienced overwhelming benefit. Farxiga has the potential to change the management of chronic kidney disease for patients around the world,” Mene Pangalos, executive vice president of BioPharmaceuticals R&D, said in the press release.

[email protected]

AstraZeneca has announced that the phase 3 DAPA-CKD trial for dapagliflozin (Farxiga) in patients with chronic kidney disease has been halted early because of overwhelming efficacy of the drug, at the recommendation of an independent data monitoring committee.

DAPA-CKD is an international, multicenter, randomized, double-blinded trial in 4,245 patients with stage 2-4 chronic kidney disease. Patients received either 10 mg of the dapagliflozin once-daily or a placebo. The primary composite endpoint is worsening of renal function, defined as a composite of an estimated glomerular filtration rate decline of at least 50%, onset of end-stage kidney disease, and death from cardiovascular or renal cause.

The decision to stop the trial came after a routine assessment of efficacy and safety that showed dapagliflozin’s benefits significantly earlier than expected. AstraZeneca will initiate closure of the study, and results will be published and submitted for presentation at a forthcoming medical meeting.

Dapagliflozin is a sodium-glucose transporter 2 inhibitor currently indicated for the treatment type 2 diabetes patients with inadequately controlled type 2 diabetes and for reduction of the risk of hospitalization for heart failure. In August 2019, the drug was granted Fast Track status by the Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of chronic kidney disease. In January 2020, the agency also granted Fast Track status for the reduction of risk of cardiovascular death or worsening of heart failure in adult patients, regardless of diabetes status, with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction.

“Chronic kidney disease patients have limited treatment options, particularly those without type-2 diabetes. We are very pleased the data monitoring committee concluded that patients experienced overwhelming benefit. Farxiga has the potential to change the management of chronic kidney disease for patients around the world,” Mene Pangalos, executive vice president of BioPharmaceuticals R&D, said in the press release.

[email protected]

AstraZeneca has announced that the phase 3 DAPA-CKD trial for dapagliflozin (Farxiga) in patients with chronic kidney disease has been halted early because of overwhelming efficacy of the drug, at the recommendation of an independent data monitoring committee.

DAPA-CKD is an international, multicenter, randomized, double-blinded trial in 4,245 patients with stage 2-4 chronic kidney disease. Patients received either 10 mg of the dapagliflozin once-daily or a placebo. The primary composite endpoint is worsening of renal function, defined as a composite of an estimated glomerular filtration rate decline of at least 50%, onset of end-stage kidney disease, and death from cardiovascular or renal cause.

The decision to stop the trial came after a routine assessment of efficacy and safety that showed dapagliflozin’s benefits significantly earlier than expected. AstraZeneca will initiate closure of the study, and results will be published and submitted for presentation at a forthcoming medical meeting.

Dapagliflozin is a sodium-glucose transporter 2 inhibitor currently indicated for the treatment type 2 diabetes patients with inadequately controlled type 2 diabetes and for reduction of the risk of hospitalization for heart failure. In August 2019, the drug was granted Fast Track status by the Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of chronic kidney disease. In January 2020, the agency also granted Fast Track status for the reduction of risk of cardiovascular death or worsening of heart failure in adult patients, regardless of diabetes status, with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction.

“Chronic kidney disease patients have limited treatment options, particularly those without type-2 diabetes. We are very pleased the data monitoring committee concluded that patients experienced overwhelming benefit. Farxiga has the potential to change the management of chronic kidney disease for patients around the world,” Mene Pangalos, executive vice president of BioPharmaceuticals R&D, said in the press release.

[email protected]

From the University of Alabama at Birmingham, Division of Hematology Oncology, Birmingham, AL, and the University of South Alabama, Division of Hematology Oncology, Mobile, AL. Dr. Paluri and Dr. Hatic contributed equally to this article.

Abstract

• Objective: To review systemic treatment options for patients with locally advanced unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).
• Methods: Review of the literature.
• Results: The paradigm of what constitutes first-line treatment for advanced HCC is shifting. Until recently, many patients with advanced HCC were treated with repeated locoregional therapies, such as transartertial embolization (TACE). However, retrospective studies suggest that continuing TACE after refractoriness or failure may not be beneficial and may delay subsequent treatments because of deterioration of liver function or declines in performance status. With recent approvals of several systemic therapy options, including immunotherapy, it is vital to conduct a risk-benefit assessment prior to repeating TACE after failure, so that patients are not denied the use of available systemic therapeutic options due to declined performance status or organ function from these procedures. The optimal timing and the sequence of systemic and locoregional therapy must be carefully evaluated by a multidisciplinary team.
• Conclusion: Randomized clinical trials to improve patient selection and determine the proper sequence of treatments are needed. Given the heterogeneity of HCC, molecular profiling of the tumor to differentiate responders from nonresponders may elucidate potential biomarkers to effectively guide treatment recommendations.

Keywords: liver cancer; molecular therapy; immunotherapy.

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) represents 90% of primary liver malignancies. It is the fifth most common malignancy in males and the ninth most common in females worldwide.¹ In contrast to other major cancers (colon, breast, prostate), the incidence of and mortality from HCC has increased over the past decade, following a brief decline between 1999 and 2004.² The epidemiology and incidence of HCC is closely linked to chronic liver disease and conditions predisposing to liver cirrhosis. Worldwide, hepatitis B virus infection is the leading cause of liver cirrhosis and, hence, HCC. In the United States, 50% of HCC cases are linked to hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection. Diabetes mellitus and alcoholic and nonalcoholic steatohepatitis are the other major etiologies of HCC. Indeed, the metabolic syndrome, independent of other factors, is associated with a 2-fold increase in the risk of HCC.³

Although most cases of HCC are predated by liver cirrhosis, in about 20% of patients HCC occurs without liver cirrhosis.⁴ Similar to other malignancies, surgery in the form of resection (for isolated lesions in the context of good liver function) or liver transplant (for low-volume disease with mildly impaired liver function) provides the best chance of a cure. Locoregional therapies involving hepatic artery–directed therapy are offered for patients with more advanced disease that is limited to the liver, while systemic therapy is offered for advanced unresectable disease that involves portal vein invasion, lymph nodes, and distant metastasis. The Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC) staging system is the most widely used for staging and treatment in HCC. It not only considers the size of the tumor, but also incorporates the degree of liver dysfunction and the patient’s functional status.^5,6

Molecular Pathogenesis

Similar to other malignancies, a multistep process of carcinogenesis, with accumulation of genomic alterations at the molecular and cellular levels, is recognized in HCC. In about 80% of cases, repeated and chronic injury, inflammation, and repair lead to a distortion of normal liver architecture and development of cirrhotic nodules. Exome sequencing of HCC tissues has identified risk factor–specific mutational signatures, including those related to the tumor microenvironment, and defined the extensive landscape of altered genes and pathways in HCC (eg, angiogenic and MET pathways).⁷ In the Schulze et al study, the frequency of alterations that could be targeted by available Food and Drug Administration (FDA)–approved drugs comprised either amplifications or mutations of FLTs (6%), FGF3 or 4 or 19 (4%), PDGFRs (3%), VEGFA (1%), HGF (3%), MTOR (2%), EGFR (1%), FGFRs (1%), and MET (1%).⁷ Epigenetic modification of growth-factor expression, particularly insulin-like growth factor 2 and transforming growth factor alpha, and structural alterations that lead to loss of heterozygosity are early events that cause hepatocyte proliferation and progression of dysplastic nodules.^8,9 Advances in whole-exome sequencing have identified TERT promoter mutations, leading to activation of telomerase, as an early event in HCC pathogenesis. Other commonly altered genes include CTNNB1 (B-Catenin) and TP53. As a group, alterations in the MAP kinase pathway genes occur in about 40% of HCC cases.

Actionable oncogenic driver alterations are not as common as tumor suppressor pathway alterations in HCC, making targeted drug development challenging.^10,11 The FGFR (fibroblast growth factor receptor) pathway, which plays a critical role in carcinogenesis-related cell growth, survival, neo-angiogenesis, and acquired resistance to other cancer treatments, is being explored as a treatment target.¹² The molecular characterization of HCC may help with identifying new biomarkers and present opportunities for developing therapeutic targets.

CASE PRESENTATION

A 61-year-old man with a history of chronic hepatitis C and hypertension presents to his primary care physician due to right upper quadrant pain. Laboratory evaluation shows transaminases elevated 2 times the upper limit of normal. This leads to an ultrasound and follow-up magnetic resonance imaging. Imaging shows diffuse cirrhotic changes, with a 6-cm, well-circumscribed lesion within the left lobe of the liver that shows rapid arterial enhancement with venous washout. These vascular characteristics are consistent with HCC. In addition, 2 satellite lesions in the left lobe and sonographic evidence of invasion into the portal vein are present. Periportal lymph nodes are pathologically enlarged.

The physical examination is unremarkable, except for mild tenderness over the right upper quadrant of the abdomen. Serum bilirubin, albumin, platelets, and international normalized ratio are normal, and alpha fetoprotein (AFP) is elevated at 1769 ng/mL. The patient’s family history is unremarkable for any major illness or cancer. Computed tomography scan of the chest and pelvis shows no evidence of other lesions. His liver disease is classified as Child–Pugh A. Due to locally advanced presentation, the tumor is deemed to be nontransplantable and unresectable, and is staged as BCLC-C. The patient continues to work and his performance status is ECOG (Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group) 0. He is referred to the liver tumor clinic for further evaluation and management. The tumor board consensus is to initiate systemic treatment.

What systemic treatment would you recommend for this patient with locally advanced unresectable HCC with nodal metastasis?

First-Line Therapeutic Options

Systemic treatment of HCC is challenging because of the underlying liver cirrhosis and hepatic dysfunction present in most patients. Overall prognosis is therefore dependent on the disease biology and burden and on the degree of hepatic dysfunction. These factors must be considered in patients with advanced disease who present for systemic therapy. As such, patients with BCLC class D HCC with poor performance status and impaired liver function are better off with best supportive care and hospice services (Figure). Table 1 and Table 2 outline the landmark trials that led to the approval of agents for advanced HCC treatment.

Sorafenib

In the patient with BCLC class C HCC who has preserved liver function (traditionally based on a Child–Pugh score of ≤ 6 and a decent functional status [ECOG performance status 1-2]), sorafenib is the first FDA-approved first-line treatment. Sorafenib is a small-molecule tyrosine kinase inhibitor that targets vascular endothelial growth factor receptor (VEGFR) kinase signaling, in addition to many other tyrosine kinase pathways (including the platelet-derived growth factor and Raf-Ras pathways). Evidence for the clinical benefit of sorafenib comes from the SHARP trial.¹³ This was a multinational, but primarily European, randomized phase 3 study that compared sorafenib to best supportive care for advanced HCC in patients with a Child–Pugh score ≤ 6A and a robust performance status (ECOG 0 and 1). Overall survival (OS) with placebo and sorafenib was 7.9 months and 10.7 months, respectively. There was no difference in time to radiologic progression, and the progression-free survival (PFS) at 4 months was 62% with sorafenib and 42% with placebo. Patients with HCV-associated HCC appeared to derive a more substantial benefit from sorafenib.¹⁴ In a smaller randomized study of sorafenib in Asian patients with predominantly hepatitis B–associated HCC, OS in the sorafenib and best supportive care arms was lower than that reported in the SHARP study (6.5 months vs 4.2 months), although OS still was longer in the sorafenib group.¹⁵

Significant adverse events reported with sorafenib include fatigue (30%), hand and foot syndrome (30%), diarrhea (15%), and mucositis (10%). Major proportions of patients in the clinical setting have not tolerated the standard dose of 400 mg twice daily. Dose-adjusted administration of sorafenib has been advocated in patients with more impaired liver function (Child–Pugh class 7B) and bilirubin of 1.5 to 3 times the upper limit of normal, although it is unclear whether these patients are deriving any benefit from sorafenib.¹⁶ At this time, in a patient with preserved liver function, starting with 400 mg twice daily, followed by dose reduction based on toxicity, remains standard.

Lenvatinib

After multiple attempts to develop newer first-line treatments for HCC, lenvatinib, another small-molecule multikinase inhibitor of VEGFR signaling, was approved by the FDA in August 2018. Approval was based on a noninferiority study of lenvatinib versus sorafenib in patients with unresectable, treatment-naïve HCC who had preserved liver function and excellent performance status.¹⁷ Lenvatinib was noninferior to sorafenib, with an OS of 13.6 months versus 12.3 months for sorafenib. Lenvatinib was associated with an improved response rate (24% vs 9%), increased time to disease progression, and longer PFS (7.3 months vs 3.6 months). Patients with a performance status of 0 and 1 were allowed in this trial. Lenvatinib is associated with a more favorable adverse effect profile and is desirable in patients in whom tumor shrinkage is important. Compared to those treated with sorafenib, patients treated with lenvatinib reported a somewhat higher incidence of higher-grade hypertension (42% vs 30%), loss of appetite (34% vs 27%), and weight loss (31%), but lower rates of diarrhea (39% vs 46%) and skin toxicity (27% vs 52%).

Following the sorafenib approval, clinical studies of several other agents did not meet their primary endpoint and failed to show improvement in clinical outcomes compared to sorafenib. However, over the past years the treatment landscape for advanced HCC has been changed with the approval of several agents in the second line. The overall response rate (ORR) has become the new theme for management of advanced disease. With multiple therapeutic options available, optimal sequencing now plays a critical role, especially for transitioning from locoregional to systemic therapy. Five drugs are now indicated for second-line treatment of patients who progressed on or were intolerant to sorafenib: regorafenib, cabozantinib, ramucirumab, nivolumab, and pembrolizumab.

Regorafenib

Regorafenib was evaluated in the advanced HCC setting in a single-arm, phase 2 trial involving 36 patients with Child–Pugh class A liver disease who had progressed on prior sorafenib.¹⁸ Patients received regorafenib 160 mg orally once daily for 3 weeks on/1 week off cycles. Disease control was achieved in 72% of patients, with stable disease in 25 patients (69%). Based on these results, regorafenib was further evaluated in the multicenter, phase 3, 2:1 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled RESORCE study, which enrolled 573 patients.¹⁹ Due to the overlapping safety profiles of sorafenib and regorafenib, the inclusion criteria required patients to have tolerated a sorafenib dose of at least 400 mg daily for 20 of the past 28 days of treatment prior to enrollment. The primary endpoint of the study, OS, was met (median OS of 10.6 months in regorafenib arm versus 7.8 months in placebo arm; hazard ratio [HR], 0.63; P < 0.0001). Serious adverse events occurred in 44% of the patients who received regorafenib; the most common were hypertension (15%), hand-foot-skin reaction (HFSR, 13%), fatigue (9%), bleeding events (6%), and diarrhea (3%). Seven (2%) deaths in the regorafenib group were attributable to this drug. HFSR due to regorafenib was found to be associated with better survival outcomes.²⁰ In the selected subpopulation for the study, treatment with the sequence of sorafenib followed by regorafenib resulted in a median OS of 26 months.²¹

Cabozantinib

CELESTIAL was a phase 3, double-blind study that assessed the efficacy of cabozantinib versus placebo in patients with advanced HCC who had received prior sorafenib.²² In this study, 707 patients with Child–Pugh class A liver disease who progressed on at least 1 prior systemic therapy were randomized in a 2:1 ratio to treatment with cabozantinib at 60 mg daily or placebo. Patients treated with cabozantinib had a longer OS (10.2 months vs 8.0 months), resulting in a 24% reduction in the risk of death (HR, 0.76), and a longer median PFS (5.2 months versus 1.9 months). The disease control rate was higher with cabozantinib (64% vs 33%) as well. The incidence of high‐grade adverse events in the cabozantinib group was twice that of the placebo group. Common adverse events reported with cabozantinib included HFSR (17%), hypertension (16%), increased aspartate aminotransferase (12%), fatigue (10%), and diarrhea (10%). 

Ramucirumab

REACH was a phase 3 study exploring the efficacy of ramucirumab that did not meet its primary endpoint; however, the subgroup analysis in AFP-high patients showed an OS improvement with ramucirumab.²³ This led to the phase 3 REACH-2 trial, a multicenter, randomized, double-blind biomarker study in patients with advanced HCC who either progressed on or were intolerant to sorafenib and had an AFP level ≥ 400 ng/mL.²⁴ Patients were randomized to ramucirumab 8 mg/kg every 2 weeks or placebo. The study met its primary endpoint, showing improved OS (8.5 months vs 7.3 months; P = 0.0059). The most common treatment-related adverse events in the ramucirumab group were ascites (5%), hypertension (12%), asthenia (5%), malignant neoplasm progression (6%), increased aspartate aminotransferase concentration (5%), and thrombocytopenia.

Immunotherapy

HCC is considered an inflammation-induced cancer, which renders immunotherapeutic strategies more appealing. The PD-L1/PD-1 pathway is the critical immune checkpoint mechanism and is an important target for treatment. HCC uses a complex, overlapping set of mechanisms to evade cancer-specific immunity and to suppress the immune system. Initial efforts to develop immunotherapies for HCC focused on anti-PD-1 and anti-PD-L1 antibodies. CheckMate 040 evaluated nivolumab in 262 sorafenib-naïve and -treated patients with advanced HCC (98% with Child–Pugh scores of 5 or 6), with a median follow-up of 12.9 months.²⁵ In sorafenib-naïve patients (n = 80), the ORR was 23%, and the disease control rate was 63%. In sorafenib-treated patients (n = 182), the ORR was 18%. Response was not associated with PD-L1 expression. Durable objective responses, a manageable safety profile, and promising efficacy led the FDA to grant accelerated approval of nivolumab for the treatment of patients with HCC who have been previously treated with sorafenib. Based on this, the phase 3 randomized CheckMate-459 trial evaluated the efficacy of nivolumab versus sorafenib in the first-line. Median OS and ORR were better with nivolumab (16.4 months vs 14.7 months; HR 0.85; P = 0.752; and 15% [with 5 complete responses] vs 7%), as was the safety profile (22% vs 49% reporting grade 3 and 4 adverse events). ²⁶

The KEYNOTE-224 study²⁷ evaluated pembrolizumab in 104 patients with previously treated advanced HCC. This study showed an ORR of 17%, with 1 complete response and 17 partial responses. One-third of the patients had progressive disease, while 46 had stable disease. Among those who responded, 56% maintained a durable response for more than 1 year. Subsequently, in KEYNOTE 240, pembrolizumab showed an improvement in OS (13.9 months vs 10.6 months; HR, 0.78; P = 0.0238) and PFS (3.0 months versus 2.8 months; HR, 0.78; P = 0.0186) compared with placebo.²⁸ The ORR for pembrolizumab was 16.9% (95% confidence interval [CI], 12.7%-21.8%) versus 2.2% (95% CI, 0.5%-6.4%; P = 0.00001) for placebo. Mean duration of response was 13.8 months.

In the IMbrave150 trial, atezolizumab/bevacizumab combination, compared to sorafenib, had better OS (not estimable vs 13.2 months; P = 0.0006), PFS (6.8 months vs 4.5 months, P < 0.0001), and ORR (33% vs 13%, P < 0.0001), but grade 3-4 events were similar.²⁹ This combination has potential for first-line approval. The COSMIC–312 study is comparing the combination of cabozantinib and atezolizumab to sorafenib monotherapy and cabozantinib monotherapy in advanced HCC.

Resistance to immunotherapy can be extrinsic, associated with activation mechanisms of T-cells, or intrinsic, related to immune recognition, gene expression, and cell-signaling pathways.³⁰ Tumor-immune heterogeneity and antigen presentation contribute to complex resistance mechanisms.^31,32 Although clinical outcomes have improved with immune checkpoint inhibitors, the response rate is low and responses are inconsistent, likely due to an immunosuppressive tumor microenvironment.³³ Therefore, several novel combinations of checkpoint inhibitors and targeted drugs are being evaluated to bypass some of the resistance mechanisms (Table 3).

Chemotherapy

Multiple combinations of cytotoxic regimens have been evaluated, but efficacy has been modest, suggesting the limited role for traditional chemotherapy in the systemic management of advanced HCC. Response rates to chemotherapy are low and responses are not durable. Gemcitabine- and doxorubicin-based treatment and FOLFOX (5-fluorouracil, leucovorin, oxaliplatin) are some regimens that have been studied, with a median OS of less than 1 year for these regimens.^34-36 FOLFOX had a higher response rate (8.15% vs 2.67%; P = 0.02) and longer median OS (6.40 months versus 4.97 months; HR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.63-1.02; P = 0.07) than doxorubicin.³⁴ With the gemcitabine/oxaliplatin combination, ORR was 18%, with stable disease in 58% of patients, and median PFS and OS were 6.3 months and 11.5 months, respectively.³⁵ In a study that compared doxorubicin and PIAF (cisplatin/interferon a-2b/doxorubicin/5-fluorouracil), median OS was 6.83 months and 8.67 months, respectively (P = 0.83). The hazard ratio for death from any cause in the PIAF group compared with the doxorubicin group was 0.97 (95% CI, 0.71-1.32). PIAF had a higher ORR (20.9%; 95% CI, 12.5%-29.2%) than doxorubicin (10.5%; 95% CI, 3.9%-16.9%).

The phase 3 ALLIANCE study evaluated the combination of sorafenib and doxorubicin in treatment-naïve HCC patients with Child–Pugh class A liver disease, and did not demonstrate superiority with the addition of cytotoxic chemotherapy.³⁷ Indeed, the combination of chemotherapy with sorafenib appears harmful in terms of lower OS (9.3 months vs 10.6 months; HR, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.8-1.4) and worse toxicity. Patients treated with the combination experienced more hematologic (37.8% vs 8.1%) and nonhematologic adverse events (63.6% vs 61.5%).

Locoregional Therapy

The role of locoregional therapy in advanced HCC remains the subject of intense debate. Patients with BCLC stage C HCC with metastatic disease and those with lymph node involvement are candidates for systemic therapy. The optimal candidate for locoregional therapy is the patient with localized intermediate-stage disease, particularly hepatic artery–delivered therapeutic interventions. However, the presence of a solitary large tumor or portal vein involvement constitutes gray areas regarding which therapy to deliver directly to the tumor via the hepatic artery, and increasingly stereotactic body radiation therapy is being offered.

Transarterial Chemoembolization

Transarterial chemoembolization (TACE), with or without chemotherapy, is the most widely adopted locoregional therapy in the management of HCC. TACE exploits the differential vascular supply to the HCC and normal liver parenchyma. Normal liver receives only one-fourth of its blood supply from the hepatic artery (three-fourths from the portal vein), whereas HCC is mainly supplied by the hepatic artery. A survival benefit for TACE compared to best supportive care is widely acknowledged for intermediate-stage HCC, and transarterial embolization (TAE) with gelatin sponge or microspheres is noninferior to TACE.^38,39 Overall safety profile and efficacy inform therapy selection in advanced HCC, although the evidence for TACE in advanced HCC is less robust. Although single-institution experiences suggest survival numbers similar to and even superior to sorafenib,^40,41 there is a scarcity of large randomized clinical trial data to back this up. Based on this, patients with advanced HCC should only be offered liver-directed therapy within a clinical trial or on a case-by-case basis under multidisciplinary tumor board consensus.

A serious adverse effect of TACE is post-embolization syndrome, which occurs in about 30% of patients and may be associated with poor prognosis.⁴² The syndrome consists of right upper quadrant abdominal pain, malaise, and worsening nausea/vomiting following the embolization procedure. Laboratory abnormalities and other complications may persist for up to 30 days after the procedure. This is a concern, because post-embolization syndrome may affect the ability to deliver systemic therapy.

Transarterial Radioembolization

In the past few years, there has been an uptick in the utilization of transarterial radioembolization (TARE), which instead of delivering glass beads, as done in TAE, or chemotherapy-infused beads, as done in TACE, delivers the radioisotope Y-90 to the tumor via the hepatic artery. TARE is able to administer larger doses of radiation to the tumor while avoiding normal liver tissue, as compared to external-beam radiation. There has been no head-to-head comparison of these different intra-arterial therapy approaches, but TARE with Y-90 has been shown to be safe in patients with portal vein thrombosis. A recent multicenter retrospective study of TARE demonstrated a median OS of 8.8 to 10.8 months in patients with BCLC C HCC,⁴³ and in a large randomized study of Y-90 compared to sorafenib in advanced and previously treated intermediate HCC, there was no difference in median OS between the treatment modalities (8 months for selective internal radiotherapy, 9 months for sorafenib; P = 0.18). Treatment with Y-90 was better tolerated.⁴⁴ A major impediment to the adoption of TARE is the time it takes to order, plan, and deliver Y-90 to patients. Radio-embolization-induced liver disease, similar to post-embolization syndrome, is characterized by jaundice and ascites, which may occur 4 to 8 weeks postprocedure and is more common in patients with HCC who do not have cirrhosis. Compared to TACE, TARE may offer a better adverse effect profile, with improvement in quality of life.

Combination of Systemic and Locoregional Therapy

Even in carefully selected patients with intermediate- and advanced-stage HCC, locoregional therapy is not curative. Tumor embolization may promote more angiogenesis, and hence tumor progression, by causing hypoxia and upregulation of hypoxia-inducible factor.⁴⁵ This upregulation of angiogenesis as a resistance mechanism to tumor embolization provides a rationale for combining systemic therapy (typically based on abrogating angiogenesis) with TACE/TAE. Most of the experience has been with sorafenib in intermediate-stage disease, and the results have been disappointing. The administration of sorafenib after at least a partial response with TACE did not provide additional benefit in terms of time to progression.⁴⁶ Similarly, in the SPACE trial, concurrent therapy with TACE-doxorubicin-eluting beads and sorafenib compared to TACE-doxorubicin-eluting beads and placebo yielded similar time to progression numbers for both treatment modalities.⁴⁷ While the data have been disappointing in intermediate-stage disease, as described earlier, registry data suggest that patients with advanced-stage disease may benefit from this approach.⁴⁸

In the phase 2 TACTICS trial, 156 patients with unresectable HCC were randomized to receive TACE alone or sorafenib plus TACE, with a novel endpoint, time to untreatable progression (TTUP) and/or progression to TACE refractoriness.⁴⁹ Treatment with sorafenib following TACE was continued until TTUP, decline in liver function to Child–Pugh class C, or the development of vascular invasion or extrahepatic spread. Development of new lesions while on sorafenib was not considered as progressive disease as long as the lesions were amenable to TACE. In this study, PFS was longer with sorafenib-TACE compared to TACE alone (26.7 months vs 20.6 months; P = 0.02). However, the TTUP endpoint needs further validation, and we are still awaiting the survival outcomes of this study. At this time, there are insufficient data to recommend the combination of liver-directed locoregional therapy and sorafenib or other systemic therapy options outside of a clinical trial setting.

Current Treatment Approach for Advanced HCC (BCLC-C)

Although progress is being made in the development of effective therapies, advanced HCC is generally incurable. These patients experience significant symptom burden throughout the course of the disease. Therefore, the optimal treatment plan must focus on improving or maintaining quality of life, in addition to overall efficacy. It is important to actively involve patients in treatment decisions for an individualized treatment plan, and to discuss the best strategy for incorporating current advances in targeted and immunotherapies. The paradigm of what constitutes first-line treatment for advanced HCC is shifting due to the recent systemic therapy approvals. Prior to the availability of these therapies, many patients with advanced HCC were treated with repeated locoregional therapies. For instance, TACE was often used to treat unresectable HCC multiple times beyond progression. There was no consensus on the definition of TACE failure, and hence it was used in broader, unselected populations. Retrospective studies suggest that continuing TACE after refractoriness or failure may not be beneficial, and may delay subsequent treatments because of deterioration of liver function or declines in performance status. With recent approvals of several systemic therapy options, including immunotherapy, it is vital to conduct a risk-benefit assessment prior to repeating TACE after failure, so that patients are not denied the use of available systemic therapeutic options due to declined performance status or organ function from these procedures. The optimal timing and the sequence of systemic and locoregional therapy must be carefully evaluated by a multidisciplinary team.

CASE CONCLUSION

An important part of evaluating a new patient with HCC is to determine whether they are a candidate for curative therapies, such as transplant or surgical resection. These are no longer an option for patients with intermediate disease. For patients with advanced disease characteristics, such as vascular invasion or systemic metastasis, the evidence supports using systemic therapy with sorafenib or lenvatinib. Lenvatinib, with a better tolerance profile and response rate, is the treatment of choice for the patient described in the case scenario. Lenvatinib is also indicated for first-line treatment of advanced HCC, and is useful in very aggressive tumors, such as those with an AFP level exceeding 200 ng/mL.

Future Directions

The emerging role of novel systemic therapeutics, including immunotherapy, has drastically changed the treatment landscape for hepatocellular cancers, with 6 new drugs for treating advanced hepatocellular cancers approved recently. While these systemic drugs have improved survival in advanced HCC in the past decade, patient selection and treatment sequencing remain a challenge, due to a lack of biomarkers capable of predicting antitumor responses. In addition, there is an unmet need for treatment options for patients with Child–Pugh class B7 and C liver disease and poor performance status.

The goal of future management should be to achieve personalized care aimed at improved safety and efficacy by targeting multiple cancer pathways in the HCC cascade with combination treatments. Randomized clinical trials to improve patient selection and determine the proper sequence of treatments are needed. Given the heterogeneity of HCC, molecular profiling of the tumor to differentiate responders from nonresponders may elucidate potential biomarkers to effectively guide treatment recommendations.

From the University of Alabama at Birmingham, Division of Hematology Oncology, Birmingham, AL, and the University of South Alabama, Division of Hematology Oncology, Mobile, AL. Dr. Paluri and Dr. Hatic contributed equally to this article.

Abstract

• Objective: To review systemic treatment options for patients with locally advanced unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).
• Methods: Review of the literature.
• Results: The paradigm of what constitutes first-line treatment for advanced HCC is shifting. Until recently, many patients with advanced HCC were treated with repeated locoregional therapies, such as transartertial embolization (TACE). However, retrospective studies suggest that continuing TACE after refractoriness or failure may not be beneficial and may delay subsequent treatments because of deterioration of liver function or declines in performance status. With recent approvals of several systemic therapy options, including immunotherapy, it is vital to conduct a risk-benefit assessment prior to repeating TACE after failure, so that patients are not denied the use of available systemic therapeutic options due to declined performance status or organ function from these procedures. The optimal timing and the sequence of systemic and locoregional therapy must be carefully evaluated by a multidisciplinary team.
• Conclusion: Randomized clinical trials to improve patient selection and determine the proper sequence of treatments are needed. Given the heterogeneity of HCC, molecular profiling of the tumor to differentiate responders from nonresponders may elucidate potential biomarkers to effectively guide treatment recommendations.

Keywords: liver cancer; molecular therapy; immunotherapy.

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) represents 90% of primary liver malignancies. It is the fifth most common malignancy in males and the ninth most common in females worldwide.¹ In contrast to other major cancers (colon, breast, prostate), the incidence of and mortality from HCC has increased over the past decade, following a brief decline between 1999 and 2004.² The epidemiology and incidence of HCC is closely linked to chronic liver disease and conditions predisposing to liver cirrhosis. Worldwide, hepatitis B virus infection is the leading cause of liver cirrhosis and, hence, HCC. In the United States, 50% of HCC cases are linked to hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection. Diabetes mellitus and alcoholic and nonalcoholic steatohepatitis are the other major etiologies of HCC. Indeed, the metabolic syndrome, independent of other factors, is associated with a 2-fold increase in the risk of HCC.³

Although most cases of HCC are predated by liver cirrhosis, in about 20% of patients HCC occurs without liver cirrhosis.⁴ Similar to other malignancies, surgery in the form of resection (for isolated lesions in the context of good liver function) or liver transplant (for low-volume disease with mildly impaired liver function) provides the best chance of a cure. Locoregional therapies involving hepatic artery–directed therapy are offered for patients with more advanced disease that is limited to the liver, while systemic therapy is offered for advanced unresectable disease that involves portal vein invasion, lymph nodes, and distant metastasis. The Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC) staging system is the most widely used for staging and treatment in HCC. It not only considers the size of the tumor, but also incorporates the degree of liver dysfunction and the patient’s functional status.^5,6

Molecular Pathogenesis

Similar to other malignancies, a multistep process of carcinogenesis, with accumulation of genomic alterations at the molecular and cellular levels, is recognized in HCC. In about 80% of cases, repeated and chronic injury, inflammation, and repair lead to a distortion of normal liver architecture and development of cirrhotic nodules. Exome sequencing of HCC tissues has identified risk factor–specific mutational signatures, including those related to the tumor microenvironment, and defined the extensive landscape of altered genes and pathways in HCC (eg, angiogenic and MET pathways).⁷ In the Schulze et al study, the frequency of alterations that could be targeted by available Food and Drug Administration (FDA)–approved drugs comprised either amplifications or mutations of FLTs (6%), FGF3 or 4 or 19 (4%), PDGFRs (3%), VEGFA (1%), HGF (3%), MTOR (2%), EGFR (1%), FGFRs (1%), and MET (1%).⁷ Epigenetic modification of growth-factor expression, particularly insulin-like growth factor 2 and transforming growth factor alpha, and structural alterations that lead to loss of heterozygosity are early events that cause hepatocyte proliferation and progression of dysplastic nodules.^8,9 Advances in whole-exome sequencing have identified TERT promoter mutations, leading to activation of telomerase, as an early event in HCC pathogenesis. Other commonly altered genes include CTNNB1 (B-Catenin) and TP53. As a group, alterations in the MAP kinase pathway genes occur in about 40% of HCC cases.

Actionable oncogenic driver alterations are not as common as tumor suppressor pathway alterations in HCC, making targeted drug development challenging.^10,11 The FGFR (fibroblast growth factor receptor) pathway, which plays a critical role in carcinogenesis-related cell growth, survival, neo-angiogenesis, and acquired resistance to other cancer treatments, is being explored as a treatment target.¹² The molecular characterization of HCC may help with identifying new biomarkers and present opportunities for developing therapeutic targets.

CASE PRESENTATION

A 61-year-old man with a history of chronic hepatitis C and hypertension presents to his primary care physician due to right upper quadrant pain. Laboratory evaluation shows transaminases elevated 2 times the upper limit of normal. This leads to an ultrasound and follow-up magnetic resonance imaging. Imaging shows diffuse cirrhotic changes, with a 6-cm, well-circumscribed lesion within the left lobe of the liver that shows rapid arterial enhancement with venous washout. These vascular characteristics are consistent with HCC. In addition, 2 satellite lesions in the left lobe and sonographic evidence of invasion into the portal vein are present. Periportal lymph nodes are pathologically enlarged.

The physical examination is unremarkable, except for mild tenderness over the right upper quadrant of the abdomen. Serum bilirubin, albumin, platelets, and international normalized ratio are normal, and alpha fetoprotein (AFP) is elevated at 1769 ng/mL. The patient’s family history is unremarkable for any major illness or cancer. Computed tomography scan of the chest and pelvis shows no evidence of other lesions. His liver disease is classified as Child–Pugh A. Due to locally advanced presentation, the tumor is deemed to be nontransplantable and unresectable, and is staged as BCLC-C. The patient continues to work and his performance status is ECOG (Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group) 0. He is referred to the liver tumor clinic for further evaluation and management. The tumor board consensus is to initiate systemic treatment.

What systemic treatment would you recommend for this patient with locally advanced unresectable HCC with nodal metastasis?

First-Line Therapeutic Options

Systemic treatment of HCC is challenging because of the underlying liver cirrhosis and hepatic dysfunction present in most patients. Overall prognosis is therefore dependent on the disease biology and burden and on the degree of hepatic dysfunction. These factors must be considered in patients with advanced disease who present for systemic therapy. As such, patients with BCLC class D HCC with poor performance status and impaired liver function are better off with best supportive care and hospice services (Figure). Table 1 and Table 2 outline the landmark trials that led to the approval of agents for advanced HCC treatment.

Sorafenib

In the patient with BCLC class C HCC who has preserved liver function (traditionally based on a Child–Pugh score of ≤ 6 and a decent functional status [ECOG performance status 1-2]), sorafenib is the first FDA-approved first-line treatment. Sorafenib is a small-molecule tyrosine kinase inhibitor that targets vascular endothelial growth factor receptor (VEGFR) kinase signaling, in addition to many other tyrosine kinase pathways (including the platelet-derived growth factor and Raf-Ras pathways). Evidence for the clinical benefit of sorafenib comes from the SHARP trial.¹³ This was a multinational, but primarily European, randomized phase 3 study that compared sorafenib to best supportive care for advanced HCC in patients with a Child–Pugh score ≤ 6A and a robust performance status (ECOG 0 and 1). Overall survival (OS) with placebo and sorafenib was 7.9 months and 10.7 months, respectively. There was no difference in time to radiologic progression, and the progression-free survival (PFS) at 4 months was 62% with sorafenib and 42% with placebo. Patients with HCV-associated HCC appeared to derive a more substantial benefit from sorafenib.¹⁴ In a smaller randomized study of sorafenib in Asian patients with predominantly hepatitis B–associated HCC, OS in the sorafenib and best supportive care arms was lower than that reported in the SHARP study (6.5 months vs 4.2 months), although OS still was longer in the sorafenib group.¹⁵

Significant adverse events reported with sorafenib include fatigue (30%), hand and foot syndrome (30%), diarrhea (15%), and mucositis (10%). Major proportions of patients in the clinical setting have not tolerated the standard dose of 400 mg twice daily. Dose-adjusted administration of sorafenib has been advocated in patients with more impaired liver function (Child–Pugh class 7B) and bilirubin of 1.5 to 3 times the upper limit of normal, although it is unclear whether these patients are deriving any benefit from sorafenib.¹⁶ At this time, in a patient with preserved liver function, starting with 400 mg twice daily, followed by dose reduction based on toxicity, remains standard.

Lenvatinib

After multiple attempts to develop newer first-line treatments for HCC, lenvatinib, another small-molecule multikinase inhibitor of VEGFR signaling, was approved by the FDA in August 2018. Approval was based on a noninferiority study of lenvatinib versus sorafenib in patients with unresectable, treatment-naïve HCC who had preserved liver function and excellent performance status.¹⁷ Lenvatinib was noninferior to sorafenib, with an OS of 13.6 months versus 12.3 months for sorafenib. Lenvatinib was associated with an improved response rate (24% vs 9%), increased time to disease progression, and longer PFS (7.3 months vs 3.6 months). Patients with a performance status of 0 and 1 were allowed in this trial. Lenvatinib is associated with a more favorable adverse effect profile and is desirable in patients in whom tumor shrinkage is important. Compared to those treated with sorafenib, patients treated with lenvatinib reported a somewhat higher incidence of higher-grade hypertension (42% vs 30%), loss of appetite (34% vs 27%), and weight loss (31%), but lower rates of diarrhea (39% vs 46%) and skin toxicity (27% vs 52%).

Following the sorafenib approval, clinical studies of several other agents did not meet their primary endpoint and failed to show improvement in clinical outcomes compared to sorafenib. However, over the past years the treatment landscape for advanced HCC has been changed with the approval of several agents in the second line. The overall response rate (ORR) has become the new theme for management of advanced disease. With multiple therapeutic options available, optimal sequencing now plays a critical role, especially for transitioning from locoregional to systemic therapy. Five drugs are now indicated for second-line treatment of patients who progressed on or were intolerant to sorafenib: regorafenib, cabozantinib, ramucirumab, nivolumab, and pembrolizumab.

Regorafenib

Regorafenib was evaluated in the advanced HCC setting in a single-arm, phase 2 trial involving 36 patients with Child–Pugh class A liver disease who had progressed on prior sorafenib.¹⁸ Patients received regorafenib 160 mg orally once daily for 3 weeks on/1 week off cycles. Disease control was achieved in 72% of patients, with stable disease in 25 patients (69%). Based on these results, regorafenib was further evaluated in the multicenter, phase 3, 2:1 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled RESORCE study, which enrolled 573 patients.¹⁹ Due to the overlapping safety profiles of sorafenib and regorafenib, the inclusion criteria required patients to have tolerated a sorafenib dose of at least 400 mg daily for 20 of the past 28 days of treatment prior to enrollment. The primary endpoint of the study, OS, was met (median OS of 10.6 months in regorafenib arm versus 7.8 months in placebo arm; hazard ratio [HR], 0.63; P < 0.0001). Serious adverse events occurred in 44% of the patients who received regorafenib; the most common were hypertension (15%), hand-foot-skin reaction (HFSR, 13%), fatigue (9%), bleeding events (6%), and diarrhea (3%). Seven (2%) deaths in the regorafenib group were attributable to this drug. HFSR due to regorafenib was found to be associated with better survival outcomes.²⁰ In the selected subpopulation for the study, treatment with the sequence of sorafenib followed by regorafenib resulted in a median OS of 26 months.²¹

Cabozantinib

CELESTIAL was a phase 3, double-blind study that assessed the efficacy of cabozantinib versus placebo in patients with advanced HCC who had received prior sorafenib.²² In this study, 707 patients with Child–Pugh class A liver disease who progressed on at least 1 prior systemic therapy were randomized in a 2:1 ratio to treatment with cabozantinib at 60 mg daily or placebo. Patients treated with cabozantinib had a longer OS (10.2 months vs 8.0 months), resulting in a 24% reduction in the risk of death (HR, 0.76), and a longer median PFS (5.2 months versus 1.9 months). The disease control rate was higher with cabozantinib (64% vs 33%) as well. The incidence of high‐grade adverse events in the cabozantinib group was twice that of the placebo group. Common adverse events reported with cabozantinib included HFSR (17%), hypertension (16%), increased aspartate aminotransferase (12%), fatigue (10%), and diarrhea (10%). 

Ramucirumab

REACH was a phase 3 study exploring the efficacy of ramucirumab that did not meet its primary endpoint; however, the subgroup analysis in AFP-high patients showed an OS improvement with ramucirumab.²³ This led to the phase 3 REACH-2 trial, a multicenter, randomized, double-blind biomarker study in patients with advanced HCC who either progressed on or were intolerant to sorafenib and had an AFP level ≥ 400 ng/mL.²⁴ Patients were randomized to ramucirumab 8 mg/kg every 2 weeks or placebo. The study met its primary endpoint, showing improved OS (8.5 months vs 7.3 months; P = 0.0059). The most common treatment-related adverse events in the ramucirumab group were ascites (5%), hypertension (12%), asthenia (5%), malignant neoplasm progression (6%), increased aspartate aminotransferase concentration (5%), and thrombocytopenia.

Immunotherapy

HCC is considered an inflammation-induced cancer, which renders immunotherapeutic strategies more appealing. The PD-L1/PD-1 pathway is the critical immune checkpoint mechanism and is an important target for treatment. HCC uses a complex, overlapping set of mechanisms to evade cancer-specific immunity and to suppress the immune system. Initial efforts to develop immunotherapies for HCC focused on anti-PD-1 and anti-PD-L1 antibodies. CheckMate 040 evaluated nivolumab in 262 sorafenib-naïve and -treated patients with advanced HCC (98% with Child–Pugh scores of 5 or 6), with a median follow-up of 12.9 months.²⁵ In sorafenib-naïve patients (n = 80), the ORR was 23%, and the disease control rate was 63%. In sorafenib-treated patients (n = 182), the ORR was 18%. Response was not associated with PD-L1 expression. Durable objective responses, a manageable safety profile, and promising efficacy led the FDA to grant accelerated approval of nivolumab for the treatment of patients with HCC who have been previously treated with sorafenib. Based on this, the phase 3 randomized CheckMate-459 trial evaluated the efficacy of nivolumab versus sorafenib in the first-line. Median OS and ORR were better with nivolumab (16.4 months vs 14.7 months; HR 0.85; P = 0.752; and 15% [with 5 complete responses] vs 7%), as was the safety profile (22% vs 49% reporting grade 3 and 4 adverse events). ²⁶

The KEYNOTE-224 study²⁷ evaluated pembrolizumab in 104 patients with previously treated advanced HCC. This study showed an ORR of 17%, with 1 complete response and 17 partial responses. One-third of the patients had progressive disease, while 46 had stable disease. Among those who responded, 56% maintained a durable response for more than 1 year. Subsequently, in KEYNOTE 240, pembrolizumab showed an improvement in OS (13.9 months vs 10.6 months; HR, 0.78; P = 0.0238) and PFS (3.0 months versus 2.8 months; HR, 0.78; P = 0.0186) compared with placebo.²⁸ The ORR for pembrolizumab was 16.9% (95% confidence interval [CI], 12.7%-21.8%) versus 2.2% (95% CI, 0.5%-6.4%; P = 0.00001) for placebo. Mean duration of response was 13.8 months.

In the IMbrave150 trial, atezolizumab/bevacizumab combination, compared to sorafenib, had better OS (not estimable vs 13.2 months; P = 0.0006), PFS (6.8 months vs 4.5 months, P < 0.0001), and ORR (33% vs 13%, P < 0.0001), but grade 3-4 events were similar.²⁹ This combination has potential for first-line approval. The COSMIC–312 study is comparing the combination of cabozantinib and atezolizumab to sorafenib monotherapy and cabozantinib monotherapy in advanced HCC.

Resistance to immunotherapy can be extrinsic, associated with activation mechanisms of T-cells, or intrinsic, related to immune recognition, gene expression, and cell-signaling pathways.³⁰ Tumor-immune heterogeneity and antigen presentation contribute to complex resistance mechanisms.^31,32 Although clinical outcomes have improved with immune checkpoint inhibitors, the response rate is low and responses are inconsistent, likely due to an immunosuppressive tumor microenvironment.³³ Therefore, several novel combinations of checkpoint inhibitors and targeted drugs are being evaluated to bypass some of the resistance mechanisms (Table 3).

Chemotherapy

Multiple combinations of cytotoxic regimens have been evaluated, but efficacy has been modest, suggesting the limited role for traditional chemotherapy in the systemic management of advanced HCC. Response rates to chemotherapy are low and responses are not durable. Gemcitabine- and doxorubicin-based treatment and FOLFOX (5-fluorouracil, leucovorin, oxaliplatin) are some regimens that have been studied, with a median OS of less than 1 year for these regimens.^34-36 FOLFOX had a higher response rate (8.15% vs 2.67%; P = 0.02) and longer median OS (6.40 months versus 4.97 months; HR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.63-1.02; P = 0.07) than doxorubicin.³⁴ With the gemcitabine/oxaliplatin combination, ORR was 18%, with stable disease in 58% of patients, and median PFS and OS were 6.3 months and 11.5 months, respectively.³⁵ In a study that compared doxorubicin and PIAF (cisplatin/interferon a-2b/doxorubicin/5-fluorouracil), median OS was 6.83 months and 8.67 months, respectively (P = 0.83). The hazard ratio for death from any cause in the PIAF group compared with the doxorubicin group was 0.97 (95% CI, 0.71-1.32). PIAF had a higher ORR (20.9%; 95% CI, 12.5%-29.2%) than doxorubicin (10.5%; 95% CI, 3.9%-16.9%).

The phase 3 ALLIANCE study evaluated the combination of sorafenib and doxorubicin in treatment-naïve HCC patients with Child–Pugh class A liver disease, and did not demonstrate superiority with the addition of cytotoxic chemotherapy.³⁷ Indeed, the combination of chemotherapy with sorafenib appears harmful in terms of lower OS (9.3 months vs 10.6 months; HR, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.8-1.4) and worse toxicity. Patients treated with the combination experienced more hematologic (37.8% vs 8.1%) and nonhematologic adverse events (63.6% vs 61.5%).

Locoregional Therapy

The role of locoregional therapy in advanced HCC remains the subject of intense debate. Patients with BCLC stage C HCC with metastatic disease and those with lymph node involvement are candidates for systemic therapy. The optimal candidate for locoregional therapy is the patient with localized intermediate-stage disease, particularly hepatic artery–delivered therapeutic interventions. However, the presence of a solitary large tumor or portal vein involvement constitutes gray areas regarding which therapy to deliver directly to the tumor via the hepatic artery, and increasingly stereotactic body radiation therapy is being offered.

Transarterial Chemoembolization

Transarterial chemoembolization (TACE), with or without chemotherapy, is the most widely adopted locoregional therapy in the management of HCC. TACE exploits the differential vascular supply to the HCC and normal liver parenchyma. Normal liver receives only one-fourth of its blood supply from the hepatic artery (three-fourths from the portal vein), whereas HCC is mainly supplied by the hepatic artery. A survival benefit for TACE compared to best supportive care is widely acknowledged for intermediate-stage HCC, and transarterial embolization (TAE) with gelatin sponge or microspheres is noninferior to TACE.^38,39 Overall safety profile and efficacy inform therapy selection in advanced HCC, although the evidence for TACE in advanced HCC is less robust. Although single-institution experiences suggest survival numbers similar to and even superior to sorafenib,^40,41 there is a scarcity of large randomized clinical trial data to back this up. Based on this, patients with advanced HCC should only be offered liver-directed therapy within a clinical trial or on a case-by-case basis under multidisciplinary tumor board consensus.

A serious adverse effect of TACE is post-embolization syndrome, which occurs in about 30% of patients and may be associated with poor prognosis.⁴² The syndrome consists of right upper quadrant abdominal pain, malaise, and worsening nausea/vomiting following the embolization procedure. Laboratory abnormalities and other complications may persist for up to 30 days after the procedure. This is a concern, because post-embolization syndrome may affect the ability to deliver systemic therapy.

Transarterial Radioembolization

In the past few years, there has been an uptick in the utilization of transarterial radioembolization (TARE), which instead of delivering glass beads, as done in TAE, or chemotherapy-infused beads, as done in TACE, delivers the radioisotope Y-90 to the tumor via the hepatic artery. TARE is able to administer larger doses of radiation to the tumor while avoiding normal liver tissue, as compared to external-beam radiation. There has been no head-to-head comparison of these different intra-arterial therapy approaches, but TARE with Y-90 has been shown to be safe in patients with portal vein thrombosis. A recent multicenter retrospective study of TARE demonstrated a median OS of 8.8 to 10.8 months in patients with BCLC C HCC,⁴³ and in a large randomized study of Y-90 compared to sorafenib in advanced and previously treated intermediate HCC, there was no difference in median OS between the treatment modalities (8 months for selective internal radiotherapy, 9 months for sorafenib; P = 0.18). Treatment with Y-90 was better tolerated.⁴⁴ A major impediment to the adoption of TARE is the time it takes to order, plan, and deliver Y-90 to patients. Radio-embolization-induced liver disease, similar to post-embolization syndrome, is characterized by jaundice and ascites, which may occur 4 to 8 weeks postprocedure and is more common in patients with HCC who do not have cirrhosis. Compared to TACE, TARE may offer a better adverse effect profile, with improvement in quality of life.

Combination of Systemic and Locoregional Therapy

Even in carefully selected patients with intermediate- and advanced-stage HCC, locoregional therapy is not curative. Tumor embolization may promote more angiogenesis, and hence tumor progression, by causing hypoxia and upregulation of hypoxia-inducible factor.⁴⁵ This upregulation of angiogenesis as a resistance mechanism to tumor embolization provides a rationale for combining systemic therapy (typically based on abrogating angiogenesis) with TACE/TAE. Most of the experience has been with sorafenib in intermediate-stage disease, and the results have been disappointing. The administration of sorafenib after at least a partial response with TACE did not provide additional benefit in terms of time to progression.⁴⁶ Similarly, in the SPACE trial, concurrent therapy with TACE-doxorubicin-eluting beads and sorafenib compared to TACE-doxorubicin-eluting beads and placebo yielded similar time to progression numbers for both treatment modalities.⁴⁷ While the data have been disappointing in intermediate-stage disease, as described earlier, registry data suggest that patients with advanced-stage disease may benefit from this approach.⁴⁸

In the phase 2 TACTICS trial, 156 patients with unresectable HCC were randomized to receive TACE alone or sorafenib plus TACE, with a novel endpoint, time to untreatable progression (TTUP) and/or progression to TACE refractoriness.⁴⁹ Treatment with sorafenib following TACE was continued until TTUP, decline in liver function to Child–Pugh class C, or the development of vascular invasion or extrahepatic spread. Development of new lesions while on sorafenib was not considered as progressive disease as long as the lesions were amenable to TACE. In this study, PFS was longer with sorafenib-TACE compared to TACE alone (26.7 months vs 20.6 months; P = 0.02). However, the TTUP endpoint needs further validation, and we are still awaiting the survival outcomes of this study. At this time, there are insufficient data to recommend the combination of liver-directed locoregional therapy and sorafenib or other systemic therapy options outside of a clinical trial setting.

Current Treatment Approach for Advanced HCC (BCLC-C)

Although progress is being made in the development of effective therapies, advanced HCC is generally incurable. These patients experience significant symptom burden throughout the course of the disease. Therefore, the optimal treatment plan must focus on improving or maintaining quality of life, in addition to overall efficacy. It is important to actively involve patients in treatment decisions for an individualized treatment plan, and to discuss the best strategy for incorporating current advances in targeted and immunotherapies. The paradigm of what constitutes first-line treatment for advanced HCC is shifting due to the recent systemic therapy approvals. Prior to the availability of these therapies, many patients with advanced HCC were treated with repeated locoregional therapies. For instance, TACE was often used to treat unresectable HCC multiple times beyond progression. There was no consensus on the definition of TACE failure, and hence it was used in broader, unselected populations. Retrospective studies suggest that continuing TACE after refractoriness or failure may not be beneficial, and may delay subsequent treatments because of deterioration of liver function or declines in performance status. With recent approvals of several systemic therapy options, including immunotherapy, it is vital to conduct a risk-benefit assessment prior to repeating TACE after failure, so that patients are not denied the use of available systemic therapeutic options due to declined performance status or organ function from these procedures. The optimal timing and the sequence of systemic and locoregional therapy must be carefully evaluated by a multidisciplinary team.

CASE CONCLUSION

An important part of evaluating a new patient with HCC is to determine whether they are a candidate for curative therapies, such as transplant or surgical resection. These are no longer an option for patients with intermediate disease. For patients with advanced disease characteristics, such as vascular invasion or systemic metastasis, the evidence supports using systemic therapy with sorafenib or lenvatinib. Lenvatinib, with a better tolerance profile and response rate, is the treatment of choice for the patient described in the case scenario. Lenvatinib is also indicated for first-line treatment of advanced HCC, and is useful in very aggressive tumors, such as those with an AFP level exceeding 200 ng/mL.

Future Directions

The emerging role of novel systemic therapeutics, including immunotherapy, has drastically changed the treatment landscape for hepatocellular cancers, with 6 new drugs for treating advanced hepatocellular cancers approved recently. While these systemic drugs have improved survival in advanced HCC in the past decade, patient selection and treatment sequencing remain a challenge, due to a lack of biomarkers capable of predicting antitumor responses. In addition, there is an unmet need for treatment options for patients with Child–Pugh class B7 and C liver disease and poor performance status.

The goal of future management should be to achieve personalized care aimed at improved safety and efficacy by targeting multiple cancer pathways in the HCC cascade with combination treatments. Randomized clinical trials to improve patient selection and determine the proper sequence of treatments are needed. Given the heterogeneity of HCC, molecular profiling of the tumor to differentiate responders from nonresponders may elucidate potential biomarkers to effectively guide treatment recommendations.

From the University of Alabama at Birmingham, Division of Hematology Oncology, Birmingham, AL, and the University of South Alabama, Division of Hematology Oncology, Mobile, AL. Dr. Paluri and Dr. Hatic contributed equally to this article.

Abstract

• Objective: To review systemic treatment options for patients with locally advanced unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).
• Methods: Review of the literature.
• Results: The paradigm of what constitutes first-line treatment for advanced HCC is shifting. Until recently, many patients with advanced HCC were treated with repeated locoregional therapies, such as transartertial embolization (TACE). However, retrospective studies suggest that continuing TACE after refractoriness or failure may not be beneficial and may delay subsequent treatments because of deterioration of liver function or declines in performance status. With recent approvals of several systemic therapy options, including immunotherapy, it is vital to conduct a risk-benefit assessment prior to repeating TACE after failure, so that patients are not denied the use of available systemic therapeutic options due to declined performance status or organ function from these procedures. The optimal timing and the sequence of systemic and locoregional therapy must be carefully evaluated by a multidisciplinary team.
• Conclusion: Randomized clinical trials to improve patient selection and determine the proper sequence of treatments are needed. Given the heterogeneity of HCC, molecular profiling of the tumor to differentiate responders from nonresponders may elucidate potential biomarkers to effectively guide treatment recommendations.

Keywords: liver cancer; molecular therapy; immunotherapy.

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) represents 90% of primary liver malignancies. It is the fifth most common malignancy in males and the ninth most common in females worldwide.¹ In contrast to other major cancers (colon, breast, prostate), the incidence of and mortality from HCC has increased over the past decade, following a brief decline between 1999 and 2004.² The epidemiology and incidence of HCC is closely linked to chronic liver disease and conditions predisposing to liver cirrhosis. Worldwide, hepatitis B virus infection is the leading cause of liver cirrhosis and, hence, HCC. In the United States, 50% of HCC cases are linked to hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection. Diabetes mellitus and alcoholic and nonalcoholic steatohepatitis are the other major etiologies of HCC. Indeed, the metabolic syndrome, independent of other factors, is associated with a 2-fold increase in the risk of HCC.³

Although most cases of HCC are predated by liver cirrhosis, in about 20% of patients HCC occurs without liver cirrhosis.⁴ Similar to other malignancies, surgery in the form of resection (for isolated lesions in the context of good liver function) or liver transplant (for low-volume disease with mildly impaired liver function) provides the best chance of a cure. Locoregional therapies involving hepatic artery–directed therapy are offered for patients with more advanced disease that is limited to the liver, while systemic therapy is offered for advanced unresectable disease that involves portal vein invasion, lymph nodes, and distant metastasis. The Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC) staging system is the most widely used for staging and treatment in HCC. It not only considers the size of the tumor, but also incorporates the degree of liver dysfunction and the patient’s functional status.^5,6

Molecular Pathogenesis

Similar to other malignancies, a multistep process of carcinogenesis, with accumulation of genomic alterations at the molecular and cellular levels, is recognized in HCC. In about 80% of cases, repeated and chronic injury, inflammation, and repair lead to a distortion of normal liver architecture and development of cirrhotic nodules. Exome sequencing of HCC tissues has identified risk factor–specific mutational signatures, including those related to the tumor microenvironment, and defined the extensive landscape of altered genes and pathways in HCC (eg, angiogenic and MET pathways).⁷ In the Schulze et al study, the frequency of alterations that could be targeted by available Food and Drug Administration (FDA)–approved drugs comprised either amplifications or mutations of FLTs (6%), FGF3 or 4 or 19 (4%), PDGFRs (3%), VEGFA (1%), HGF (3%), MTOR (2%), EGFR (1%), FGFRs (1%), and MET (1%).⁷ Epigenetic modification of growth-factor expression, particularly insulin-like growth factor 2 and transforming growth factor alpha, and structural alterations that lead to loss of heterozygosity are early events that cause hepatocyte proliferation and progression of dysplastic nodules.^8,9 Advances in whole-exome sequencing have identified TERT promoter mutations, leading to activation of telomerase, as an early event in HCC pathogenesis. Other commonly altered genes include CTNNB1 (B-Catenin) and TP53. As a group, alterations in the MAP kinase pathway genes occur in about 40% of HCC cases.

Actionable oncogenic driver alterations are not as common as tumor suppressor pathway alterations in HCC, making targeted drug development challenging.^10,11 The FGFR (fibroblast growth factor receptor) pathway, which plays a critical role in carcinogenesis-related cell growth, survival, neo-angiogenesis, and acquired resistance to other cancer treatments, is being explored as a treatment target.¹² The molecular characterization of HCC may help with identifying new biomarkers and present opportunities for developing therapeutic targets.

CASE PRESENTATION

A 61-year-old man with a history of chronic hepatitis C and hypertension presents to his primary care physician due to right upper quadrant pain. Laboratory evaluation shows transaminases elevated 2 times the upper limit of normal. This leads to an ultrasound and follow-up magnetic resonance imaging. Imaging shows diffuse cirrhotic changes, with a 6-cm, well-circumscribed lesion within the left lobe of the liver that shows rapid arterial enhancement with venous washout. These vascular characteristics are consistent with HCC. In addition, 2 satellite lesions in the left lobe and sonographic evidence of invasion into the portal vein are present. Periportal lymph nodes are pathologically enlarged.

The physical examination is unremarkable, except for mild tenderness over the right upper quadrant of the abdomen. Serum bilirubin, albumin, platelets, and international normalized ratio are normal, and alpha fetoprotein (AFP) is elevated at 1769 ng/mL. The patient’s family history is unremarkable for any major illness or cancer. Computed tomography scan of the chest and pelvis shows no evidence of other lesions. His liver disease is classified as Child–Pugh A. Due to locally advanced presentation, the tumor is deemed to be nontransplantable and unresectable, and is staged as BCLC-C. The patient continues to work and his performance status is ECOG (Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group) 0. He is referred to the liver tumor clinic for further evaluation and management. The tumor board consensus is to initiate systemic treatment.

What systemic treatment would you recommend for this patient with locally advanced unresectable HCC with nodal metastasis?

First-Line Therapeutic Options

Systemic treatment of HCC is challenging because of the underlying liver cirrhosis and hepatic dysfunction present in most patients. Overall prognosis is therefore dependent on the disease biology and burden and on the degree of hepatic dysfunction. These factors must be considered in patients with advanced disease who present for systemic therapy. As such, patients with BCLC class D HCC with poor performance status and impaired liver function are better off with best supportive care and hospice services (Figure). Table 1 and Table 2 outline the landmark trials that led to the approval of agents for advanced HCC treatment.

Sorafenib

In the patient with BCLC class C HCC who has preserved liver function (traditionally based on a Child–Pugh score of ≤ 6 and a decent functional status [ECOG performance status 1-2]), sorafenib is the first FDA-approved first-line treatment. Sorafenib is a small-molecule tyrosine kinase inhibitor that targets vascular endothelial growth factor receptor (VEGFR) kinase signaling, in addition to many other tyrosine kinase pathways (including the platelet-derived growth factor and Raf-Ras pathways). Evidence for the clinical benefit of sorafenib comes from the SHARP trial.¹³ This was a multinational, but primarily European, randomized phase 3 study that compared sorafenib to best supportive care for advanced HCC in patients with a Child–Pugh score ≤ 6A and a robust performance status (ECOG 0 and 1). Overall survival (OS) with placebo and sorafenib was 7.9 months and 10.7 months, respectively. There was no difference in time to radiologic progression, and the progression-free survival (PFS) at 4 months was 62% with sorafenib and 42% with placebo. Patients with HCV-associated HCC appeared to derive a more substantial benefit from sorafenib.¹⁴ In a smaller randomized study of sorafenib in Asian patients with predominantly hepatitis B–associated HCC, OS in the sorafenib and best supportive care arms was lower than that reported in the SHARP study (6.5 months vs 4.2 months), although OS still was longer in the sorafenib group.¹⁵

Significant adverse events reported with sorafenib include fatigue (30%), hand and foot syndrome (30%), diarrhea (15%), and mucositis (10%). Major proportions of patients in the clinical setting have not tolerated the standard dose of 400 mg twice daily. Dose-adjusted administration of sorafenib has been advocated in patients with more impaired liver function (Child–Pugh class 7B) and bilirubin of 1.5 to 3 times the upper limit of normal, although it is unclear whether these patients are deriving any benefit from sorafenib.¹⁶ At this time, in a patient with preserved liver function, starting with 400 mg twice daily, followed by dose reduction based on toxicity, remains standard.

Lenvatinib

After multiple attempts to develop newer first-line treatments for HCC, lenvatinib, another small-molecule multikinase inhibitor of VEGFR signaling, was approved by the FDA in August 2018. Approval was based on a noninferiority study of lenvatinib versus sorafenib in patients with unresectable, treatment-naïve HCC who had preserved liver function and excellent performance status.¹⁷ Lenvatinib was noninferior to sorafenib, with an OS of 13.6 months versus 12.3 months for sorafenib. Lenvatinib was associated with an improved response rate (24% vs 9%), increased time to disease progression, and longer PFS (7.3 months vs 3.6 months). Patients with a performance status of 0 and 1 were allowed in this trial. Lenvatinib is associated with a more favorable adverse effect profile and is desirable in patients in whom tumor shrinkage is important. Compared to those treated with sorafenib, patients treated with lenvatinib reported a somewhat higher incidence of higher-grade hypertension (42% vs 30%), loss of appetite (34% vs 27%), and weight loss (31%), but lower rates of diarrhea (39% vs 46%) and skin toxicity (27% vs 52%).

Following the sorafenib approval, clinical studies of several other agents did not meet their primary endpoint and failed to show improvement in clinical outcomes compared to sorafenib. However, over the past years the treatment landscape for advanced HCC has been changed with the approval of several agents in the second line. The overall response rate (ORR) has become the new theme for management of advanced disease. With multiple therapeutic options available, optimal sequencing now plays a critical role, especially for transitioning from locoregional to systemic therapy. Five drugs are now indicated for second-line treatment of patients who progressed on or were intolerant to sorafenib: regorafenib, cabozantinib, ramucirumab, nivolumab, and pembrolizumab.

Regorafenib

Regorafenib was evaluated in the advanced HCC setting in a single-arm, phase 2 trial involving 36 patients with Child–Pugh class A liver disease who had progressed on prior sorafenib.¹⁸ Patients received regorafenib 160 mg orally once daily for 3 weeks on/1 week off cycles. Disease control was achieved in 72% of patients, with stable disease in 25 patients (69%). Based on these results, regorafenib was further evaluated in the multicenter, phase 3, 2:1 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled RESORCE study, which enrolled 573 patients.¹⁹ Due to the overlapping safety profiles of sorafenib and regorafenib, the inclusion criteria required patients to have tolerated a sorafenib dose of at least 400 mg daily for 20 of the past 28 days of treatment prior to enrollment. The primary endpoint of the study, OS, was met (median OS of 10.6 months in regorafenib arm versus 7.8 months in placebo arm; hazard ratio [HR], 0.63; P < 0.0001). Serious adverse events occurred in 44% of the patients who received regorafenib; the most common were hypertension (15%), hand-foot-skin reaction (HFSR, 13%), fatigue (9%), bleeding events (6%), and diarrhea (3%). Seven (2%) deaths in the regorafenib group were attributable to this drug. HFSR due to regorafenib was found to be associated with better survival outcomes.²⁰ In the selected subpopulation for the study, treatment with the sequence of sorafenib followed by regorafenib resulted in a median OS of 26 months.²¹

Cabozantinib

CELESTIAL was a phase 3, double-blind study that assessed the efficacy of cabozantinib versus placebo in patients with advanced HCC who had received prior sorafenib.²² In this study, 707 patients with Child–Pugh class A liver disease who progressed on at least 1 prior systemic therapy were randomized in a 2:1 ratio to treatment with cabozantinib at 60 mg daily or placebo. Patients treated with cabozantinib had a longer OS (10.2 months vs 8.0 months), resulting in a 24% reduction in the risk of death (HR, 0.76), and a longer median PFS (5.2 months versus 1.9 months). The disease control rate was higher with cabozantinib (64% vs 33%) as well. The incidence of high‐grade adverse events in the cabozantinib group was twice that of the placebo group. Common adverse events reported with cabozantinib included HFSR (17%), hypertension (16%), increased aspartate aminotransferase (12%), fatigue (10%), and diarrhea (10%). 

Ramucirumab

REACH was a phase 3 study exploring the efficacy of ramucirumab that did not meet its primary endpoint; however, the subgroup analysis in AFP-high patients showed an OS improvement with ramucirumab.²³ This led to the phase 3 REACH-2 trial, a multicenter, randomized, double-blind biomarker study in patients with advanced HCC who either progressed on or were intolerant to sorafenib and had an AFP level ≥ 400 ng/mL.²⁴ Patients were randomized to ramucirumab 8 mg/kg every 2 weeks or placebo. The study met its primary endpoint, showing improved OS (8.5 months vs 7.3 months; P = 0.0059). The most common treatment-related adverse events in the ramucirumab group were ascites (5%), hypertension (12%), asthenia (5%), malignant neoplasm progression (6%), increased aspartate aminotransferase concentration (5%), and thrombocytopenia.

Immunotherapy

HCC is considered an inflammation-induced cancer, which renders immunotherapeutic strategies more appealing. The PD-L1/PD-1 pathway is the critical immune checkpoint mechanism and is an important target for treatment. HCC uses a complex, overlapping set of mechanisms to evade cancer-specific immunity and to suppress the immune system. Initial efforts to develop immunotherapies for HCC focused on anti-PD-1 and anti-PD-L1 antibodies. CheckMate 040 evaluated nivolumab in 262 sorafenib-naïve and -treated patients with advanced HCC (98% with Child–Pugh scores of 5 or 6), with a median follow-up of 12.9 months.²⁵ In sorafenib-naïve patients (n = 80), the ORR was 23%, and the disease control rate was 63%. In sorafenib-treated patients (n = 182), the ORR was 18%. Response was not associated with PD-L1 expression. Durable objective responses, a manageable safety profile, and promising efficacy led the FDA to grant accelerated approval of nivolumab for the treatment of patients with HCC who have been previously treated with sorafenib. Based on this, the phase 3 randomized CheckMate-459 trial evaluated the efficacy of nivolumab versus sorafenib in the first-line. Median OS and ORR were better with nivolumab (16.4 months vs 14.7 months; HR 0.85; P = 0.752; and 15% [with 5 complete responses] vs 7%), as was the safety profile (22% vs 49% reporting grade 3 and 4 adverse events). ²⁶

The KEYNOTE-224 study²⁷ evaluated pembrolizumab in 104 patients with previously treated advanced HCC. This study showed an ORR of 17%, with 1 complete response and 17 partial responses. One-third of the patients had progressive disease, while 46 had stable disease. Among those who responded, 56% maintained a durable response for more than 1 year. Subsequently, in KEYNOTE 240, pembrolizumab showed an improvement in OS (13.9 months vs 10.6 months; HR, 0.78; P = 0.0238) and PFS (3.0 months versus 2.8 months; HR, 0.78; P = 0.0186) compared with placebo.²⁸ The ORR for pembrolizumab was 16.9% (95% confidence interval [CI], 12.7%-21.8%) versus 2.2% (95% CI, 0.5%-6.4%; P = 0.00001) for placebo. Mean duration of response was 13.8 months.

In the IMbrave150 trial, atezolizumab/bevacizumab combination, compared to sorafenib, had better OS (not estimable vs 13.2 months; P = 0.0006), PFS (6.8 months vs 4.5 months, P < 0.0001), and ORR (33% vs 13%, P < 0.0001), but grade 3-4 events were similar.²⁹ This combination has potential for first-line approval. The COSMIC–312 study is comparing the combination of cabozantinib and atezolizumab to sorafenib monotherapy and cabozantinib monotherapy in advanced HCC.

Resistance to immunotherapy can be extrinsic, associated with activation mechanisms of T-cells, or intrinsic, related to immune recognition, gene expression, and cell-signaling pathways.³⁰ Tumor-immune heterogeneity and antigen presentation contribute to complex resistance mechanisms.^31,32 Although clinical outcomes have improved with immune checkpoint inhibitors, the response rate is low and responses are inconsistent, likely due to an immunosuppressive tumor microenvironment.³³ Therefore, several novel combinations of checkpoint inhibitors and targeted drugs are being evaluated to bypass some of the resistance mechanisms (Table 3).

Chemotherapy

Multiple combinations of cytotoxic regimens have been evaluated, but efficacy has been modest, suggesting the limited role for traditional chemotherapy in the systemic management of advanced HCC. Response rates to chemotherapy are low and responses are not durable. Gemcitabine- and doxorubicin-based treatment and FOLFOX (5-fluorouracil, leucovorin, oxaliplatin) are some regimens that have been studied, with a median OS of less than 1 year for these regimens.^34-36 FOLFOX had a higher response rate (8.15% vs 2.67%; P = 0.02) and longer median OS (6.40 months versus 4.97 months; HR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.63-1.02; P = 0.07) than doxorubicin.³⁴ With the gemcitabine/oxaliplatin combination, ORR was 18%, with stable disease in 58% of patients, and median PFS and OS were 6.3 months and 11.5 months, respectively.³⁵ In a study that compared doxorubicin and PIAF (cisplatin/interferon a-2b/doxorubicin/5-fluorouracil), median OS was 6.83 months and 8.67 months, respectively (P = 0.83). The hazard ratio for death from any cause in the PIAF group compared with the doxorubicin group was 0.97 (95% CI, 0.71-1.32). PIAF had a higher ORR (20.9%; 95% CI, 12.5%-29.2%) than doxorubicin (10.5%; 95% CI, 3.9%-16.9%).

The phase 3 ALLIANCE study evaluated the combination of sorafenib and doxorubicin in treatment-naïve HCC patients with Child–Pugh class A liver disease, and did not demonstrate superiority with the addition of cytotoxic chemotherapy.³⁷ Indeed, the combination of chemotherapy with sorafenib appears harmful in terms of lower OS (9.3 months vs 10.6 months; HR, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.8-1.4) and worse toxicity. Patients treated with the combination experienced more hematologic (37.8% vs 8.1%) and nonhematologic adverse events (63.6% vs 61.5%).

Locoregional Therapy

The role of locoregional therapy in advanced HCC remains the subject of intense debate. Patients with BCLC stage C HCC with metastatic disease and those with lymph node involvement are candidates for systemic therapy. The optimal candidate for locoregional therapy is the patient with localized intermediate-stage disease, particularly hepatic artery–delivered therapeutic interventions. However, the presence of a solitary large tumor or portal vein involvement constitutes gray areas regarding which therapy to deliver directly to the tumor via the hepatic artery, and increasingly stereotactic body radiation therapy is being offered.

Transarterial Chemoembolization

Transarterial chemoembolization (TACE), with or without chemotherapy, is the most widely adopted locoregional therapy in the management of HCC. TACE exploits the differential vascular supply to the HCC and normal liver parenchyma. Normal liver receives only one-fourth of its blood supply from the hepatic artery (three-fourths from the portal vein), whereas HCC is mainly supplied by the hepatic artery. A survival benefit for TACE compared to best supportive care is widely acknowledged for intermediate-stage HCC, and transarterial embolization (TAE) with gelatin sponge or microspheres is noninferior to TACE.^38,39 Overall safety profile and efficacy inform therapy selection in advanced HCC, although the evidence for TACE in advanced HCC is less robust. Although single-institution experiences suggest survival numbers similar to and even superior to sorafenib,^40,41 there is a scarcity of large randomized clinical trial data to back this up. Based on this, patients with advanced HCC should only be offered liver-directed therapy within a clinical trial or on a case-by-case basis under multidisciplinary tumor board consensus.

A serious adverse effect of TACE is post-embolization syndrome, which occurs in about 30% of patients and may be associated with poor prognosis.⁴² The syndrome consists of right upper quadrant abdominal pain, malaise, and worsening nausea/vomiting following the embolization procedure. Laboratory abnormalities and other complications may persist for up to 30 days after the procedure. This is a concern, because post-embolization syndrome may affect the ability to deliver systemic therapy.

Transarterial Radioembolization

In the past few years, there has been an uptick in the utilization of transarterial radioembolization (TARE), which instead of delivering glass beads, as done in TAE, or chemotherapy-infused beads, as done in TACE, delivers the radioisotope Y-90 to the tumor via the hepatic artery. TARE is able to administer larger doses of radiation to the tumor while avoiding normal liver tissue, as compared to external-beam radiation. There has been no head-to-head comparison of these different intra-arterial therapy approaches, but TARE with Y-90 has been shown to be safe in patients with portal vein thrombosis. A recent multicenter retrospective study of TARE demonstrated a median OS of 8.8 to 10.8 months in patients with BCLC C HCC,⁴³ and in a large randomized study of Y-90 compared to sorafenib in advanced and previously treated intermediate HCC, there was no difference in median OS between the treatment modalities (8 months for selective internal radiotherapy, 9 months for sorafenib; P = 0.18). Treatment with Y-90 was better tolerated.⁴⁴ A major impediment to the adoption of TARE is the time it takes to order, plan, and deliver Y-90 to patients. Radio-embolization-induced liver disease, similar to post-embolization syndrome, is characterized by jaundice and ascites, which may occur 4 to 8 weeks postprocedure and is more common in patients with HCC who do not have cirrhosis. Compared to TACE, TARE may offer a better adverse effect profile, with improvement in quality of life.

Combination of Systemic and Locoregional Therapy

Even in carefully selected patients with intermediate- and advanced-stage HCC, locoregional therapy is not curative. Tumor embolization may promote more angiogenesis, and hence tumor progression, by causing hypoxia and upregulation of hypoxia-inducible factor.⁴⁵ This upregulation of angiogenesis as a resistance mechanism to tumor embolization provides a rationale for combining systemic therapy (typically based on abrogating angiogenesis) with TACE/TAE. Most of the experience has been with sorafenib in intermediate-stage disease, and the results have been disappointing. The administration of sorafenib after at least a partial response with TACE did not provide additional benefit in terms of time to progression.⁴⁶ Similarly, in the SPACE trial, concurrent therapy with TACE-doxorubicin-eluting beads and sorafenib compared to TACE-doxorubicin-eluting beads and placebo yielded similar time to progression numbers for both treatment modalities.⁴⁷ While the data have been disappointing in intermediate-stage disease, as described earlier, registry data suggest that patients with advanced-stage disease may benefit from this approach.⁴⁸

In the phase 2 TACTICS trial, 156 patients with unresectable HCC were randomized to receive TACE alone or sorafenib plus TACE, with a novel endpoint, time to untreatable progression (TTUP) and/or progression to TACE refractoriness.⁴⁹ Treatment with sorafenib following TACE was continued until TTUP, decline in liver function to Child–Pugh class C, or the development of vascular invasion or extrahepatic spread. Development of new lesions while on sorafenib was not considered as progressive disease as long as the lesions were amenable to TACE. In this study, PFS was longer with sorafenib-TACE compared to TACE alone (26.7 months vs 20.6 months; P = 0.02). However, the TTUP endpoint needs further validation, and we are still awaiting the survival outcomes of this study. At this time, there are insufficient data to recommend the combination of liver-directed locoregional therapy and sorafenib or other systemic therapy options outside of a clinical trial setting.

Current Treatment Approach for Advanced HCC (BCLC-C)

Although progress is being made in the development of effective therapies, advanced HCC is generally incurable. These patients experience significant symptom burden throughout the course of the disease. Therefore, the optimal treatment plan must focus on improving or maintaining quality of life, in addition to overall efficacy. It is important to actively involve patients in treatment decisions for an individualized treatment plan, and to discuss the best strategy for incorporating current advances in targeted and immunotherapies. The paradigm of what constitutes first-line treatment for advanced HCC is shifting due to the recent systemic therapy approvals. Prior to the availability of these therapies, many patients with advanced HCC were treated with repeated locoregional therapies. For instance, TACE was often used to treat unresectable HCC multiple times beyond progression. There was no consensus on the definition of TACE failure, and hence it was used in broader, unselected populations. Retrospective studies suggest that continuing TACE after refractoriness or failure may not be beneficial, and may delay subsequent treatments because of deterioration of liver function or declines in performance status. With recent approvals of several systemic therapy options, including immunotherapy, it is vital to conduct a risk-benefit assessment prior to repeating TACE after failure, so that patients are not denied the use of available systemic therapeutic options due to declined performance status or organ function from these procedures. The optimal timing and the sequence of systemic and locoregional therapy must be carefully evaluated by a multidisciplinary team.

CASE CONCLUSION

An important part of evaluating a new patient with HCC is to determine whether they are a candidate for curative therapies, such as transplant or surgical resection. These are no longer an option for patients with intermediate disease. For patients with advanced disease characteristics, such as vascular invasion or systemic metastasis, the evidence supports using systemic therapy with sorafenib or lenvatinib. Lenvatinib, with a better tolerance profile and response rate, is the treatment of choice for the patient described in the case scenario. Lenvatinib is also indicated for first-line treatment of advanced HCC, and is useful in very aggressive tumors, such as those with an AFP level exceeding 200 ng/mL.

Future Directions

The emerging role of novel systemic therapeutics, including immunotherapy, has drastically changed the treatment landscape for hepatocellular cancers, with 6 new drugs for treating advanced hepatocellular cancers approved recently. While these systemic drugs have improved survival in advanced HCC in the past decade, patient selection and treatment sequencing remain a challenge, due to a lack of biomarkers capable of predicting antitumor responses. In addition, there is an unmet need for treatment options for patients with Child–Pugh class B7 and C liver disease and poor performance status.

The goal of future management should be to achieve personalized care aimed at improved safety and efficacy by targeting multiple cancer pathways in the HCC cascade with combination treatments. Randomized clinical trials to improve patient selection and determine the proper sequence of treatments are needed. Given the heterogeneity of HCC, molecular profiling of the tumor to differentiate responders from nonresponders may elucidate potential biomarkers to effectively guide treatment recommendations.