Drug Therapy

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved rimegepant (Nurtec ODT, Biohaven), the first calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) receptor antagonist available in a fast-acting orally disintegrating tablet for the acute treatment of migraine in adults.

This story first appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved rimegepant (Nurtec ODT, Biohaven), the first calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) receptor antagonist available in a fast-acting orally disintegrating tablet for the acute treatment of migraine in adults.

This story first appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved rimegepant (Nurtec ODT, Biohaven), the first calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) receptor antagonist available in a fast-acting orally disintegrating tablet for the acute treatment of migraine in adults.

This story first appeared on Medscape.com.

Latest guidelines on the treatment of osteoporosis have been released that include new recommendations for the use of romosozumab (Evenity) in postmenopausal women with severe osteoporosis, but they contain caveats as to which women should – and should not – receive the drug.

The updated clinical practice guideline from the Endocrine Society is in response to the approval of romosozumab by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in April 2019, and more recently, by the European Medicines Agency.

It was published online February 18 in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism.

In the new guidelines, committee members recommend the use of romosozumab for postmenopausal women with osteoporosis at very high risk of fracture. Candidates would include women with severe osteoporosis (T-score of less than –2.5 and a prior fracture) or women with a history of multiple vertebral fractures.

Women should be treated with romosozumab for up to 1 year, followed by an antiresorptive agent to maintain bone mineral density gains and further reduce fracture risk.

“The recommended dosage is 210 mg monthly by subcutaneous injection for 12 months,” the authors wrote.

However, and very importantly, romosozumab should not be considered for women at high risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD) or cerebrovascular disease. A high risk of CVD includes women who have had a previous myocardial infarction (MI) or stroke.

Experts questioned by Medscape Medical News stressed that romosozumab should not be a first-line, or even generally a second-line, option for osteoporosis, but it can be a considered for select patients with severe osteoporosis, taking into account CV risk.

Boxed warning

In the Active-Controlled Fracture Study in Postmenopausal Women With Osteoporosis at High Risk (ARCH), there were more major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) in the first year of the trial with romosozumab, and patients had a 31% higher risk of MACE with romosozumab, compared with the bisphosphonate alendronate.

As a result, the drug was initially rejected by a number of regulatory agencies.

In the United States and Canada, it was eventually approved with a boxed warning, which cautions against the use of the drug in patients at risk for myocardial infarction, stroke, and CVD-related death.

“Romosozumab offers promising results for postmenopausal women with severe osteoporosis or who have a history of fractures,” Clifford Rosen, MD, Maine Medical Center Research Institute in Scarborough and chair of the writing committee, said in an Endocrine Society statement. “It does, however, come with a risk of heart disease, so clinicians need to be careful when selecting patients for this therapy.”

Exact risk unknown

Asked by Medscape Medical News to comment, Kenneth Saag, MD, professor of medicine, University of Alabama at Birmingham and principle investigator of the ARCH study, said that physicians needed more data from real-world studies to resolve the issue around whether romosozumab heightens the risk of CV events in women with osteoporosis or whether that particular finding from ARCH was an artifact.

“Women who have had a recent cardiovascular event should not receive the drug,” he said, agreeing with the new guidelines.

But it remains unclear, for example, whether women who are at slightly higher risk of having a CV event by virtue of their age alone, are also at risk, he noted.

In the meantime, results from the ARCH study clearly showed that not only was romosozumab more effective than alendronate, “but it is more effective than other bone-building drugs as well,” Dr. Saag observed, and it leads to a significantly greater reduction in vertebral, nonvertebral, and hip fractures, compared with the alendronate, the current standard of care in osteoporosis.

“In patients who have very severe osteoporosis and who have had a recent fracture or who are at risk for imminent future fracture, physicians need to balance the benefit versus the risk in favor of using romosozumab,” Dr. Saag suggested.

“And while I would say most women prefer not to inject themselves, the women I have put on this medicine have all had recent fractures and they are very aware of the pain and the disability of having a broken bone, so it is something they are willing to do,” he added.
 

Not for all women

Giving his opinion, Bart Clarke, MD, of the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota, underscored the fact that the Fracture Study in Postmenopausal Women With Osteoporosis (FRAME), again conducted in postmenopausal women, showed no increase in CV events in patients treated with romosozumab compared with placebo.

“So there are questions about what this means, because if these events really were a drug effect, then that effect would be even more evident compared with placebo and they did not see any signal of CV events [in FRAME],” said Dr. Clarke, past president of the American Society of Bone and Mineral Research.

Like everything else in medicine, “there is always some risk,” Dr. Clarke observed.

However, what physicians should do is talk to women, ensure they have not had either an MI or stroke in the last year, and if patients have severe osteoporosis and a high risk of fracture, “then we can say, here’s another option,” he suggested.

“Then, if a woman develops chest pain or shortness of breath while on the drug, [she needs] to let us know ,and then we’ll stop the drug and reassess the situation,” he added.

Dr. Clarke also pointed out that if the FDA had received further reports of CV events linked to romosozumab, physicians would know about it by now, but to his knowledge, there has been no change to the drug’s current warning label.

Furthermore, neither he nor any of his colleagues who treat metabolic bone disease at the Mayo Clinic has seen a single CV event in patients prescribed the agent.

“This is not a drug we would use as first-line for most patients, and we don’t even use it as second-line for most patients, but in people who have not responded to other drugs or who have had terrible things happen to them already, hip fracture especially, then we are saying, you can consider this, he concluded.

The guidelines were supported by the Endocrine Society. Dr. Rosen and Dr. Clarke reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Saag reported receiving grants and personal fees from Amgen, personal fees from Radius, and is a consultant for Amgen, Radius, Roche, and Daiichi Sankyo.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Latest guidelines on the treatment of osteoporosis have been released that include new recommendations for the use of romosozumab (Evenity) in postmenopausal women with severe osteoporosis, but they contain caveats as to which women should – and should not – receive the drug.

The updated clinical practice guideline from the Endocrine Society is in response to the approval of romosozumab by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in April 2019, and more recently, by the European Medicines Agency.

It was published online February 18 in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism.

In the new guidelines, committee members recommend the use of romosozumab for postmenopausal women with osteoporosis at very high risk of fracture. Candidates would include women with severe osteoporosis (T-score of less than –2.5 and a prior fracture) or women with a history of multiple vertebral fractures.

Women should be treated with romosozumab for up to 1 year, followed by an antiresorptive agent to maintain bone mineral density gains and further reduce fracture risk.

“The recommended dosage is 210 mg monthly by subcutaneous injection for 12 months,” the authors wrote.

However, and very importantly, romosozumab should not be considered for women at high risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD) or cerebrovascular disease. A high risk of CVD includes women who have had a previous myocardial infarction (MI) or stroke.

Experts questioned by Medscape Medical News stressed that romosozumab should not be a first-line, or even generally a second-line, option for osteoporosis, but it can be a considered for select patients with severe osteoporosis, taking into account CV risk.

Boxed warning

In the Active-Controlled Fracture Study in Postmenopausal Women With Osteoporosis at High Risk (ARCH), there were more major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) in the first year of the trial with romosozumab, and patients had a 31% higher risk of MACE with romosozumab, compared with the bisphosphonate alendronate.

As a result, the drug was initially rejected by a number of regulatory agencies.

In the United States and Canada, it was eventually approved with a boxed warning, which cautions against the use of the drug in patients at risk for myocardial infarction, stroke, and CVD-related death.

“Romosozumab offers promising results for postmenopausal women with severe osteoporosis or who have a history of fractures,” Clifford Rosen, MD, Maine Medical Center Research Institute in Scarborough and chair of the writing committee, said in an Endocrine Society statement. “It does, however, come with a risk of heart disease, so clinicians need to be careful when selecting patients for this therapy.”

Exact risk unknown

Asked by Medscape Medical News to comment, Kenneth Saag, MD, professor of medicine, University of Alabama at Birmingham and principle investigator of the ARCH study, said that physicians needed more data from real-world studies to resolve the issue around whether romosozumab heightens the risk of CV events in women with osteoporosis or whether that particular finding from ARCH was an artifact.

“Women who have had a recent cardiovascular event should not receive the drug,” he said, agreeing with the new guidelines.

But it remains unclear, for example, whether women who are at slightly higher risk of having a CV event by virtue of their age alone, are also at risk, he noted.

In the meantime, results from the ARCH study clearly showed that not only was romosozumab more effective than alendronate, “but it is more effective than other bone-building drugs as well,” Dr. Saag observed, and it leads to a significantly greater reduction in vertebral, nonvertebral, and hip fractures, compared with the alendronate, the current standard of care in osteoporosis.

“In patients who have very severe osteoporosis and who have had a recent fracture or who are at risk for imminent future fracture, physicians need to balance the benefit versus the risk in favor of using romosozumab,” Dr. Saag suggested.

“And while I would say most women prefer not to inject themselves, the women I have put on this medicine have all had recent fractures and they are very aware of the pain and the disability of having a broken bone, so it is something they are willing to do,” he added.
 

Not for all women

Giving his opinion, Bart Clarke, MD, of the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota, underscored the fact that the Fracture Study in Postmenopausal Women With Osteoporosis (FRAME), again conducted in postmenopausal women, showed no increase in CV events in patients treated with romosozumab compared with placebo.

“So there are questions about what this means, because if these events really were a drug effect, then that effect would be even more evident compared with placebo and they did not see any signal of CV events [in FRAME],” said Dr. Clarke, past president of the American Society of Bone and Mineral Research.

Like everything else in medicine, “there is always some risk,” Dr. Clarke observed.

However, what physicians should do is talk to women, ensure they have not had either an MI or stroke in the last year, and if patients have severe osteoporosis and a high risk of fracture, “then we can say, here’s another option,” he suggested.

“Then, if a woman develops chest pain or shortness of breath while on the drug, [she needs] to let us know ,and then we’ll stop the drug and reassess the situation,” he added.

Dr. Clarke also pointed out that if the FDA had received further reports of CV events linked to romosozumab, physicians would know about it by now, but to his knowledge, there has been no change to the drug’s current warning label.

Furthermore, neither he nor any of his colleagues who treat metabolic bone disease at the Mayo Clinic has seen a single CV event in patients prescribed the agent.

“This is not a drug we would use as first-line for most patients, and we don’t even use it as second-line for most patients, but in people who have not responded to other drugs or who have had terrible things happen to them already, hip fracture especially, then we are saying, you can consider this, he concluded.

The guidelines were supported by the Endocrine Society. Dr. Rosen and Dr. Clarke reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Saag reported receiving grants and personal fees from Amgen, personal fees from Radius, and is a consultant for Amgen, Radius, Roche, and Daiichi Sankyo.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Latest guidelines on the treatment of osteoporosis have been released that include new recommendations for the use of romosozumab (Evenity) in postmenopausal women with severe osteoporosis, but they contain caveats as to which women should – and should not – receive the drug.

The updated clinical practice guideline from the Endocrine Society is in response to the approval of romosozumab by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in April 2019, and more recently, by the European Medicines Agency.

It was published online February 18 in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism.

In the new guidelines, committee members recommend the use of romosozumab for postmenopausal women with osteoporosis at very high risk of fracture. Candidates would include women with severe osteoporosis (T-score of less than –2.5 and a prior fracture) or women with a history of multiple vertebral fractures.

Women should be treated with romosozumab for up to 1 year, followed by an antiresorptive agent to maintain bone mineral density gains and further reduce fracture risk.

“The recommended dosage is 210 mg monthly by subcutaneous injection for 12 months,” the authors wrote.

However, and very importantly, romosozumab should not be considered for women at high risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD) or cerebrovascular disease. A high risk of CVD includes women who have had a previous myocardial infarction (MI) or stroke.

Experts questioned by Medscape Medical News stressed that romosozumab should not be a first-line, or even generally a second-line, option for osteoporosis, but it can be a considered for select patients with severe osteoporosis, taking into account CV risk.

Boxed warning

In the Active-Controlled Fracture Study in Postmenopausal Women With Osteoporosis at High Risk (ARCH), there were more major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) in the first year of the trial with romosozumab, and patients had a 31% higher risk of MACE with romosozumab, compared with the bisphosphonate alendronate.

As a result, the drug was initially rejected by a number of regulatory agencies.

In the United States and Canada, it was eventually approved with a boxed warning, which cautions against the use of the drug in patients at risk for myocardial infarction, stroke, and CVD-related death.

“Romosozumab offers promising results for postmenopausal women with severe osteoporosis or who have a history of fractures,” Clifford Rosen, MD, Maine Medical Center Research Institute in Scarborough and chair of the writing committee, said in an Endocrine Society statement. “It does, however, come with a risk of heart disease, so clinicians need to be careful when selecting patients for this therapy.”

Exact risk unknown

Asked by Medscape Medical News to comment, Kenneth Saag, MD, professor of medicine, University of Alabama at Birmingham and principle investigator of the ARCH study, said that physicians needed more data from real-world studies to resolve the issue around whether romosozumab heightens the risk of CV events in women with osteoporosis or whether that particular finding from ARCH was an artifact.

“Women who have had a recent cardiovascular event should not receive the drug,” he said, agreeing with the new guidelines.

But it remains unclear, for example, whether women who are at slightly higher risk of having a CV event by virtue of their age alone, are also at risk, he noted.

In the meantime, results from the ARCH study clearly showed that not only was romosozumab more effective than alendronate, “but it is more effective than other bone-building drugs as well,” Dr. Saag observed, and it leads to a significantly greater reduction in vertebral, nonvertebral, and hip fractures, compared with the alendronate, the current standard of care in osteoporosis.

“In patients who have very severe osteoporosis and who have had a recent fracture or who are at risk for imminent future fracture, physicians need to balance the benefit versus the risk in favor of using romosozumab,” Dr. Saag suggested.

“And while I would say most women prefer not to inject themselves, the women I have put on this medicine have all had recent fractures and they are very aware of the pain and the disability of having a broken bone, so it is something they are willing to do,” he added.
 

Not for all women

Giving his opinion, Bart Clarke, MD, of the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota, underscored the fact that the Fracture Study in Postmenopausal Women With Osteoporosis (FRAME), again conducted in postmenopausal women, showed no increase in CV events in patients treated with romosozumab compared with placebo.

“So there are questions about what this means, because if these events really were a drug effect, then that effect would be even more evident compared with placebo and they did not see any signal of CV events [in FRAME],” said Dr. Clarke, past president of the American Society of Bone and Mineral Research.

Like everything else in medicine, “there is always some risk,” Dr. Clarke observed.

However, what physicians should do is talk to women, ensure they have not had either an MI or stroke in the last year, and if patients have severe osteoporosis and a high risk of fracture, “then we can say, here’s another option,” he suggested.

“Then, if a woman develops chest pain or shortness of breath while on the drug, [she needs] to let us know ,and then we’ll stop the drug and reassess the situation,” he added.

Dr. Clarke also pointed out that if the FDA had received further reports of CV events linked to romosozumab, physicians would know about it by now, but to his knowledge, there has been no change to the drug’s current warning label.

Furthermore, neither he nor any of his colleagues who treat metabolic bone disease at the Mayo Clinic has seen a single CV event in patients prescribed the agent.

“This is not a drug we would use as first-line for most patients, and we don’t even use it as second-line for most patients, but in people who have not responded to other drugs or who have had terrible things happen to them already, hip fracture especially, then we are saying, you can consider this, he concluded.

The guidelines were supported by the Endocrine Society. Dr. Rosen and Dr. Clarke reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Saag reported receiving grants and personal fees from Amgen, personal fees from Radius, and is a consultant for Amgen, Radius, Roche, and Daiichi Sankyo.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The Food and Drug Administration is collaborating with the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to expand the biosimilars market.

Wikimedia Commons/FitzColinGerald/ Creative Commons License

The two agencies signed a joint statement on Feb. 3, 2020, outlining four sets of goals aimed at creating meaningful competition from biosimilars against their reference biologic products.

“Competition is key for helping American patients have access to affordable medicines,” FDA Commissioner Stephen Hahn, MD, said in a statement. “Strengthening efforts to curtail and discourage anticompetitive behavior is key for facilitating robust competition for patients in the biologics marketplace, including through biosimilars, bringing down the costs of these crucial products for patients.”

“We appreciate and applaud the FDA and FTC in recognizing that biosimilar development and approval has not been as robust as many stakeholders had hoped,” said Colin Edgerton, MD, chair of the American College of Rheumatology’s Committee on Rheumatologic Care. “We continue to see anticompetitive activities that prevent manufacturers from developing biosimilar products. We hope that a greater focus on these practices will pave the way for more biosimilars to be developed.”

The statement highlighted four goals. First is that the agencies will coordinate to promote greater competition in the biologic market, including the development of materials to educate the market about biosimilars. The FDA and FTC also will be sponsoring a public workshop on March 9 to discuss competition for biologics.

“This workshop is the first step,” Dr. Edgerton said. “ACR will continue to work with other organizations and patient groups to help educate providers and patients on the scientific rigor that is required in developing and approving biosimilars. Additionally, we look forward to working with the FDA and FTC to continue this conversation on ways to encourage more development of biosimilar products and greater education for the providers and patients.”

The second goal has the FDA and FTC working together “to deter behavior that impedes access to samples needed for the development of biologics, including biosimilars,” the joint statement notes.

Third, the agencies will crack down on “false or misleading communications about biologics, including biosimilars, within their respective authorities,” according to the joint statement.

“FDA and FTC, as authorized by their respective statutes, will work together to address false or misleading communications about biologics, including biosimilars,” the statement continues. “In particular, if a communication makes a false or misleading comparison between a reference product and a biosimilar in a manner that misrepresents the safety or efficacy of biosimilars, deceives consumers, or deters competition, FDA and FTC intend to take appropriate action within their respective authorities. FDA intends to take appropriate action to address such communications where those communications have the potential to impact public health.”

Finally, the FTC committed to review patent settlement agreements involving biologics, including biosimilars, for antitrust violations.

Dr. Edgerton highlighted why this agreement between the two agencies is so important.

“Biologics are life-changing treatments for many of our patients,” he said. “Due to the high cost of discovery and development, the cost of biologics has resulted in delayed access and financial hardships for so many. It has always been our hope that biosimilars would offer the same life-changing treatment for patients at a lower price point. A robust biosimilars market is imperative to allow greater access to these treatments that can help patients to have a better quality of life.”

Separately, the FDA issued a draft guidance document for comment on manufacturers seeking licensure of biosimilar products that do not cover all the approved uses of the reference product, as well as how to add uses over time that were not part of the initial license of the biosimilar product. The draft guidance covers licensure of products, labeling of biosimilars with fewer indications than the reference product, supplemental applications for indications not on the initial biosimilar application but covered by the reference product, and the timing of applications.

The FDA notes in the draft guidance that this is needed to cover situations such as when some indications on the reference product are covered by exclusivity, although it does encourage a biosimilar manufacturer to seek licensure for all indications that the reference product does have.

[email protected]

The Food and Drug Administration is collaborating with the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to expand the biosimilars market.

Wikimedia Commons/FitzColinGerald/ Creative Commons License

The two agencies signed a joint statement on Feb. 3, 2020, outlining four sets of goals aimed at creating meaningful competition from biosimilars against their reference biologic products.

“Competition is key for helping American patients have access to affordable medicines,” FDA Commissioner Stephen Hahn, MD, said in a statement. “Strengthening efforts to curtail and discourage anticompetitive behavior is key for facilitating robust competition for patients in the biologics marketplace, including through biosimilars, bringing down the costs of these crucial products for patients.”

“We appreciate and applaud the FDA and FTC in recognizing that biosimilar development and approval has not been as robust as many stakeholders had hoped,” said Colin Edgerton, MD, chair of the American College of Rheumatology’s Committee on Rheumatologic Care. “We continue to see anticompetitive activities that prevent manufacturers from developing biosimilar products. We hope that a greater focus on these practices will pave the way for more biosimilars to be developed.”

The statement highlighted four goals. First is that the agencies will coordinate to promote greater competition in the biologic market, including the development of materials to educate the market about biosimilars. The FDA and FTC also will be sponsoring a public workshop on March 9 to discuss competition for biologics.

“This workshop is the first step,” Dr. Edgerton said. “ACR will continue to work with other organizations and patient groups to help educate providers and patients on the scientific rigor that is required in developing and approving biosimilars. Additionally, we look forward to working with the FDA and FTC to continue this conversation on ways to encourage more development of biosimilar products and greater education for the providers and patients.”

The second goal has the FDA and FTC working together “to deter behavior that impedes access to samples needed for the development of biologics, including biosimilars,” the joint statement notes.

Third, the agencies will crack down on “false or misleading communications about biologics, including biosimilars, within their respective authorities,” according to the joint statement.

“FDA and FTC, as authorized by their respective statutes, will work together to address false or misleading communications about biologics, including biosimilars,” the statement continues. “In particular, if a communication makes a false or misleading comparison between a reference product and a biosimilar in a manner that misrepresents the safety or efficacy of biosimilars, deceives consumers, or deters competition, FDA and FTC intend to take appropriate action within their respective authorities. FDA intends to take appropriate action to address such communications where those communications have the potential to impact public health.”

Finally, the FTC committed to review patent settlement agreements involving biologics, including biosimilars, for antitrust violations.

Dr. Edgerton highlighted why this agreement between the two agencies is so important.

“Biologics are life-changing treatments for many of our patients,” he said. “Due to the high cost of discovery and development, the cost of biologics has resulted in delayed access and financial hardships for so many. It has always been our hope that biosimilars would offer the same life-changing treatment for patients at a lower price point. A robust biosimilars market is imperative to allow greater access to these treatments that can help patients to have a better quality of life.”

Separately, the FDA issued a draft guidance document for comment on manufacturers seeking licensure of biosimilar products that do not cover all the approved uses of the reference product, as well as how to add uses over time that were not part of the initial license of the biosimilar product. The draft guidance covers licensure of products, labeling of biosimilars with fewer indications than the reference product, supplemental applications for indications not on the initial biosimilar application but covered by the reference product, and the timing of applications.

The FDA notes in the draft guidance that this is needed to cover situations such as when some indications on the reference product are covered by exclusivity, although it does encourage a biosimilar manufacturer to seek licensure for all indications that the reference product does have.

[email protected]

The Food and Drug Administration is collaborating with the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to expand the biosimilars market.

Wikimedia Commons/FitzColinGerald/ Creative Commons License

The two agencies signed a joint statement on Feb. 3, 2020, outlining four sets of goals aimed at creating meaningful competition from biosimilars against their reference biologic products.

“Competition is key for helping American patients have access to affordable medicines,” FDA Commissioner Stephen Hahn, MD, said in a statement. “Strengthening efforts to curtail and discourage anticompetitive behavior is key for facilitating robust competition for patients in the biologics marketplace, including through biosimilars, bringing down the costs of these crucial products for patients.”

“We appreciate and applaud the FDA and FTC in recognizing that biosimilar development and approval has not been as robust as many stakeholders had hoped,” said Colin Edgerton, MD, chair of the American College of Rheumatology’s Committee on Rheumatologic Care. “We continue to see anticompetitive activities that prevent manufacturers from developing biosimilar products. We hope that a greater focus on these practices will pave the way for more biosimilars to be developed.”

The statement highlighted four goals. First is that the agencies will coordinate to promote greater competition in the biologic market, including the development of materials to educate the market about biosimilars. The FDA and FTC also will be sponsoring a public workshop on March 9 to discuss competition for biologics.

“This workshop is the first step,” Dr. Edgerton said. “ACR will continue to work with other organizations and patient groups to help educate providers and patients on the scientific rigor that is required in developing and approving biosimilars. Additionally, we look forward to working with the FDA and FTC to continue this conversation on ways to encourage more development of biosimilar products and greater education for the providers and patients.”

The second goal has the FDA and FTC working together “to deter behavior that impedes access to samples needed for the development of biologics, including biosimilars,” the joint statement notes.

Third, the agencies will crack down on “false or misleading communications about biologics, including biosimilars, within their respective authorities,” according to the joint statement.

“FDA and FTC, as authorized by their respective statutes, will work together to address false or misleading communications about biologics, including biosimilars,” the statement continues. “In particular, if a communication makes a false or misleading comparison between a reference product and a biosimilar in a manner that misrepresents the safety or efficacy of biosimilars, deceives consumers, or deters competition, FDA and FTC intend to take appropriate action within their respective authorities. FDA intends to take appropriate action to address such communications where those communications have the potential to impact public health.”

Finally, the FTC committed to review patent settlement agreements involving biologics, including biosimilars, for antitrust violations.

Dr. Edgerton highlighted why this agreement between the two agencies is so important.

“Biologics are life-changing treatments for many of our patients,” he said. “Due to the high cost of discovery and development, the cost of biologics has resulted in delayed access and financial hardships for so many. It has always been our hope that biosimilars would offer the same life-changing treatment for patients at a lower price point. A robust biosimilars market is imperative to allow greater access to these treatments that can help patients to have a better quality of life.”

Separately, the FDA issued a draft guidance document for comment on manufacturers seeking licensure of biosimilar products that do not cover all the approved uses of the reference product, as well as how to add uses over time that were not part of the initial license of the biosimilar product. The draft guidance covers licensure of products, labeling of biosimilars with fewer indications than the reference product, supplemental applications for indications not on the initial biosimilar application but covered by the reference product, and the timing of applications.

The FDA notes in the draft guidance that this is needed to cover situations such as when some indications on the reference product are covered by exclusivity, although it does encourage a biosimilar manufacturer to seek licensure for all indications that the reference product does have.

[email protected]

The US Food and Drug Administration has approved eptinezumab-jjmr (Vyepti, Lundbeck), the first intravenous (IV) migraine prevention medication, the company has announced.

As previously reported by Medscape Medical News, the drug’s approval is based on results from two clinical studies – PROMISE-1 in episodic migraine and PROMISE-2 in chronic migraine.

The recommended dose is 100 mg every 3 months although some patients may benefit from a dose of 300 mg, the company notes. Lundbeck reports that the drug will likely be available in early April.

Roger Cady, MD, vice-president of neurology at Lundbeck, told Medscape Medical News the drug has almost immediate efficacy.

“Because it’s an IV [medication], it has very rapid benefit. In fact, we were able to demonstrate benefit on Day 1. Truly, it is going to impact on the unmet need for patients because of its profile, the way it’s delivered, and its uniqueness,” Cady said.

“Having preventive activity the day following an infusion is really important. We have in our data, if you take that time between the first day and the 28th day, whether they have episodic migraine or chronic migraine, that about 30% of the population had a 75% or more reduction in migraine days through that first month,” he added.

The clinical trial program demonstrated a treatment benefit over placebo that was observed for both doses of Vyepti as early as day 1 post-infusion, and the percentage of patients experiencing a migraine was lower for Vyepti than with placebo for most of the first 7 days, the company reports.

The safety of Vyepti was evaluated in 2076 patients with migraine who received at least one dose of the drug. The most common adverse reactions were nasopharyngitis and hypersensitivity. In PROMISE-1 and PROMISE-2, 1.9% of patients treated with Vyepti discontinued treatment as a result of adverse reactions.

“The PROMISE-2 data showed that many patients can achieve reduction in migraine days of at least 75% and experience a sustained migraine improvement through 6 months, which is clinically meaningful to both physicians and patients,” said Peter Goadsby, MD, professor of neurology at King’s College, London, UK, and the University of California, San Francisco, in a press release. “Vyepti is a valuable addition for the treatment of migraine, which can help reduce the burden of this serious disease.”
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration has approved eptinezumab-jjmr (Vyepti, Lundbeck), the first intravenous (IV) migraine prevention medication, the company has announced.

As previously reported by Medscape Medical News, the drug’s approval is based on results from two clinical studies – PROMISE-1 in episodic migraine and PROMISE-2 in chronic migraine.

The recommended dose is 100 mg every 3 months although some patients may benefit from a dose of 300 mg, the company notes. Lundbeck reports that the drug will likely be available in early April.

Roger Cady, MD, vice-president of neurology at Lundbeck, told Medscape Medical News the drug has almost immediate efficacy.

“Because it’s an IV [medication], it has very rapid benefit. In fact, we were able to demonstrate benefit on Day 1. Truly, it is going to impact on the unmet need for patients because of its profile, the way it’s delivered, and its uniqueness,” Cady said.

“Having preventive activity the day following an infusion is really important. We have in our data, if you take that time between the first day and the 28th day, whether they have episodic migraine or chronic migraine, that about 30% of the population had a 75% or more reduction in migraine days through that first month,” he added.

The clinical trial program demonstrated a treatment benefit over placebo that was observed for both doses of Vyepti as early as day 1 post-infusion, and the percentage of patients experiencing a migraine was lower for Vyepti than with placebo for most of the first 7 days, the company reports.

The safety of Vyepti was evaluated in 2076 patients with migraine who received at least one dose of the drug. The most common adverse reactions were nasopharyngitis and hypersensitivity. In PROMISE-1 and PROMISE-2, 1.9% of patients treated with Vyepti discontinued treatment as a result of adverse reactions.

“The PROMISE-2 data showed that many patients can achieve reduction in migraine days of at least 75% and experience a sustained migraine improvement through 6 months, which is clinically meaningful to both physicians and patients,” said Peter Goadsby, MD, professor of neurology at King’s College, London, UK, and the University of California, San Francisco, in a press release. “Vyepti is a valuable addition for the treatment of migraine, which can help reduce the burden of this serious disease.”
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration has approved eptinezumab-jjmr (Vyepti, Lundbeck), the first intravenous (IV) migraine prevention medication, the company has announced.

As previously reported by Medscape Medical News, the drug’s approval is based on results from two clinical studies – PROMISE-1 in episodic migraine and PROMISE-2 in chronic migraine.

The recommended dose is 100 mg every 3 months although some patients may benefit from a dose of 300 mg, the company notes. Lundbeck reports that the drug will likely be available in early April.

Roger Cady, MD, vice-president of neurology at Lundbeck, told Medscape Medical News the drug has almost immediate efficacy.

“Because it’s an IV [medication], it has very rapid benefit. In fact, we were able to demonstrate benefit on Day 1. Truly, it is going to impact on the unmet need for patients because of its profile, the way it’s delivered, and its uniqueness,” Cady said.

“Having preventive activity the day following an infusion is really important. We have in our data, if you take that time between the first day and the 28th day, whether they have episodic migraine or chronic migraine, that about 30% of the population had a 75% or more reduction in migraine days through that first month,” he added.

The clinical trial program demonstrated a treatment benefit over placebo that was observed for both doses of Vyepti as early as day 1 post-infusion, and the percentage of patients experiencing a migraine was lower for Vyepti than with placebo for most of the first 7 days, the company reports.

The safety of Vyepti was evaluated in 2076 patients with migraine who received at least one dose of the drug. The most common adverse reactions were nasopharyngitis and hypersensitivity. In PROMISE-1 and PROMISE-2, 1.9% of patients treated with Vyepti discontinued treatment as a result of adverse reactions.

“The PROMISE-2 data showed that many patients can achieve reduction in migraine days of at least 75% and experience a sustained migraine improvement through 6 months, which is clinically meaningful to both physicians and patients,” said Peter Goadsby, MD, professor of neurology at King’s College, London, UK, and the University of California, San Francisco, in a press release. “Vyepti is a valuable addition for the treatment of migraine, which can help reduce the burden of this serious disease.”
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Manufacturers will be able to begin submitting licensing applications for biosimilar insulin beginning March 23.

Wikimedia Commons/FitzColinGerald/ Creative Commons License

The Food and Drug Administration published Feb. 21 in the Federal Register a final rule that transitions insulin and other products from regulation as a drug to a biologic. This will provide manufacturers access to the biosimilars approval pathway and is expected to bring more competition to the insulin market. The move comes as insulin manufacturers continue to get increased scrutiny over the significantly increased pricing of their products in recent years.

The transition was required under a provision of the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009.

The move is expected to have no impact on the distribution of insulin and other products affected by the transition.

“In general, prescribers should continue to prescribe and order insulin and other biological products the same way they did before the transition,” the FDA said in an FAQ on the transition for physicians and other health care workers. “In general, pharmacists should continue to dispense and counsel about insulin and other biological products the same way they did before the transition. Prescribers and pharmacists should ensure their patients understand there are no changes to the product and they should continue to use the product the same way as before the transition.”

Other products affected by the transition include human growth hormone (somatropin), pancrelipase, chorionic gonadotropin, follitropin alfa, and menotropins. Information on all the transitioning products will move from the Orange Book (which lists FDA-approved drug products with therapeutic equivalent evaluations) to the Purple Book (which lists FDA-licensed biological products with reference product exclusivity data and biosimilar/interchangeability evaluations).

The FDA in the FAQ reiterated its commitment to reviewing any applications for these transition products within 12 months of submission.

[email protected]

Manufacturers will be able to begin submitting licensing applications for biosimilar insulin beginning March 23.

Wikimedia Commons/FitzColinGerald/ Creative Commons License

The Food and Drug Administration published Feb. 21 in the Federal Register a final rule that transitions insulin and other products from regulation as a drug to a biologic. This will provide manufacturers access to the biosimilars approval pathway and is expected to bring more competition to the insulin market. The move comes as insulin manufacturers continue to get increased scrutiny over the significantly increased pricing of their products in recent years.

The transition was required under a provision of the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009.

The move is expected to have no impact on the distribution of insulin and other products affected by the transition.

“In general, prescribers should continue to prescribe and order insulin and other biological products the same way they did before the transition,” the FDA said in an FAQ on the transition for physicians and other health care workers. “In general, pharmacists should continue to dispense and counsel about insulin and other biological products the same way they did before the transition. Prescribers and pharmacists should ensure their patients understand there are no changes to the product and they should continue to use the product the same way as before the transition.”

Other products affected by the transition include human growth hormone (somatropin), pancrelipase, chorionic gonadotropin, follitropin alfa, and menotropins. Information on all the transitioning products will move from the Orange Book (which lists FDA-approved drug products with therapeutic equivalent evaluations) to the Purple Book (which lists FDA-licensed biological products with reference product exclusivity data and biosimilar/interchangeability evaluations).

The FDA in the FAQ reiterated its commitment to reviewing any applications for these transition products within 12 months of submission.

[email protected]

Manufacturers will be able to begin submitting licensing applications for biosimilar insulin beginning March 23.

Wikimedia Commons/FitzColinGerald/ Creative Commons License

The Food and Drug Administration published Feb. 21 in the Federal Register a final rule that transitions insulin and other products from regulation as a drug to a biologic. This will provide manufacturers access to the biosimilars approval pathway and is expected to bring more competition to the insulin market. The move comes as insulin manufacturers continue to get increased scrutiny over the significantly increased pricing of their products in recent years.

The transition was required under a provision of the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009.

The move is expected to have no impact on the distribution of insulin and other products affected by the transition.

“In general, prescribers should continue to prescribe and order insulin and other biological products the same way they did before the transition,” the FDA said in an FAQ on the transition for physicians and other health care workers. “In general, pharmacists should continue to dispense and counsel about insulin and other biological products the same way they did before the transition. Prescribers and pharmacists should ensure their patients understand there are no changes to the product and they should continue to use the product the same way as before the transition.”

Other products affected by the transition include human growth hormone (somatropin), pancrelipase, chorionic gonadotropin, follitropin alfa, and menotropins. Information on all the transitioning products will move from the Orange Book (which lists FDA-approved drug products with therapeutic equivalent evaluations) to the Purple Book (which lists FDA-licensed biological products with reference product exclusivity data and biosimilar/interchangeability evaluations).

The FDA in the FAQ reiterated its commitment to reviewing any applications for these transition products within 12 months of submission.

[email protected]

The Food and Drug Administration has approved bempedoic acid (Nexletol) for the treatment of adults with heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia (HeFH) or established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) who require additional LDL cholesterol lowering.

The oral adenosine triphosphate–citrate lyase (ACL) inhibitor is indicated as an adjunct to diet and maximally tolerated statin therapy in these patients, and approved at the 180 mg once daily dose, the agency announced today.

The safety and efficacy of bempedoic acid were demonstrated over 52 weeks in two multicenter randomized, clinical trials involving 3,009 adults with HeFH or established ASCVD on maximally tolerated statin therapy.

The difference between bempedoic acid and placebo for the primary outcome of change in LDL cholesterol from baseline to week 12 was –18% in the first trial, CLEAR Harmony (95% confidence interval, –20% to –16%; P less than .001), and –17% in the second trial, CLEAR Wisdom (95% CI, –21% to –14%; P less than .001).

The label notes that the effect on cardiovascular morbidity and mortality has not been determined. The label also includes warnings stating that bempedoic acid may increase blood uric acid levels and is associated with an increased risk of tendon rupture or injury.

In clinical trials, 26% of bempedoic acid–treated patients with normal baseline uric acid values versus 9.5% of placebo-treated patients experienced hyperuricemia one or more times, and 3.5% of patients experienced clinically significant hyperuricemia reported as an adverse reaction versus 1.1% with placebo, according to the label. Gout was reported in 1.5% of patients treated with bempedoic acid and 0.4% of those treated with placebo.

Also in clinical trials, the risk of tendon rupture was 0.5% with bempedoic acid and 0% with placebo. Tendon rupture involved the rotator cuff, biceps tendon, or Achilles tendon, and occurred within weeks to months of starting the drug. Rupture may “occur more frequently in patients over 60 years of age, in those taking corticosteroid or fluoroquinolone drugs, in patients with renal failure, and in patients with previous tendon disorders,” the label states.

The label also advises that patients avoid concomitant use of bempedoic acid with simvastatin greater than 20 mg or pravastatin greater than 40 mg because it causes an increase in statin concentrations and may increase the risk of related myopathy.

A decision is expected shortly on a new drug application submitted by Esperion for an LDL cholesterol–lowering indication for bempedoic acid 180 mg/ezetimibe 10 mg combination tablet.

Full prescribing information is available online.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved bempedoic acid (Nexletol) for the treatment of adults with heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia (HeFH) or established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) who require additional LDL cholesterol lowering.

The oral adenosine triphosphate–citrate lyase (ACL) inhibitor is indicated as an adjunct to diet and maximally tolerated statin therapy in these patients, and approved at the 180 mg once daily dose, the agency announced today.

The safety and efficacy of bempedoic acid were demonstrated over 52 weeks in two multicenter randomized, clinical trials involving 3,009 adults with HeFH or established ASCVD on maximally tolerated statin therapy.

The difference between bempedoic acid and placebo for the primary outcome of change in LDL cholesterol from baseline to week 12 was –18% in the first trial, CLEAR Harmony (95% confidence interval, –20% to –16%; P less than .001), and –17% in the second trial, CLEAR Wisdom (95% CI, –21% to –14%; P less than .001).

The label notes that the effect on cardiovascular morbidity and mortality has not been determined. The label also includes warnings stating that bempedoic acid may increase blood uric acid levels and is associated with an increased risk of tendon rupture or injury.

In clinical trials, 26% of bempedoic acid–treated patients with normal baseline uric acid values versus 9.5% of placebo-treated patients experienced hyperuricemia one or more times, and 3.5% of patients experienced clinically significant hyperuricemia reported as an adverse reaction versus 1.1% with placebo, according to the label. Gout was reported in 1.5% of patients treated with bempedoic acid and 0.4% of those treated with placebo.

Also in clinical trials, the risk of tendon rupture was 0.5% with bempedoic acid and 0% with placebo. Tendon rupture involved the rotator cuff, biceps tendon, or Achilles tendon, and occurred within weeks to months of starting the drug. Rupture may “occur more frequently in patients over 60 years of age, in those taking corticosteroid or fluoroquinolone drugs, in patients with renal failure, and in patients with previous tendon disorders,” the label states.

The label also advises that patients avoid concomitant use of bempedoic acid with simvastatin greater than 20 mg or pravastatin greater than 40 mg because it causes an increase in statin concentrations and may increase the risk of related myopathy.

A decision is expected shortly on a new drug application submitted by Esperion for an LDL cholesterol–lowering indication for bempedoic acid 180 mg/ezetimibe 10 mg combination tablet.

Full prescribing information is available online.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved bempedoic acid (Nexletol) for the treatment of adults with heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia (HeFH) or established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) who require additional LDL cholesterol lowering.

The oral adenosine triphosphate–citrate lyase (ACL) inhibitor is indicated as an adjunct to diet and maximally tolerated statin therapy in these patients, and approved at the 180 mg once daily dose, the agency announced today.

The safety and efficacy of bempedoic acid were demonstrated over 52 weeks in two multicenter randomized, clinical trials involving 3,009 adults with HeFH or established ASCVD on maximally tolerated statin therapy.

The difference between bempedoic acid and placebo for the primary outcome of change in LDL cholesterol from baseline to week 12 was –18% in the first trial, CLEAR Harmony (95% confidence interval, –20% to –16%; P less than .001), and –17% in the second trial, CLEAR Wisdom (95% CI, –21% to –14%; P less than .001).

The label notes that the effect on cardiovascular morbidity and mortality has not been determined. The label also includes warnings stating that bempedoic acid may increase blood uric acid levels and is associated with an increased risk of tendon rupture or injury.

In clinical trials, 26% of bempedoic acid–treated patients with normal baseline uric acid values versus 9.5% of placebo-treated patients experienced hyperuricemia one or more times, and 3.5% of patients experienced clinically significant hyperuricemia reported as an adverse reaction versus 1.1% with placebo, according to the label. Gout was reported in 1.5% of patients treated with bempedoic acid and 0.4% of those treated with placebo.

Also in clinical trials, the risk of tendon rupture was 0.5% with bempedoic acid and 0% with placebo. Tendon rupture involved the rotator cuff, biceps tendon, or Achilles tendon, and occurred within weeks to months of starting the drug. Rupture may “occur more frequently in patients over 60 years of age, in those taking corticosteroid or fluoroquinolone drugs, in patients with renal failure, and in patients with previous tendon disorders,” the label states.

The label also advises that patients avoid concomitant use of bempedoic acid with simvastatin greater than 20 mg or pravastatin greater than 40 mg because it causes an increase in statin concentrations and may increase the risk of related myopathy.

A decision is expected shortly on a new drug application submitted by Esperion for an LDL cholesterol–lowering indication for bempedoic acid 180 mg/ezetimibe 10 mg combination tablet.

Full prescribing information is available online.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Higher out-of-pocket costs for prescription drugs are associated with poorer adherence across common neurologic conditions, a new study has found, suggesting that physicians should take patient costs into consideration when choosing which drugs to prescribe.

For their study, published online Feb. 19 in Neurology, Brian C. Callaghan, MD, of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and colleagues looked at claims records from a large national private insurer to identify new cases of dementia, Parkinson’s disease, and neuropathy between 2001 and 2016, along with pharmacy records following diagnoses.

The researchers identified more than 52,000 patients with neuropathy on gabapentinoids and another 5,000 treated with serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors for the same. They also identified some 20,000 patients with dementia taking cholinesterase inhibitors, and 3,000 with Parkinson’s disease taking dopamine agonists. Dr. Callaghan and colleagues compared patient adherence over 6 months for pairs of drugs in the same class with similar or equal efficacy, but with different costs to the patient.

Such cost differences can be stark: The researchers noted that the average 2016 out-of-pocket cost for 30 days of pregabalin, a drug used in the treatment of peripheral neuropathy, was $65.70, compared with $8.40 for gabapentin. With two common dementia drugs the difference was even more pronounced: $79.30 for rivastigmine compared with $3.10 for donepezil, both cholinesterase inhibitors with similar efficacy and tolerability.

Dr. Callaghan and colleagues found that such cost differences bore significantly on patient adherence. An increase of $50 in patient costs was seen decreasing adherence by 9% for neuropathy patients on gabapentinoids (adjusted incidence rate ratio [IRR] 0.91, 0.89-0.93) and by 12% for dementia patients on cholinesterase inhibitors (adjusted IRR 0.88, 0.86-0.91, P less than .05 for both). Similar price-linked decreases were seen for neuropathy patients on SNRIs and Parkinson’s patients on dopamine agonists, but the differences did not reach statistical significance.

Black, Asian, and Hispanic patients saw greater drops in adherence than did white patients associated with the same out-of-pocket cost differences, leading the researchers to note that special care should be taken in prescribing decisions for these populations.

“When choosing among medications with differential [out-of-pocket] costs, prescribing the medication with lower [out-of-pocket] expense will likely improve medication adherence while reducing overall costs,” Dr. Callaghan and colleagues wrote in their analysis. “For example, prescribing gabapentin or venlafaxine to patients with newly diagnosed neuropathy is likely to lead to higher adherence compared with pregabalin or duloxetine, and therefore, there is a higher likelihood of relief from neuropathic pain.” The researchers noted that while combination pills and extended-release formulations may be marketed as a way to increase adherence, the higher out-of-pocket costs of such medicines could offset any adherence benefit.

Dr. Callaghan and his colleagues described as strengths of their study its large sample and statistical approach that “allowed us to best estimate the causal relationship between [out-of-pocket] costs and medication adherence by limiting selection bias, residual confounding, and the confounding inherent to medication choice.” Nonadherence – patients who never filled a prescription after diagnosis – was not captured in the study.

The American Academy of Neurology funded the study. Two of its authors reported financial conflicts of interest in the form of compensation from pharmaceutical or device companies. Its lead author, Dr. Callaghan, reported funding for a device maker and performing medical legal consultations.

SOURCE: Reynolds EL et al. Neurology. 2020 Feb 19. doi/10.1212/WNL.0000000000009039.

Higher out-of-pocket costs for prescription drugs are associated with poorer adherence across common neurologic conditions, a new study has found, suggesting that physicians should take patient costs into consideration when choosing which drugs to prescribe.

For their study, published online Feb. 19 in Neurology, Brian C. Callaghan, MD, of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and colleagues looked at claims records from a large national private insurer to identify new cases of dementia, Parkinson’s disease, and neuropathy between 2001 and 2016, along with pharmacy records following diagnoses.

The researchers identified more than 52,000 patients with neuropathy on gabapentinoids and another 5,000 treated with serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors for the same. They also identified some 20,000 patients with dementia taking cholinesterase inhibitors, and 3,000 with Parkinson’s disease taking dopamine agonists. Dr. Callaghan and colleagues compared patient adherence over 6 months for pairs of drugs in the same class with similar or equal efficacy, but with different costs to the patient.

Such cost differences can be stark: The researchers noted that the average 2016 out-of-pocket cost for 30 days of pregabalin, a drug used in the treatment of peripheral neuropathy, was $65.70, compared with $8.40 for gabapentin. With two common dementia drugs the difference was even more pronounced: $79.30 for rivastigmine compared with $3.10 for donepezil, both cholinesterase inhibitors with similar efficacy and tolerability.

Dr. Callaghan and colleagues found that such cost differences bore significantly on patient adherence. An increase of $50 in patient costs was seen decreasing adherence by 9% for neuropathy patients on gabapentinoids (adjusted incidence rate ratio [IRR] 0.91, 0.89-0.93) and by 12% for dementia patients on cholinesterase inhibitors (adjusted IRR 0.88, 0.86-0.91, P less than .05 for both). Similar price-linked decreases were seen for neuropathy patients on SNRIs and Parkinson’s patients on dopamine agonists, but the differences did not reach statistical significance.

Black, Asian, and Hispanic patients saw greater drops in adherence than did white patients associated with the same out-of-pocket cost differences, leading the researchers to note that special care should be taken in prescribing decisions for these populations.

“When choosing among medications with differential [out-of-pocket] costs, prescribing the medication with lower [out-of-pocket] expense will likely improve medication adherence while reducing overall costs,” Dr. Callaghan and colleagues wrote in their analysis. “For example, prescribing gabapentin or venlafaxine to patients with newly diagnosed neuropathy is likely to lead to higher adherence compared with pregabalin or duloxetine, and therefore, there is a higher likelihood of relief from neuropathic pain.” The researchers noted that while combination pills and extended-release formulations may be marketed as a way to increase adherence, the higher out-of-pocket costs of such medicines could offset any adherence benefit.

Dr. Callaghan and his colleagues described as strengths of their study its large sample and statistical approach that “allowed us to best estimate the causal relationship between [out-of-pocket] costs and medication adherence by limiting selection bias, residual confounding, and the confounding inherent to medication choice.” Nonadherence – patients who never filled a prescription after diagnosis – was not captured in the study.

The American Academy of Neurology funded the study. Two of its authors reported financial conflicts of interest in the form of compensation from pharmaceutical or device companies. Its lead author, Dr. Callaghan, reported funding for a device maker and performing medical legal consultations.

SOURCE: Reynolds EL et al. Neurology. 2020 Feb 19. doi/10.1212/WNL.0000000000009039.

Higher out-of-pocket costs for prescription drugs are associated with poorer adherence across common neurologic conditions, a new study has found, suggesting that physicians should take patient costs into consideration when choosing which drugs to prescribe.

For their study, published online Feb. 19 in Neurology, Brian C. Callaghan, MD, of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and colleagues looked at claims records from a large national private insurer to identify new cases of dementia, Parkinson’s disease, and neuropathy between 2001 and 2016, along with pharmacy records following diagnoses.

The researchers identified more than 52,000 patients with neuropathy on gabapentinoids and another 5,000 treated with serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors for the same. They also identified some 20,000 patients with dementia taking cholinesterase inhibitors, and 3,000 with Parkinson’s disease taking dopamine agonists. Dr. Callaghan and colleagues compared patient adherence over 6 months for pairs of drugs in the same class with similar or equal efficacy, but with different costs to the patient.

Such cost differences can be stark: The researchers noted that the average 2016 out-of-pocket cost for 30 days of pregabalin, a drug used in the treatment of peripheral neuropathy, was $65.70, compared with $8.40 for gabapentin. With two common dementia drugs the difference was even more pronounced: $79.30 for rivastigmine compared with $3.10 for donepezil, both cholinesterase inhibitors with similar efficacy and tolerability.

Dr. Callaghan and colleagues found that such cost differences bore significantly on patient adherence. An increase of $50 in patient costs was seen decreasing adherence by 9% for neuropathy patients on gabapentinoids (adjusted incidence rate ratio [IRR] 0.91, 0.89-0.93) and by 12% for dementia patients on cholinesterase inhibitors (adjusted IRR 0.88, 0.86-0.91, P less than .05 for both). Similar price-linked decreases were seen for neuropathy patients on SNRIs and Parkinson’s patients on dopamine agonists, but the differences did not reach statistical significance.

Black, Asian, and Hispanic patients saw greater drops in adherence than did white patients associated with the same out-of-pocket cost differences, leading the researchers to note that special care should be taken in prescribing decisions for these populations.

“When choosing among medications with differential [out-of-pocket] costs, prescribing the medication with lower [out-of-pocket] expense will likely improve medication adherence while reducing overall costs,” Dr. Callaghan and colleagues wrote in their analysis. “For example, prescribing gabapentin or venlafaxine to patients with newly diagnosed neuropathy is likely to lead to higher adherence compared with pregabalin or duloxetine, and therefore, there is a higher likelihood of relief from neuropathic pain.” The researchers noted that while combination pills and extended-release formulations may be marketed as a way to increase adherence, the higher out-of-pocket costs of such medicines could offset any adherence benefit.

Dr. Callaghan and his colleagues described as strengths of their study its large sample and statistical approach that “allowed us to best estimate the causal relationship between [out-of-pocket] costs and medication adherence by limiting selection bias, residual confounding, and the confounding inherent to medication choice.” Nonadherence – patients who never filled a prescription after diagnosis – was not captured in the study.

The American Academy of Neurology funded the study. Two of its authors reported financial conflicts of interest in the form of compensation from pharmaceutical or device companies. Its lead author, Dr. Callaghan, reported funding for a device maker and performing medical legal consultations.

SOURCE: Reynolds EL et al. Neurology. 2020 Feb 19. doi/10.1212/WNL.0000000000009039.

COVID-19, the infection caused by the newly identified coronavirus, is a currently a disease with no pharmaceutical weapons against it. There’s no vaccine to prevent it, and no drugs can treat it.

But researchers are racing to change that. A vaccine could be ready to test as soon as April. More than two dozen studies have already been registered on ClinicalTrials.gov, a website that tracks research. These studies aim to test everything from traditional Chinese medicine to vitamin C, stem cells, steroids, and medications that fight other viruses, like the flu and HIV. The hope is that something about how these repurposed remedies work will help patients who are desperately ill with no other prospects.

Anthony Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, says this is all part of the playbook for brand-new diseases. “There’s a lot of empiric guessing,” he says. “They’re going to propose a whole lot of drugs that already exist. They’re going to say, here’s the data that shows it blocks the virus” in a test tube. But test tubes aren’t people, and many drugs that seem to work in a lab won’t end up helping patients.

Coronaviruses are especially hard to stop once they invade the body. Unlike many other kinds of viruses, they have a fail-safe against tampering – a “proofreader” that constantly inspects their code, looking for errors, including the potentially life-saving errors that drugs could introduce.

Dr. Fauci said that researchers will be able to make better guesses about how to help people when they can try drugs in animals. “We don’t have an animal model yet of the new coronavirus. When we do get an animal model, that will be a big boon to drugs because then, you can clearly test them in a physiological way, whether they work,” he says.

Looking to drugs for HIV and flu

One of the drugs already under study is the combination of two HIV medications: lopinavir and ritonavir (Kaletra). Kaletra stops viruses by interfering with the enzymes they need to infect cells, called proteases.

One study being done at the Guangzhou Eighth People’s Hospital in China is testing Kaletra against Arbidol, an antiviral drug approved in China and Russia to treat the flu. Two groups of patients will take the medications along with standard care. A third group in the study will receive only standard care, typically supportive therapy with oxygen and IV fluids that are meant to support the body so the immune system can fight off a virus on its own.

An Ebola drug gets a second look

One repurposed drug generating a lot of buzz is an experimental infusion called remdesivir (Xembify). It was originally tested against the Ebola virus. While it didn’t work for that infection, it has been shown to shut down the new coronavirus, at least in test tubes. It’s been given to a small number of COVID-19 patients already, including one in Washington state.

In order to have better evidence of how well it may work in people, two studies in Beijing are comparing remdesivir to a dummy pill to see if the drug can help patients with both mild and severe symptoms recover from their illnesses. Viruses work by infecting cells, taking over their machinery, and getting them to crank out more copies of the virus, which then goes on to infect more cells. Remdesivir is a mimic that fools a virus into replacing one of its four building blocks with a chemical fake. Once in the virus’s blueprints, the imposter acts like a stop sign that keeps the virus from copying itself.

Other kinds of drugs in the same class – called nucleotide analogs – are used to attack cancer and other infectious viruses like hepatitis.

Last week, Chinese scientists published study showing remdesivir was effective against the new coronavirus, 2019-nCoV. Out of seven drugs tested, only remdesivir and an older drug called chloroquine (Aralen), which is used to treat malaria, worked, at least in test tubes. “It functions like a knife that just cuts off the RNA strand,” says Mark Denison, MD, a pediatric infectious disease specialist at Vanderbilt University in Nashville. “They can’t replicate any more. It stops them from doing that.” Dr. Denison is part of a team of researchers in Tennessee and North Carolina that discovered remdesivir could stop coronaviruses, like severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) and Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS), in test tubes and animals. He has studied coronaviruses in his lab for 30 years. He knew they would pose a threat again. “We’re shocked, but not surprised, that this has happened again,” he says of the China-based outbreak of 2019-nCoV.

After the SARS outbreak, which infected more than 8,000 people in 26 countries during 2002-2003, and MERS, which has infected nearly 2,500 people in 27 countries since 2012, researchers knew they had to start looking for treatments that would work against coronaviruses. Dr. Denison reached out to Gilead Sciences, a company best known for its antiviral medications that treat HIV and hepatitis C, and asked it to send drug candidates for him to test on coronaviruses. “The idea was that we didn’t want a drug that would just work against SARS or MERS,” he says. “We wanted drugs that worked against every coronavirus.”

Many of the agents he tried didn’t work until Dr. Denison and his team knocked out the virus’s pesky proofreader. Remdesivir seems to be able to defeat the proofreader, though Dr. Denison admits that he does not know how the drug gets around a virus’s defenses. He has a grant from the National Institutes of Health to study that. Gilead has been giving remdesivir to “a small number” of coronavirus patients in the United States and Europe on a compassionate basis.

One of those patients was a 35-year-old man in Everett, Wash., who had gotten pneumonia after being infected with the new coronavirus during a trip to see family in Wuhan, China, the epicenter of the outbreak. His doctors started IV remdesivir on the evening of his 7th day in the hospital. On the 8th day, he improved. He was well enough to stop using oxygen. Signs of pneumonia were gone. He got his appetite back. His case was recently published in the New England Journal of Medicine, igniting a firestorm of interest in the therapy.

Unfortunately, though, even Dr. Denison says a single person’s case isn’t enough proof that the medication can treat the new coronavirus. The patient, who has not been identified, was getting expert care. He may have improved on his own, despite getting the drug. He said the challenge in people will be to find out two things: whether the medication can block the spread of virus in the body and whether it can reverse the disease. “You can remove the source of injury, but you still have the injury,” he said. Other important questions include how soon the drug may need to be given after infection for it work and whether it may cause significant side effects.

A promising pill

Another drug, a nucleoside analog, that appears to be able to defeat the coronavirus proofreader, EIDD-2801, was developed by Emory University in Atlanta. It was originally intended to treat the flu but has shown some effectiveness against coronaviruses like SARS and MERS.

The FDA recently reached out to Emory asking if it had any drug candidates that might work against the new coronavirus. “It’s a good shot on goal here,” says George Painter, PhD, CEO of Drug Innovation Ventures at Emory. EIDD-2801 can be taken as a pill, which makes it easier to use outside of a hospital setting.

“The capsules for the trial are being made at the end of this month. So we’re close,” Painter says. “We’re right on the edge.”

While these early tests are just getting started, and it will be months until researchers have results, the World Health Organization has sounded a note of caution.

In new guidelines for the clinical management of COVID-19, the WHO reminded doctors and patients that there’s not enough evidence to recommend any specific treatment for infected patients.

Right now, the guidelines recommend that doctors offer supportive care to help the body fight off an infection on its own.

The organization says unlicensed treatments should be given only in the context of clinical trials that have been ethically reviewed or with strict clinical monitoring in emergencies.
 

This article first appeared on WebMD.com.

COVID-19, the infection caused by the newly identified coronavirus, is a currently a disease with no pharmaceutical weapons against it. There’s no vaccine to prevent it, and no drugs can treat it.

But researchers are racing to change that. A vaccine could be ready to test as soon as April. More than two dozen studies have already been registered on ClinicalTrials.gov, a website that tracks research. These studies aim to test everything from traditional Chinese medicine to vitamin C, stem cells, steroids, and medications that fight other viruses, like the flu and HIV. The hope is that something about how these repurposed remedies work will help patients who are desperately ill with no other prospects.

Anthony Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, says this is all part of the playbook for brand-new diseases. “There’s a lot of empiric guessing,” he says. “They’re going to propose a whole lot of drugs that already exist. They’re going to say, here’s the data that shows it blocks the virus” in a test tube. But test tubes aren’t people, and many drugs that seem to work in a lab won’t end up helping patients.

Coronaviruses are especially hard to stop once they invade the body. Unlike many other kinds of viruses, they have a fail-safe against tampering – a “proofreader” that constantly inspects their code, looking for errors, including the potentially life-saving errors that drugs could introduce.

Dr. Fauci said that researchers will be able to make better guesses about how to help people when they can try drugs in animals. “We don’t have an animal model yet of the new coronavirus. When we do get an animal model, that will be a big boon to drugs because then, you can clearly test them in a physiological way, whether they work,” he says.

Looking to drugs for HIV and flu

One of the drugs already under study is the combination of two HIV medications: lopinavir and ritonavir (Kaletra). Kaletra stops viruses by interfering with the enzymes they need to infect cells, called proteases.

One study being done at the Guangzhou Eighth People’s Hospital in China is testing Kaletra against Arbidol, an antiviral drug approved in China and Russia to treat the flu. Two groups of patients will take the medications along with standard care. A third group in the study will receive only standard care, typically supportive therapy with oxygen and IV fluids that are meant to support the body so the immune system can fight off a virus on its own.

An Ebola drug gets a second look

One repurposed drug generating a lot of buzz is an experimental infusion called remdesivir (Xembify). It was originally tested against the Ebola virus. While it didn’t work for that infection, it has been shown to shut down the new coronavirus, at least in test tubes. It’s been given to a small number of COVID-19 patients already, including one in Washington state.

In order to have better evidence of how well it may work in people, two studies in Beijing are comparing remdesivir to a dummy pill to see if the drug can help patients with both mild and severe symptoms recover from their illnesses. Viruses work by infecting cells, taking over their machinery, and getting them to crank out more copies of the virus, which then goes on to infect more cells. Remdesivir is a mimic that fools a virus into replacing one of its four building blocks with a chemical fake. Once in the virus’s blueprints, the imposter acts like a stop sign that keeps the virus from copying itself.

Other kinds of drugs in the same class – called nucleotide analogs – are used to attack cancer and other infectious viruses like hepatitis.

Last week, Chinese scientists published study showing remdesivir was effective against the new coronavirus, 2019-nCoV. Out of seven drugs tested, only remdesivir and an older drug called chloroquine (Aralen), which is used to treat malaria, worked, at least in test tubes. “It functions like a knife that just cuts off the RNA strand,” says Mark Denison, MD, a pediatric infectious disease specialist at Vanderbilt University in Nashville. “They can’t replicate any more. It stops them from doing that.” Dr. Denison is part of a team of researchers in Tennessee and North Carolina that discovered remdesivir could stop coronaviruses, like severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) and Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS), in test tubes and animals. He has studied coronaviruses in his lab for 30 years. He knew they would pose a threat again. “We’re shocked, but not surprised, that this has happened again,” he says of the China-based outbreak of 2019-nCoV.

After the SARS outbreak, which infected more than 8,000 people in 26 countries during 2002-2003, and MERS, which has infected nearly 2,500 people in 27 countries since 2012, researchers knew they had to start looking for treatments that would work against coronaviruses. Dr. Denison reached out to Gilead Sciences, a company best known for its antiviral medications that treat HIV and hepatitis C, and asked it to send drug candidates for him to test on coronaviruses. “The idea was that we didn’t want a drug that would just work against SARS or MERS,” he says. “We wanted drugs that worked against every coronavirus.”

Many of the agents he tried didn’t work until Dr. Denison and his team knocked out the virus’s pesky proofreader. Remdesivir seems to be able to defeat the proofreader, though Dr. Denison admits that he does not know how the drug gets around a virus’s defenses. He has a grant from the National Institutes of Health to study that. Gilead has been giving remdesivir to “a small number” of coronavirus patients in the United States and Europe on a compassionate basis.

One of those patients was a 35-year-old man in Everett, Wash., who had gotten pneumonia after being infected with the new coronavirus during a trip to see family in Wuhan, China, the epicenter of the outbreak. His doctors started IV remdesivir on the evening of his 7th day in the hospital. On the 8th day, he improved. He was well enough to stop using oxygen. Signs of pneumonia were gone. He got his appetite back. His case was recently published in the New England Journal of Medicine, igniting a firestorm of interest in the therapy.

Unfortunately, though, even Dr. Denison says a single person’s case isn’t enough proof that the medication can treat the new coronavirus. The patient, who has not been identified, was getting expert care. He may have improved on his own, despite getting the drug. He said the challenge in people will be to find out two things: whether the medication can block the spread of virus in the body and whether it can reverse the disease. “You can remove the source of injury, but you still have the injury,” he said. Other important questions include how soon the drug may need to be given after infection for it work and whether it may cause significant side effects.

A promising pill

Another drug, a nucleoside analog, that appears to be able to defeat the coronavirus proofreader, EIDD-2801, was developed by Emory University in Atlanta. It was originally intended to treat the flu but has shown some effectiveness against coronaviruses like SARS and MERS.

The FDA recently reached out to Emory asking if it had any drug candidates that might work against the new coronavirus. “It’s a good shot on goal here,” says George Painter, PhD, CEO of Drug Innovation Ventures at Emory. EIDD-2801 can be taken as a pill, which makes it easier to use outside of a hospital setting.

“The capsules for the trial are being made at the end of this month. So we’re close,” Painter says. “We’re right on the edge.”

While these early tests are just getting started, and it will be months until researchers have results, the World Health Organization has sounded a note of caution.

In new guidelines for the clinical management of COVID-19, the WHO reminded doctors and patients that there’s not enough evidence to recommend any specific treatment for infected patients.

Right now, the guidelines recommend that doctors offer supportive care to help the body fight off an infection on its own.

The organization says unlicensed treatments should be given only in the context of clinical trials that have been ethically reviewed or with strict clinical monitoring in emergencies.
 

This article first appeared on WebMD.com.

COVID-19, the infection caused by the newly identified coronavirus, is a currently a disease with no pharmaceutical weapons against it. There’s no vaccine to prevent it, and no drugs can treat it.

But researchers are racing to change that. A vaccine could be ready to test as soon as April. More than two dozen studies have already been registered on ClinicalTrials.gov, a website that tracks research. These studies aim to test everything from traditional Chinese medicine to vitamin C, stem cells, steroids, and medications that fight other viruses, like the flu and HIV. The hope is that something about how these repurposed remedies work will help patients who are desperately ill with no other prospects.

Anthony Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, says this is all part of the playbook for brand-new diseases. “There’s a lot of empiric guessing,” he says. “They’re going to propose a whole lot of drugs that already exist. They’re going to say, here’s the data that shows it blocks the virus” in a test tube. But test tubes aren’t people, and many drugs that seem to work in a lab won’t end up helping patients.

Coronaviruses are especially hard to stop once they invade the body. Unlike many other kinds of viruses, they have a fail-safe against tampering – a “proofreader” that constantly inspects their code, looking for errors, including the potentially life-saving errors that drugs could introduce.

Dr. Fauci said that researchers will be able to make better guesses about how to help people when they can try drugs in animals. “We don’t have an animal model yet of the new coronavirus. When we do get an animal model, that will be a big boon to drugs because then, you can clearly test them in a physiological way, whether they work,” he says.

Looking to drugs for HIV and flu

One of the drugs already under study is the combination of two HIV medications: lopinavir and ritonavir (Kaletra). Kaletra stops viruses by interfering with the enzymes they need to infect cells, called proteases.

One study being done at the Guangzhou Eighth People’s Hospital in China is testing Kaletra against Arbidol, an antiviral drug approved in China and Russia to treat the flu. Two groups of patients will take the medications along with standard care. A third group in the study will receive only standard care, typically supportive therapy with oxygen and IV fluids that are meant to support the body so the immune system can fight off a virus on its own.

An Ebola drug gets a second look

One repurposed drug generating a lot of buzz is an experimental infusion called remdesivir (Xembify). It was originally tested against the Ebola virus. While it didn’t work for that infection, it has been shown to shut down the new coronavirus, at least in test tubes. It’s been given to a small number of COVID-19 patients already, including one in Washington state.

In order to have better evidence of how well it may work in people, two studies in Beijing are comparing remdesivir to a dummy pill to see if the drug can help patients with both mild and severe symptoms recover from their illnesses. Viruses work by infecting cells, taking over their machinery, and getting them to crank out more copies of the virus, which then goes on to infect more cells. Remdesivir is a mimic that fools a virus into replacing one of its four building blocks with a chemical fake. Once in the virus’s blueprints, the imposter acts like a stop sign that keeps the virus from copying itself.

Other kinds of drugs in the same class – called nucleotide analogs – are used to attack cancer and other infectious viruses like hepatitis.

Last week, Chinese scientists published study showing remdesivir was effective against the new coronavirus, 2019-nCoV. Out of seven drugs tested, only remdesivir and an older drug called chloroquine (Aralen), which is used to treat malaria, worked, at least in test tubes. “It functions like a knife that just cuts off the RNA strand,” says Mark Denison, MD, a pediatric infectious disease specialist at Vanderbilt University in Nashville. “They can’t replicate any more. It stops them from doing that.” Dr. Denison is part of a team of researchers in Tennessee and North Carolina that discovered remdesivir could stop coronaviruses, like severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) and Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS), in test tubes and animals. He has studied coronaviruses in his lab for 30 years. He knew they would pose a threat again. “We’re shocked, but not surprised, that this has happened again,” he says of the China-based outbreak of 2019-nCoV.

After the SARS outbreak, which infected more than 8,000 people in 26 countries during 2002-2003, and MERS, which has infected nearly 2,500 people in 27 countries since 2012, researchers knew they had to start looking for treatments that would work against coronaviruses. Dr. Denison reached out to Gilead Sciences, a company best known for its antiviral medications that treat HIV and hepatitis C, and asked it to send drug candidates for him to test on coronaviruses. “The idea was that we didn’t want a drug that would just work against SARS or MERS,” he says. “We wanted drugs that worked against every coronavirus.”

Many of the agents he tried didn’t work until Dr. Denison and his team knocked out the virus’s pesky proofreader. Remdesivir seems to be able to defeat the proofreader, though Dr. Denison admits that he does not know how the drug gets around a virus’s defenses. He has a grant from the National Institutes of Health to study that. Gilead has been giving remdesivir to “a small number” of coronavirus patients in the United States and Europe on a compassionate basis.

One of those patients was a 35-year-old man in Everett, Wash., who had gotten pneumonia after being infected with the new coronavirus during a trip to see family in Wuhan, China, the epicenter of the outbreak. His doctors started IV remdesivir on the evening of his 7th day in the hospital. On the 8th day, he improved. He was well enough to stop using oxygen. Signs of pneumonia were gone. He got his appetite back. His case was recently published in the New England Journal of Medicine, igniting a firestorm of interest in the therapy.

Unfortunately, though, even Dr. Denison says a single person’s case isn’t enough proof that the medication can treat the new coronavirus. The patient, who has not been identified, was getting expert care. He may have improved on his own, despite getting the drug. He said the challenge in people will be to find out two things: whether the medication can block the spread of virus in the body and whether it can reverse the disease. “You can remove the source of injury, but you still have the injury,” he said. Other important questions include how soon the drug may need to be given after infection for it work and whether it may cause significant side effects.

A promising pill

Another drug, a nucleoside analog, that appears to be able to defeat the coronavirus proofreader, EIDD-2801, was developed by Emory University in Atlanta. It was originally intended to treat the flu but has shown some effectiveness against coronaviruses like SARS and MERS.

The FDA recently reached out to Emory asking if it had any drug candidates that might work against the new coronavirus. “It’s a good shot on goal here,” says George Painter, PhD, CEO of Drug Innovation Ventures at Emory. EIDD-2801 can be taken as a pill, which makes it easier to use outside of a hospital setting.

“The capsules for the trial are being made at the end of this month. So we’re close,” Painter says. “We’re right on the edge.”

While these early tests are just getting started, and it will be months until researchers have results, the World Health Organization has sounded a note of caution.

In new guidelines for the clinical management of COVID-19, the WHO reminded doctors and patients that there’s not enough evidence to recommend any specific treatment for infected patients.

Right now, the guidelines recommend that doctors offer supportive care to help the body fight off an infection on its own.

The organization says unlicensed treatments should be given only in the context of clinical trials that have been ethically reviewed or with strict clinical monitoring in emergencies.
 

This article first appeared on WebMD.com.

The complement C5 inhibitor zilucoplan significantly improved muscle weakness and daily functioning in patients with moderate to severe generalized myasthenia gravis (gMG), according to investigators who conducted a phase 2, randomized, placebo-controlled study of the agent.

The clinical effect of the self-administered macrocyclic peptide inhibitor was “similar,” the investigators wrote, to what was seen in studies of the intravenously administered complement inhibitor eculizumab, which is approved by the Food and Drug Administration for treatment of gMG.

While eculizumab studies were restricted to patients with refractory gMG, the investigators wrote that their study of zilucoplan included a broader population, including patients who had not failed prior therapies, who were earlier in their disease course, and who had a history of thymoma.

“This observation is important because in gMG, disease severity frequently peaks within the first few years after diagnosis, before all treatment options have been exhausted, and before patients may be formally declared treatment refractory,” wrote James F. Howard Jr, MD, of the University of North Carolina in Chapel Hill, and coauthors.

Complement inhibition is a “targeted approach” that addresses the primary mechanism of tissue damage in gMG, the investigators wrote.

That stands in contrast to conventional gMG treatments including pyridostigmine, corticosteroids, and other immunosuppressants. “These treatments lack strong evidence from clinical trials to support their efficacy, are often poorly tolerated, and can be associated with considerable long-term toxicities,” Dr. Howard and colleagues wrote in their report, which was published in JAMA Neurology.

A total of 44 adult patients with gMG were randomized to receive daily zilucoplan 0.1 mg/kg, 0.3 mg/kg, or placebo for 12 weeks in this 25-center North American study. All patients had acetylcholine receptor autoantibody–positive disease and a Quantitative Myasthenia Gravis (QMG) score of 12 or higher. The QMG score ranges from 0, indicating no muscle weakness, to 39, or severe weakness.

Per the study protocol, patients had to keep taking their current gMG medication without changing the dose.

Change in QMG score from baseline to 12 weeks, the primary efficacy endpoint of the study, showed a significant and clinically meaningful difference favoring zilucoplan 0.3 mg/kg over placebo, according to the investigators.

The mean change was –6.0 points for zilucoplan 0.3 mg/kg and –3.2 for placebo (P = .05), according to their report, which indicated a rapid onset of action apparent 1 week after starting treatment.

Zilucoplan 0.1 mg/kg also yielded a significant and clinically meaningful improvement versus placebo, but its magnitude was smaller and took 4 weeks to become apparent.

Treatment with zilucoplan also significantly improved MG Activities of Daily Living scores versus placebo, a key secondary endpoint of the trial, according to the researchers.

Treatment-emergent adverse events, which included local injection-site reactions, were mild and judged to be unrelated to the study treatment, according to the report.

Ra Pharmaceuticals funded the study. Dr. Howard reported disclosures related to Ra Pharmaceuticals, Alexion Pharmaceuticals, argenx, Viela Bio, and others.

SOURCE: Howard Jr JF et al. JAMA Neurol. 2020 Feb 17. doi: 10.1001/jamaneurol.2019.5125.

The complement C5 inhibitor zilucoplan significantly improved muscle weakness and daily functioning in patients with moderate to severe generalized myasthenia gravis (gMG), according to investigators who conducted a phase 2, randomized, placebo-controlled study of the agent.

The clinical effect of the self-administered macrocyclic peptide inhibitor was “similar,” the investigators wrote, to what was seen in studies of the intravenously administered complement inhibitor eculizumab, which is approved by the Food and Drug Administration for treatment of gMG.

While eculizumab studies were restricted to patients with refractory gMG, the investigators wrote that their study of zilucoplan included a broader population, including patients who had not failed prior therapies, who were earlier in their disease course, and who had a history of thymoma.

“This observation is important because in gMG, disease severity frequently peaks within the first few years after diagnosis, before all treatment options have been exhausted, and before patients may be formally declared treatment refractory,” wrote James F. Howard Jr, MD, of the University of North Carolina in Chapel Hill, and coauthors.

Complement inhibition is a “targeted approach” that addresses the primary mechanism of tissue damage in gMG, the investigators wrote.

That stands in contrast to conventional gMG treatments including pyridostigmine, corticosteroids, and other immunosuppressants. “These treatments lack strong evidence from clinical trials to support their efficacy, are often poorly tolerated, and can be associated with considerable long-term toxicities,” Dr. Howard and colleagues wrote in their report, which was published in JAMA Neurology.

A total of 44 adult patients with gMG were randomized to receive daily zilucoplan 0.1 mg/kg, 0.3 mg/kg, or placebo for 12 weeks in this 25-center North American study. All patients had acetylcholine receptor autoantibody–positive disease and a Quantitative Myasthenia Gravis (QMG) score of 12 or higher. The QMG score ranges from 0, indicating no muscle weakness, to 39, or severe weakness.

Per the study protocol, patients had to keep taking their current gMG medication without changing the dose.

Change in QMG score from baseline to 12 weeks, the primary efficacy endpoint of the study, showed a significant and clinically meaningful difference favoring zilucoplan 0.3 mg/kg over placebo, according to the investigators.

The mean change was –6.0 points for zilucoplan 0.3 mg/kg and –3.2 for placebo (P = .05), according to their report, which indicated a rapid onset of action apparent 1 week after starting treatment.

Zilucoplan 0.1 mg/kg also yielded a significant and clinically meaningful improvement versus placebo, but its magnitude was smaller and took 4 weeks to become apparent.

Treatment with zilucoplan also significantly improved MG Activities of Daily Living scores versus placebo, a key secondary endpoint of the trial, according to the researchers.

Treatment-emergent adverse events, which included local injection-site reactions, were mild and judged to be unrelated to the study treatment, according to the report.

Ra Pharmaceuticals funded the study. Dr. Howard reported disclosures related to Ra Pharmaceuticals, Alexion Pharmaceuticals, argenx, Viela Bio, and others.

SOURCE: Howard Jr JF et al. JAMA Neurol. 2020 Feb 17. doi: 10.1001/jamaneurol.2019.5125.

The complement C5 inhibitor zilucoplan significantly improved muscle weakness and daily functioning in patients with moderate to severe generalized myasthenia gravis (gMG), according to investigators who conducted a phase 2, randomized, placebo-controlled study of the agent.

The clinical effect of the self-administered macrocyclic peptide inhibitor was “similar,” the investigators wrote, to what was seen in studies of the intravenously administered complement inhibitor eculizumab, which is approved by the Food and Drug Administration for treatment of gMG.

While eculizumab studies were restricted to patients with refractory gMG, the investigators wrote that their study of zilucoplan included a broader population, including patients who had not failed prior therapies, who were earlier in their disease course, and who had a history of thymoma.

“This observation is important because in gMG, disease severity frequently peaks within the first few years after diagnosis, before all treatment options have been exhausted, and before patients may be formally declared treatment refractory,” wrote James F. Howard Jr, MD, of the University of North Carolina in Chapel Hill, and coauthors.

Complement inhibition is a “targeted approach” that addresses the primary mechanism of tissue damage in gMG, the investigators wrote.

That stands in contrast to conventional gMG treatments including pyridostigmine, corticosteroids, and other immunosuppressants. “These treatments lack strong evidence from clinical trials to support their efficacy, are often poorly tolerated, and can be associated with considerable long-term toxicities,” Dr. Howard and colleagues wrote in their report, which was published in JAMA Neurology.

A total of 44 adult patients with gMG were randomized to receive daily zilucoplan 0.1 mg/kg, 0.3 mg/kg, or placebo for 12 weeks in this 25-center North American study. All patients had acetylcholine receptor autoantibody–positive disease and a Quantitative Myasthenia Gravis (QMG) score of 12 or higher. The QMG score ranges from 0, indicating no muscle weakness, to 39, or severe weakness.

Per the study protocol, patients had to keep taking their current gMG medication without changing the dose.

Change in QMG score from baseline to 12 weeks, the primary efficacy endpoint of the study, showed a significant and clinically meaningful difference favoring zilucoplan 0.3 mg/kg over placebo, according to the investigators.

The mean change was –6.0 points for zilucoplan 0.3 mg/kg and –3.2 for placebo (P = .05), according to their report, which indicated a rapid onset of action apparent 1 week after starting treatment.

Zilucoplan 0.1 mg/kg also yielded a significant and clinically meaningful improvement versus placebo, but its magnitude was smaller and took 4 weeks to become apparent.

Treatment with zilucoplan also significantly improved MG Activities of Daily Living scores versus placebo, a key secondary endpoint of the trial, according to the researchers.

Treatment-emergent adverse events, which included local injection-site reactions, were mild and judged to be unrelated to the study treatment, according to the report.

Ra Pharmaceuticals funded the study. Dr. Howard reported disclosures related to Ra Pharmaceuticals, Alexion Pharmaceuticals, argenx, Viela Bio, and others.

SOURCE: Howard Jr JF et al. JAMA Neurol. 2020 Feb 17. doi: 10.1001/jamaneurol.2019.5125.

The Food and Drug Administration asked Eisai to voluntary withdraw the weight-loss drug lorcaserin (Belviq and Belviq XR) on Feb. 13 after a post-marketing trial with more than 12,000 subjects revealed an increased occurrence of cancer.

In a Drug Safety Communication, the agency said “health care professionals should stop prescribing and dispensing lorcaserin to patients. Contact patients currently taking lorcaserin, inform them of the increased occurrence of cancer seen in the clinical trial, and ask them to stop taking the medicine. Discuss alternative weight-loss medicines or strategies with your patients.”

Eisai is complying with the withdrawal request.

The decision is based on the agency’s review of the 5-year trial, which was designed to evaluate cardiac risk with the drug and ended in June 2018. In total, 7.7% of patients randomized to 10 mg lorcaserin twice daily were diagnosed with 520 primary cancers, compared with 7.1% of placebo subjects diagnosed with 470 cancers, over a median follow-up of 3 years and 3 months. There was one additional cancer observed for every 470 patients treated for 1 year.

“There was no apparent difference in the incidence of cancer over the initial months of treatment, but the imbalance increased with longer duration on lorcaserin,” FDA said. Pancreatic, colorectal, and lung cancers were among those diagnosed.

In short, “we believe that the risks of lorcaserin outweigh its benefits based on our completed review of” the data, the agency said. The FDA is not recommending special cancer screenings for patients who have taken lorcaserin.

The action follows an FDA alert in January about a possible elevated cancer risk based on its preliminary analysis of the study.

Patients were also advised Feb. 13 to stop taking the drug and talk to their providers about alternative weight-loss medications and weight-management programs.

They were also told to dispose of the pills at a drug take-back location if available, but if not, to mix them with an “unappealing substance” such as dirt, cat litter, or used coffee grounds; seal them in plastic bag; and put them in the trash.

[email protected]

The Food and Drug Administration asked Eisai to voluntary withdraw the weight-loss drug lorcaserin (Belviq and Belviq XR) on Feb. 13 after a post-marketing trial with more than 12,000 subjects revealed an increased occurrence of cancer.

In a Drug Safety Communication, the agency said “health care professionals should stop prescribing and dispensing lorcaserin to patients. Contact patients currently taking lorcaserin, inform them of the increased occurrence of cancer seen in the clinical trial, and ask them to stop taking the medicine. Discuss alternative weight-loss medicines or strategies with your patients.”

Eisai is complying with the withdrawal request.

The decision is based on the agency’s review of the 5-year trial, which was designed to evaluate cardiac risk with the drug and ended in June 2018. In total, 7.7% of patients randomized to 10 mg lorcaserin twice daily were diagnosed with 520 primary cancers, compared with 7.1% of placebo subjects diagnosed with 470 cancers, over a median follow-up of 3 years and 3 months. There was one additional cancer observed for every 470 patients treated for 1 year.

“There was no apparent difference in the incidence of cancer over the initial months of treatment, but the imbalance increased with longer duration on lorcaserin,” FDA said. Pancreatic, colorectal, and lung cancers were among those diagnosed.

In short, “we believe that the risks of lorcaserin outweigh its benefits based on our completed review of” the data, the agency said. The FDA is not recommending special cancer screenings for patients who have taken lorcaserin.

The action follows an FDA alert in January about a possible elevated cancer risk based on its preliminary analysis of the study.

Patients were also advised Feb. 13 to stop taking the drug and talk to their providers about alternative weight-loss medications and weight-management programs.

They were also told to dispose of the pills at a drug take-back location if available, but if not, to mix them with an “unappealing substance” such as dirt, cat litter, or used coffee grounds; seal them in plastic bag; and put them in the trash.

[email protected]

The Food and Drug Administration asked Eisai to voluntary withdraw the weight-loss drug lorcaserin (Belviq and Belviq XR) on Feb. 13 after a post-marketing trial with more than 12,000 subjects revealed an increased occurrence of cancer.

In a Drug Safety Communication, the agency said “health care professionals should stop prescribing and dispensing lorcaserin to patients. Contact patients currently taking lorcaserin, inform them of the increased occurrence of cancer seen in the clinical trial, and ask them to stop taking the medicine. Discuss alternative weight-loss medicines or strategies with your patients.”

Eisai is complying with the withdrawal request.

The decision is based on the agency’s review of the 5-year trial, which was designed to evaluate cardiac risk with the drug and ended in June 2018. In total, 7.7% of patients randomized to 10 mg lorcaserin twice daily were diagnosed with 520 primary cancers, compared with 7.1% of placebo subjects diagnosed with 470 cancers, over a median follow-up of 3 years and 3 months. There was one additional cancer observed for every 470 patients treated for 1 year.

“There was no apparent difference in the incidence of cancer over the initial months of treatment, but the imbalance increased with longer duration on lorcaserin,” FDA said. Pancreatic, colorectal, and lung cancers were among those diagnosed.

In short, “we believe that the risks of lorcaserin outweigh its benefits based on our completed review of” the data, the agency said. The FDA is not recommending special cancer screenings for patients who have taken lorcaserin.

The action follows an FDA alert in January about a possible elevated cancer risk based on its preliminary analysis of the study.

Patients were also advised Feb. 13 to stop taking the drug and talk to their providers about alternative weight-loss medications and weight-management programs.

They were also told to dispose of the pills at a drug take-back location if available, but if not, to mix them with an “unappealing substance” such as dirt, cat litter, or used coffee grounds; seal them in plastic bag; and put them in the trash.

[email protected]