Takeda Pharmaceuticals is now the latest pharmaceutical company to offer a value-based agreement on one of its new targeted therapies.

The rebate offer is for brigatinib (Alunbrig) which is approved for the treatment of adults with anaplastic lymphoma kinase positive (ALK+) metastatic non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) as detected by an FDA-approved test.

The move follows a rebate offer from Pfizer for crizotinib (Xalkori), which is also approved for ALK+ (as well as ROS1+) NSCLC, and also for ALK+ anaplastic large cell lymphoma

For its offer, Takeda has teamed up with Point32Health, the second-largest health plan in New England with about 2.3 million members. The new agreement will make brigatinib widely available to patients who may benefit from its use, say the companies.

If a patient is unable to remain on brigatinib for 3 months or longer because of effectiveness or tolerability, Takeda will refund a yet unspecified amount of money to Point32Health. Brigatinib’s list price is $17,000 for a month’s treatment.

“Given the importance of facilitating cutting-edge oncology treatment and also the reality that not all patients show a positive response, reimbursement for oncology treatments is an area that is prime for innovative financing approaches,” said Michael Sherman, MD, chief medical officer and executive vice president, Point32Health, in a statement. “Collaborating with Takeda to share risk makes this agreement a crucial milestone in bringing cost-effectiveness to cancer care.”

The Pfizer program for crizotinib is somewhat different. For one thing, Pfizer’s refund is offered to any patient who qualifies and not just those who are covered by a specific plan. Second, Takeda is thus far only refunding money to the insurer, whereas Pfizer will also reimburse patients for out-of-pocket expenses.

There is a similar approach that has been offered by Novartis for tisagenlecleucel (Kymriah), the CAR T-cell therapy that launched with a daunting price tag of $475,000. After receiving backlash over the cost, Novartis announced that if the drug does not work after the first month, patients pay nothing.

In addition, Italy has been using this system for several years. Pharmaceutical companies must refund money if the drug fails to work. In 2015, the state-run health care system collected 200 million euros ($220 million) in refunds.

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

Takeda Pharmaceuticals is now the latest pharmaceutical company to offer a value-based agreement on one of its new targeted therapies.

The rebate offer is for brigatinib (Alunbrig) which is approved for the treatment of adults with anaplastic lymphoma kinase positive (ALK+) metastatic non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) as detected by an FDA-approved test.

The move follows a rebate offer from Pfizer for crizotinib (Xalkori), which is also approved for ALK+ (as well as ROS1+) NSCLC, and also for ALK+ anaplastic large cell lymphoma

For its offer, Takeda has teamed up with Point32Health, the second-largest health plan in New England with about 2.3 million members. The new agreement will make brigatinib widely available to patients who may benefit from its use, say the companies.

If a patient is unable to remain on brigatinib for 3 months or longer because of effectiveness or tolerability, Takeda will refund a yet unspecified amount of money to Point32Health. Brigatinib’s list price is $17,000 for a month’s treatment.

“Given the importance of facilitating cutting-edge oncology treatment and also the reality that not all patients show a positive response, reimbursement for oncology treatments is an area that is prime for innovative financing approaches,” said Michael Sherman, MD, chief medical officer and executive vice president, Point32Health, in a statement. “Collaborating with Takeda to share risk makes this agreement a crucial milestone in bringing cost-effectiveness to cancer care.”

The Pfizer program for crizotinib is somewhat different. For one thing, Pfizer’s refund is offered to any patient who qualifies and not just those who are covered by a specific plan. Second, Takeda is thus far only refunding money to the insurer, whereas Pfizer will also reimburse patients for out-of-pocket expenses.

There is a similar approach that has been offered by Novartis for tisagenlecleucel (Kymriah), the CAR T-cell therapy that launched with a daunting price tag of $475,000. After receiving backlash over the cost, Novartis announced that if the drug does not work after the first month, patients pay nothing.

In addition, Italy has been using this system for several years. Pharmaceutical companies must refund money if the drug fails to work. In 2015, the state-run health care system collected 200 million euros ($220 million) in refunds.

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

Takeda Pharmaceuticals is now the latest pharmaceutical company to offer a value-based agreement on one of its new targeted therapies.

The rebate offer is for brigatinib (Alunbrig) which is approved for the treatment of adults with anaplastic lymphoma kinase positive (ALK+) metastatic non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) as detected by an FDA-approved test.

The move follows a rebate offer from Pfizer for crizotinib (Xalkori), which is also approved for ALK+ (as well as ROS1+) NSCLC, and also for ALK+ anaplastic large cell lymphoma

For its offer, Takeda has teamed up with Point32Health, the second-largest health plan in New England with about 2.3 million members. The new agreement will make brigatinib widely available to patients who may benefit from its use, say the companies.

If a patient is unable to remain on brigatinib for 3 months or longer because of effectiveness or tolerability, Takeda will refund a yet unspecified amount of money to Point32Health. Brigatinib’s list price is $17,000 for a month’s treatment.

“Given the importance of facilitating cutting-edge oncology treatment and also the reality that not all patients show a positive response, reimbursement for oncology treatments is an area that is prime for innovative financing approaches,” said Michael Sherman, MD, chief medical officer and executive vice president, Point32Health, in a statement. “Collaborating with Takeda to share risk makes this agreement a crucial milestone in bringing cost-effectiveness to cancer care.”

The Pfizer program for crizotinib is somewhat different. For one thing, Pfizer’s refund is offered to any patient who qualifies and not just those who are covered by a specific plan. Second, Takeda is thus far only refunding money to the insurer, whereas Pfizer will also reimburse patients for out-of-pocket expenses.

There is a similar approach that has been offered by Novartis for tisagenlecleucel (Kymriah), the CAR T-cell therapy that launched with a daunting price tag of $475,000. After receiving backlash over the cost, Novartis announced that if the drug does not work after the first month, patients pay nothing.

In addition, Italy has been using this system for several years. Pharmaceutical companies must refund money if the drug fails to work. In 2015, the state-run health care system collected 200 million euros ($220 million) in refunds.

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

Can treatment or removal of high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions (HSIL) reduce the likelihood of developing anal cancer in people living with HIV (PLHIV)?

“In theory, looking for and treating high-grade disease (like we know works in the cervix) is a potential way to prevent anal cancer in high-risk individuals,” Joel Palefsky, MD, lead investigator of the Anal Cancer/HSIL Outcomes Research (ANCHOR) study and founder/director of the University of California, San Francisco’s Anal Neoplasia Clinic, told this news organization. “But we’ve never had any direct evidence that it worked,” he said.

Initial findings from ANCHOR – the first randomized trial to demonstrate that anal cancer can be prevented in high-risk, HIV-infected patients – promise to change that paradigm and may even portend a new standard of care.

Undoubtedly, this is welcome news for the HIV community, who are not only at increased risk for anal HSIL overall, but among whom anal cancer cases have been rising over the past decade. This is especially true for women who are expected to bear a large portion of overall burden of human papillomavirus (HPV)–associated anal squamous cell carcinoma over the next 10 to 20 years.

In the study, 4,446 PLHIV ages 35 and older with precursor anal HSIL were randomly assigned to topical (imiquimod intra-anally, perianally, or both, or fluorouracil) or ablative (infrared coagulation, hyfrecation/electrocautery) treatment, or active surveillance, and followed every 6 months for 5 years. The study population was broadly representative, including men who have sex with men (MSM), women, transgender people, and historically underrepresented minorities, a factor that reinforces the study’s importance in this specific population.

Because the primary endpoint was reached (that is, to determine if HSIL treatment and removal effectively reduces anal cancer incidence in HIV-infected men and women), the Data Safety Board halted accrual and recommended that participants in the surveillance group be offered treatment moving forward. While the investigators are currently working on publication of the results, the study is ongoing.

Still, the ANCHOR study, which is one of the largest malignancy screening studies conducted in PLHIV, has also highlighted significant challenges in how anal cancer is approached in general.

“Anal cancer has many similarities to cervical cancer, where screening for precancerous lesions and treatment have been shown to substantially reduce morbidity and mortality,” said Joseph Sparano, MD, a medical oncologist specializing in HIV and breast cancer at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York. Dr. Sparano is chair and principal investigator of the AIDS Malignancy Consortium but was not involved in the ANCHOR study.

But, he explained in an interview, “it’s much more difficult and technically challenging to screen for and evaluate the anal canal histology,” noting that New York is currently the only U.S. state to recommend screening for anal dysplasia with high-resolution anoscopy in HIV-infected men and women.

Availability and access to high-resolution anoscopy is limited, said Robert Yarchoan, MD, chief of the HIV and AIDS Malignancy Branch at the National Cancer Institute’s Clinical Cancer Research Division and director of the Office of HIV and AIDS Malignancy (which, incidentally, cosponsored ANCHOR).

“There are relatively few people that do this at this time,” he added in an interview, pointing out that among those who do, most are obstetricians/gynecologists.

A bit of digging into ANCHOR’s backstory revealed that this was a point of contention at the study’s onset. While physicians participating in the study received extensive training in high-resolution anoscopy, ob/gyns were the fastest to achieve competency and/or had the most prior experience, namely because of their experience in cervical cancer screening in women.

But initial objections by the American Board of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (which at the time, insisted that its members only treat women and threatened to remove their certification if they participated in the research), almost threw a wrench into the study’s start, according to a report in The New York Times. While rational minds prevailed and the board reversed its earlier statements, lack of ample training in the procedure may signal future barriers to treatment.

Another challenge lies in how study findings might be applicable to other groups outside of the HIV/AIDS population, such as people with other forms of immunosuppression who have HSIL, or even healthy women or men who are at risk as a result of penetrative/nonpenetrative sexual or nonsexual (for example, vaginal discharge to the anus) contact.

Although he was unable to share specifics at this time, Dr. Palefsky said that when they designed the ANCHOR study, they were aware that “merely showing efficacy wouldn’t necessarily be sufficient for establishing a standard of care, where[as] other pieces of information undoubtedly would be considered by entities that make guidelines” (for example, an examination of adverse events, risks/benefits, and factors that influence quality of life).

“With that in mind, we are doing a quality-of-life study and, in fact, have [collaborated on], developed, and validated what I think is the first anal disease-specific, quality of life instrument,” Dr. Palefsky said. “The work is still ongoing because we did not complete enrollment in the study, but we are continuing it as part of the follow up.”

Study investigators have also collected samples for a biorepository of specimens that will hopefully facilitate a better understanding of the molecular events driving progression from precancer to cancer. “A lot of people with HIV have these high-grade lesions,” Dr. Palefsky said. “If we were able to identify who’s at highest risk of all of them, that would be very important, because we prefer not to treat everybody with high-grade disease,” he noted, adding that the “underlying hope is that the biomarkers we find in the setting will also be relevant for other HPV-related cancers,” especially in women.

Dr. Yarchoan concurred. “One of the challenges is going to be to digest this information and see how to use it to potentially address the growing problem of females with HIV,” he said.

Dr. Palefsky, Dr. Sparano, and Dr. Yarchoan have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Can treatment or removal of high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions (HSIL) reduce the likelihood of developing anal cancer in people living with HIV (PLHIV)?

“In theory, looking for and treating high-grade disease (like we know works in the cervix) is a potential way to prevent anal cancer in high-risk individuals,” Joel Palefsky, MD, lead investigator of the Anal Cancer/HSIL Outcomes Research (ANCHOR) study and founder/director of the University of California, San Francisco’s Anal Neoplasia Clinic, told this news organization. “But we’ve never had any direct evidence that it worked,” he said.

Initial findings from ANCHOR – the first randomized trial to demonstrate that anal cancer can be prevented in high-risk, HIV-infected patients – promise to change that paradigm and may even portend a new standard of care.

Undoubtedly, this is welcome news for the HIV community, who are not only at increased risk for anal HSIL overall, but among whom anal cancer cases have been rising over the past decade. This is especially true for women who are expected to bear a large portion of overall burden of human papillomavirus (HPV)–associated anal squamous cell carcinoma over the next 10 to 20 years.

In the study, 4,446 PLHIV ages 35 and older with precursor anal HSIL were randomly assigned to topical (imiquimod intra-anally, perianally, or both, or fluorouracil) or ablative (infrared coagulation, hyfrecation/electrocautery) treatment, or active surveillance, and followed every 6 months for 5 years. The study population was broadly representative, including men who have sex with men (MSM), women, transgender people, and historically underrepresented minorities, a factor that reinforces the study’s importance in this specific population.

Because the primary endpoint was reached (that is, to determine if HSIL treatment and removal effectively reduces anal cancer incidence in HIV-infected men and women), the Data Safety Board halted accrual and recommended that participants in the surveillance group be offered treatment moving forward. While the investigators are currently working on publication of the results, the study is ongoing.

Still, the ANCHOR study, which is one of the largest malignancy screening studies conducted in PLHIV, has also highlighted significant challenges in how anal cancer is approached in general.

“Anal cancer has many similarities to cervical cancer, where screening for precancerous lesions and treatment have been shown to substantially reduce morbidity and mortality,” said Joseph Sparano, MD, a medical oncologist specializing in HIV and breast cancer at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York. Dr. Sparano is chair and principal investigator of the AIDS Malignancy Consortium but was not involved in the ANCHOR study.

But, he explained in an interview, “it’s much more difficult and technically challenging to screen for and evaluate the anal canal histology,” noting that New York is currently the only U.S. state to recommend screening for anal dysplasia with high-resolution anoscopy in HIV-infected men and women.

Availability and access to high-resolution anoscopy is limited, said Robert Yarchoan, MD, chief of the HIV and AIDS Malignancy Branch at the National Cancer Institute’s Clinical Cancer Research Division and director of the Office of HIV and AIDS Malignancy (which, incidentally, cosponsored ANCHOR).

“There are relatively few people that do this at this time,” he added in an interview, pointing out that among those who do, most are obstetricians/gynecologists.

A bit of digging into ANCHOR’s backstory revealed that this was a point of contention at the study’s onset. While physicians participating in the study received extensive training in high-resolution anoscopy, ob/gyns were the fastest to achieve competency and/or had the most prior experience, namely because of their experience in cervical cancer screening in women.

But initial objections by the American Board of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (which at the time, insisted that its members only treat women and threatened to remove their certification if they participated in the research), almost threw a wrench into the study’s start, according to a report in The New York Times. While rational minds prevailed and the board reversed its earlier statements, lack of ample training in the procedure may signal future barriers to treatment.

Another challenge lies in how study findings might be applicable to other groups outside of the HIV/AIDS population, such as people with other forms of immunosuppression who have HSIL, or even healthy women or men who are at risk as a result of penetrative/nonpenetrative sexual or nonsexual (for example, vaginal discharge to the anus) contact.

Although he was unable to share specifics at this time, Dr. Palefsky said that when they designed the ANCHOR study, they were aware that “merely showing efficacy wouldn’t necessarily be sufficient for establishing a standard of care, where[as] other pieces of information undoubtedly would be considered by entities that make guidelines” (for example, an examination of adverse events, risks/benefits, and factors that influence quality of life).

“With that in mind, we are doing a quality-of-life study and, in fact, have [collaborated on], developed, and validated what I think is the first anal disease-specific, quality of life instrument,” Dr. Palefsky said. “The work is still ongoing because we did not complete enrollment in the study, but we are continuing it as part of the follow up.”

Study investigators have also collected samples for a biorepository of specimens that will hopefully facilitate a better understanding of the molecular events driving progression from precancer to cancer. “A lot of people with HIV have these high-grade lesions,” Dr. Palefsky said. “If we were able to identify who’s at highest risk of all of them, that would be very important, because we prefer not to treat everybody with high-grade disease,” he noted, adding that the “underlying hope is that the biomarkers we find in the setting will also be relevant for other HPV-related cancers,” especially in women.

Dr. Yarchoan concurred. “One of the challenges is going to be to digest this information and see how to use it to potentially address the growing problem of females with HIV,” he said.

Dr. Palefsky, Dr. Sparano, and Dr. Yarchoan have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Can treatment or removal of high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions (HSIL) reduce the likelihood of developing anal cancer in people living with HIV (PLHIV)?

“In theory, looking for and treating high-grade disease (like we know works in the cervix) is a potential way to prevent anal cancer in high-risk individuals,” Joel Palefsky, MD, lead investigator of the Anal Cancer/HSIL Outcomes Research (ANCHOR) study and founder/director of the University of California, San Francisco’s Anal Neoplasia Clinic, told this news organization. “But we’ve never had any direct evidence that it worked,” he said.

Initial findings from ANCHOR – the first randomized trial to demonstrate that anal cancer can be prevented in high-risk, HIV-infected patients – promise to change that paradigm and may even portend a new standard of care.

Undoubtedly, this is welcome news for the HIV community, who are not only at increased risk for anal HSIL overall, but among whom anal cancer cases have been rising over the past decade. This is especially true for women who are expected to bear a large portion of overall burden of human papillomavirus (HPV)–associated anal squamous cell carcinoma over the next 10 to 20 years.

In the study, 4,446 PLHIV ages 35 and older with precursor anal HSIL were randomly assigned to topical (imiquimod intra-anally, perianally, or both, or fluorouracil) or ablative (infrared coagulation, hyfrecation/electrocautery) treatment, or active surveillance, and followed every 6 months for 5 years. The study population was broadly representative, including men who have sex with men (MSM), women, transgender people, and historically underrepresented minorities, a factor that reinforces the study’s importance in this specific population.

Because the primary endpoint was reached (that is, to determine if HSIL treatment and removal effectively reduces anal cancer incidence in HIV-infected men and women), the Data Safety Board halted accrual and recommended that participants in the surveillance group be offered treatment moving forward. While the investigators are currently working on publication of the results, the study is ongoing.

Still, the ANCHOR study, which is one of the largest malignancy screening studies conducted in PLHIV, has also highlighted significant challenges in how anal cancer is approached in general.

“Anal cancer has many similarities to cervical cancer, where screening for precancerous lesions and treatment have been shown to substantially reduce morbidity and mortality,” said Joseph Sparano, MD, a medical oncologist specializing in HIV and breast cancer at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York. Dr. Sparano is chair and principal investigator of the AIDS Malignancy Consortium but was not involved in the ANCHOR study.

But, he explained in an interview, “it’s much more difficult and technically challenging to screen for and evaluate the anal canal histology,” noting that New York is currently the only U.S. state to recommend screening for anal dysplasia with high-resolution anoscopy in HIV-infected men and women.

Availability and access to high-resolution anoscopy is limited, said Robert Yarchoan, MD, chief of the HIV and AIDS Malignancy Branch at the National Cancer Institute’s Clinical Cancer Research Division and director of the Office of HIV and AIDS Malignancy (which, incidentally, cosponsored ANCHOR).

“There are relatively few people that do this at this time,” he added in an interview, pointing out that among those who do, most are obstetricians/gynecologists.

A bit of digging into ANCHOR’s backstory revealed that this was a point of contention at the study’s onset. While physicians participating in the study received extensive training in high-resolution anoscopy, ob/gyns were the fastest to achieve competency and/or had the most prior experience, namely because of their experience in cervical cancer screening in women.

But initial objections by the American Board of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (which at the time, insisted that its members only treat women and threatened to remove their certification if they participated in the research), almost threw a wrench into the study’s start, according to a report in The New York Times. While rational minds prevailed and the board reversed its earlier statements, lack of ample training in the procedure may signal future barriers to treatment.

Another challenge lies in how study findings might be applicable to other groups outside of the HIV/AIDS population, such as people with other forms of immunosuppression who have HSIL, or even healthy women or men who are at risk as a result of penetrative/nonpenetrative sexual or nonsexual (for example, vaginal discharge to the anus) contact.

Although he was unable to share specifics at this time, Dr. Palefsky said that when they designed the ANCHOR study, they were aware that “merely showing efficacy wouldn’t necessarily be sufficient for establishing a standard of care, where[as] other pieces of information undoubtedly would be considered by entities that make guidelines” (for example, an examination of adverse events, risks/benefits, and factors that influence quality of life).

“With that in mind, we are doing a quality-of-life study and, in fact, have [collaborated on], developed, and validated what I think is the first anal disease-specific, quality of life instrument,” Dr. Palefsky said. “The work is still ongoing because we did not complete enrollment in the study, but we are continuing it as part of the follow up.”

Study investigators have also collected samples for a biorepository of specimens that will hopefully facilitate a better understanding of the molecular events driving progression from precancer to cancer. “A lot of people with HIV have these high-grade lesions,” Dr. Palefsky said. “If we were able to identify who’s at highest risk of all of them, that would be very important, because we prefer not to treat everybody with high-grade disease,” he noted, adding that the “underlying hope is that the biomarkers we find in the setting will also be relevant for other HPV-related cancers,” especially in women.

Dr. Yarchoan concurred. “One of the challenges is going to be to digest this information and see how to use it to potentially address the growing problem of females with HIV,” he said.

Dr. Palefsky, Dr. Sparano, and Dr. Yarchoan have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

For patients with moderate to severe asthma, blockade with itepekimab, a new human IgG4P monoclonal antibody against the upstream alarmin interleukin-33, led to a reduction in events that indicate loss of asthma control. Treatment with itepekimab also led to an improvement in lung function compared with placebo, according to results of a phase 2 trial.

However, findings for a subgroup of patients treated with itepekimab in combination with dupilumab, an anti–interleukin-4–receptor alpha subunit and IL-13 monoclonal antibody, were not favorable in comparison with placebo, noted M. E. Wechsler, MD, and colleagues in an article published online in the New England Journal of Medicine.
 

New target

Despite the demonstrated efficacy of available biologic therapies targeting IgE, interleukin-4, interleukin-13, and interleukin-5 for treating moderate to severe type 2 asthma, many patients with type 2 or non–type 2 asthma continue to have symptoms, exacerbations, and reduced lung function. New therapies targeting alternative pathophysiologic pathways are needed.

Genomewide studies show that type 2 and non–type 2 inflammation that contributes to asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) are genetically associated with interleukin-33. This inflammation occurs when interleukin-33 binds to its cognate receptor (ST2) and engages the coreceptor interleukin-1 receptor accessory protein to initiate downstream signaling, activating cells of both the innate and adaptive immune systems.
 

Study details

The investigators conducted a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group (four groups), proof-of-concept trial to evaluate the efficacy and safety of the interleukin-33 targeting itepekimab in comparison with placebo for adults with moderate to severe asthma. Dupilumab, which was the active comparator, was administered in combination with itepekimab to evaluate potential additive effects. Dupilumab’s efficacy in this population had been demonstrated previously.

All 296 patients (mean age, 49.1 years; 64% women) were receiving inhaled glucocorticoids plus long-acting beta-agonists (LABAs). They were randomly assigned in a 1:1:1:1 ratio to receive subcutaneous itepekimab (300 mg), itepekimab plus dupilumab (both at 300 mg; combination therapy), dupilumab (300 mg), or placebo every 2 weeks for 12 weeks. LABAs were discontinued at week 4, and inhaled glucocorticoids were tapered over weeks 6 through 9. The primary endpoint was the occurrence of an event indicating the loss of asthma control.
 

Promising results

Primary endpoint analysis at 12 weeks revealed a lower rate of asthma control–loss events in the itepekimab and dupilumab monotherapy groups but not in the combination group, compared with patients who received placebo. Events occurred in 22% of patients in the itepekimab group, in 27% of those in the combination group, in 19% of the dupilumab group, and in 41% of the placebo group. The odds ratios for comparisons with placebo were 0.42 for the itepekimab group (95% confidence interval, 0.20-0.88; P = .02); 0.33 in the dupilumab group (95% CI, 0.15-.70); and 0.52 in the combination group (95% CI, 0.26-1.06; P = .07) .

Following a similar pattern, forced expiratory volume in 1 second before use of a bronchodilator increased with both monotherapies but not with the combination or placebo. Although the trial was not powered to determine differences between itepekimab and dupilumab, the effects of dupilumab therapy were generally greater than those observed with itepekimab, especially for patients with type 2 asthma.

Also, asthma control and quality of life were improved with itepekimab and dupilumab monotherapy in comparison with placebo. There were also greater reductions in the mean blood eosinophil count.

The authors urge further research into the complexities of asthma physiology and encourage researchers to look for predictive biomarkers of anti–interleukin-33 blockade response. They conclude, “In this trial, we found that itepekimab monotherapy led to a lower incidence of events indicating loss of asthma control and to improved lung function, findings that are consistent with a role for interleukin-33 in the pathogenesis of exacerbations and airflow limitation in asthma.”
 

Examining results

In an accompanying editorial, Philip G. Bardin, PhD, and Paul S. Foster, DSc, ask why itepekimab and dupilumab, a combination based on a sound scientific rationale, failed. As monotherapies, both itepekimab and dupilumab are roughly similar in reducing asthma events and improving lung function; thus, is unlikely that inadequate dosing led to the failure of itepekimab.

Interleukin-33 is an attractive target because the cells it promotes secrete cytokines that induce asthma’s pathognomonic features, and biologic agents that target those cytokines (interleukin-5/-5R/-4/-13 axes) have been highly effective. They do not, however, prevent exacerbations after treatment.

Alternative pathways within or outside that paradigm are operant, and other epithelial alarmins, such as interleukin-25 and thymic stromal lymphopoietin, promote type 2 inflammation, Dr. Bardin and Dr. Foster state.

“Combination therapy with itepekimab and dupilumab may have failed because these pathways bypass interleukin-33,” they write. Also, preexisting ILC2 and TH2 cells may have residual capacity to release mediators. The short-term trial design, the editorialists write, may have contributed to the failure of the itepekimab/dupilumab combination; interleukin-33 may be appropriate as a target in a longer-term exacerbation-type trial “in which epithelial infection and other relevant stimuli instigate exacerbated disease. Combination therapy may be capable of lowering exacerbations rather than preventing loss of control in chronic disease.

“Clinical translation of basic science in asthma remains a challenge to be pursued. ... It is imperative to harness scientific insights from translational studies that frustrate our hopeful expectations – so that something can also be gained,” they conclude.
 

The role of interleukin-33

“Our study of itepekimab provides valuable insight into pathophysiology of severe asthma,” said Dr. Wechsler, professor of medicine at the NJH Cohen Family Asthma Institute, Denver, in an interview. “As blocking IL-33 reduced asthma worsening and improved lung function compared to placebo, it suggests that IL-33 plays an important role in asthma pathophysiology and may be a valuable target for a subset of patients with severe asthma,” he stated.

“Since the effect of itepekimab is comparable to that of dupilumab, it is suggested that patients may benefit from blockade of this pathway, but what remains to be seen is identifying which patients are more likely to respond better to one therapy vs. another. The future of blocking IL-33 remains exciting, and studies are being planned to evaluate its efficacy in airways diseases, including COPD,” he concluded.

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

For patients with moderate to severe asthma, blockade with itepekimab, a new human IgG4P monoclonal antibody against the upstream alarmin interleukin-33, led to a reduction in events that indicate loss of asthma control. Treatment with itepekimab also led to an improvement in lung function compared with placebo, according to results of a phase 2 trial.

However, findings for a subgroup of patients treated with itepekimab in combination with dupilumab, an anti–interleukin-4–receptor alpha subunit and IL-13 monoclonal antibody, were not favorable in comparison with placebo, noted M. E. Wechsler, MD, and colleagues in an article published online in the New England Journal of Medicine.
 

New target

Despite the demonstrated efficacy of available biologic therapies targeting IgE, interleukin-4, interleukin-13, and interleukin-5 for treating moderate to severe type 2 asthma, many patients with type 2 or non–type 2 asthma continue to have symptoms, exacerbations, and reduced lung function. New therapies targeting alternative pathophysiologic pathways are needed.

Genomewide studies show that type 2 and non–type 2 inflammation that contributes to asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) are genetically associated with interleukin-33. This inflammation occurs when interleukin-33 binds to its cognate receptor (ST2) and engages the coreceptor interleukin-1 receptor accessory protein to initiate downstream signaling, activating cells of both the innate and adaptive immune systems.
 

Study details

The investigators conducted a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group (four groups), proof-of-concept trial to evaluate the efficacy and safety of the interleukin-33 targeting itepekimab in comparison with placebo for adults with moderate to severe asthma. Dupilumab, which was the active comparator, was administered in combination with itepekimab to evaluate potential additive effects. Dupilumab’s efficacy in this population had been demonstrated previously.

All 296 patients (mean age, 49.1 years; 64% women) were receiving inhaled glucocorticoids plus long-acting beta-agonists (LABAs). They were randomly assigned in a 1:1:1:1 ratio to receive subcutaneous itepekimab (300 mg), itepekimab plus dupilumab (both at 300 mg; combination therapy), dupilumab (300 mg), or placebo every 2 weeks for 12 weeks. LABAs were discontinued at week 4, and inhaled glucocorticoids were tapered over weeks 6 through 9. The primary endpoint was the occurrence of an event indicating the loss of asthma control.
 

Promising results

Primary endpoint analysis at 12 weeks revealed a lower rate of asthma control–loss events in the itepekimab and dupilumab monotherapy groups but not in the combination group, compared with patients who received placebo. Events occurred in 22% of patients in the itepekimab group, in 27% of those in the combination group, in 19% of the dupilumab group, and in 41% of the placebo group. The odds ratios for comparisons with placebo were 0.42 for the itepekimab group (95% confidence interval, 0.20-0.88; P = .02); 0.33 in the dupilumab group (95% CI, 0.15-.70); and 0.52 in the combination group (95% CI, 0.26-1.06; P = .07) .

Following a similar pattern, forced expiratory volume in 1 second before use of a bronchodilator increased with both monotherapies but not with the combination or placebo. Although the trial was not powered to determine differences between itepekimab and dupilumab, the effects of dupilumab therapy were generally greater than those observed with itepekimab, especially for patients with type 2 asthma.

Also, asthma control and quality of life were improved with itepekimab and dupilumab monotherapy in comparison with placebo. There were also greater reductions in the mean blood eosinophil count.

The authors urge further research into the complexities of asthma physiology and encourage researchers to look for predictive biomarkers of anti–interleukin-33 blockade response. They conclude, “In this trial, we found that itepekimab monotherapy led to a lower incidence of events indicating loss of asthma control and to improved lung function, findings that are consistent with a role for interleukin-33 in the pathogenesis of exacerbations and airflow limitation in asthma.”
 

Examining results

In an accompanying editorial, Philip G. Bardin, PhD, and Paul S. Foster, DSc, ask why itepekimab and dupilumab, a combination based on a sound scientific rationale, failed. As monotherapies, both itepekimab and dupilumab are roughly similar in reducing asthma events and improving lung function; thus, is unlikely that inadequate dosing led to the failure of itepekimab.

Interleukin-33 is an attractive target because the cells it promotes secrete cytokines that induce asthma’s pathognomonic features, and biologic agents that target those cytokines (interleukin-5/-5R/-4/-13 axes) have been highly effective. They do not, however, prevent exacerbations after treatment.

Alternative pathways within or outside that paradigm are operant, and other epithelial alarmins, such as interleukin-25 and thymic stromal lymphopoietin, promote type 2 inflammation, Dr. Bardin and Dr. Foster state.

“Combination therapy with itepekimab and dupilumab may have failed because these pathways bypass interleukin-33,” they write. Also, preexisting ILC2 and TH2 cells may have residual capacity to release mediators. The short-term trial design, the editorialists write, may have contributed to the failure of the itepekimab/dupilumab combination; interleukin-33 may be appropriate as a target in a longer-term exacerbation-type trial “in which epithelial infection and other relevant stimuli instigate exacerbated disease. Combination therapy may be capable of lowering exacerbations rather than preventing loss of control in chronic disease.

“Clinical translation of basic science in asthma remains a challenge to be pursued. ... It is imperative to harness scientific insights from translational studies that frustrate our hopeful expectations – so that something can also be gained,” they conclude.
 

The role of interleukin-33

“Our study of itepekimab provides valuable insight into pathophysiology of severe asthma,” said Dr. Wechsler, professor of medicine at the NJH Cohen Family Asthma Institute, Denver, in an interview. “As blocking IL-33 reduced asthma worsening and improved lung function compared to placebo, it suggests that IL-33 plays an important role in asthma pathophysiology and may be a valuable target for a subset of patients with severe asthma,” he stated.

“Since the effect of itepekimab is comparable to that of dupilumab, it is suggested that patients may benefit from blockade of this pathway, but what remains to be seen is identifying which patients are more likely to respond better to one therapy vs. another. The future of blocking IL-33 remains exciting, and studies are being planned to evaluate its efficacy in airways diseases, including COPD,” he concluded.

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

For patients with moderate to severe asthma, blockade with itepekimab, a new human IgG4P monoclonal antibody against the upstream alarmin interleukin-33, led to a reduction in events that indicate loss of asthma control. Treatment with itepekimab also led to an improvement in lung function compared with placebo, according to results of a phase 2 trial.

However, findings for a subgroup of patients treated with itepekimab in combination with dupilumab, an anti–interleukin-4–receptor alpha subunit and IL-13 monoclonal antibody, were not favorable in comparison with placebo, noted M. E. Wechsler, MD, and colleagues in an article published online in the New England Journal of Medicine.
 

New target

Despite the demonstrated efficacy of available biologic therapies targeting IgE, interleukin-4, interleukin-13, and interleukin-5 for treating moderate to severe type 2 asthma, many patients with type 2 or non–type 2 asthma continue to have symptoms, exacerbations, and reduced lung function. New therapies targeting alternative pathophysiologic pathways are needed.

Genomewide studies show that type 2 and non–type 2 inflammation that contributes to asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) are genetically associated with interleukin-33. This inflammation occurs when interleukin-33 binds to its cognate receptor (ST2) and engages the coreceptor interleukin-1 receptor accessory protein to initiate downstream signaling, activating cells of both the innate and adaptive immune systems.
 

Study details

The investigators conducted a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group (four groups), proof-of-concept trial to evaluate the efficacy and safety of the interleukin-33 targeting itepekimab in comparison with placebo for adults with moderate to severe asthma. Dupilumab, which was the active comparator, was administered in combination with itepekimab to evaluate potential additive effects. Dupilumab’s efficacy in this population had been demonstrated previously.

All 296 patients (mean age, 49.1 years; 64% women) were receiving inhaled glucocorticoids plus long-acting beta-agonists (LABAs). They were randomly assigned in a 1:1:1:1 ratio to receive subcutaneous itepekimab (300 mg), itepekimab plus dupilumab (both at 300 mg; combination therapy), dupilumab (300 mg), or placebo every 2 weeks for 12 weeks. LABAs were discontinued at week 4, and inhaled glucocorticoids were tapered over weeks 6 through 9. The primary endpoint was the occurrence of an event indicating the loss of asthma control.
 

Promising results

Primary endpoint analysis at 12 weeks revealed a lower rate of asthma control–loss events in the itepekimab and dupilumab monotherapy groups but not in the combination group, compared with patients who received placebo. Events occurred in 22% of patients in the itepekimab group, in 27% of those in the combination group, in 19% of the dupilumab group, and in 41% of the placebo group. The odds ratios for comparisons with placebo were 0.42 for the itepekimab group (95% confidence interval, 0.20-0.88; P = .02); 0.33 in the dupilumab group (95% CI, 0.15-.70); and 0.52 in the combination group (95% CI, 0.26-1.06; P = .07) .

Following a similar pattern, forced expiratory volume in 1 second before use of a bronchodilator increased with both monotherapies but not with the combination or placebo. Although the trial was not powered to determine differences between itepekimab and dupilumab, the effects of dupilumab therapy were generally greater than those observed with itepekimab, especially for patients with type 2 asthma.

Also, asthma control and quality of life were improved with itepekimab and dupilumab monotherapy in comparison with placebo. There were also greater reductions in the mean blood eosinophil count.

The authors urge further research into the complexities of asthma physiology and encourage researchers to look for predictive biomarkers of anti–interleukin-33 blockade response. They conclude, “In this trial, we found that itepekimab monotherapy led to a lower incidence of events indicating loss of asthma control and to improved lung function, findings that are consistent with a role for interleukin-33 in the pathogenesis of exacerbations and airflow limitation in asthma.”
 

Examining results

In an accompanying editorial, Philip G. Bardin, PhD, and Paul S. Foster, DSc, ask why itepekimab and dupilumab, a combination based on a sound scientific rationale, failed. As monotherapies, both itepekimab and dupilumab are roughly similar in reducing asthma events and improving lung function; thus, is unlikely that inadequate dosing led to the failure of itepekimab.

Interleukin-33 is an attractive target because the cells it promotes secrete cytokines that induce asthma’s pathognomonic features, and biologic agents that target those cytokines (interleukin-5/-5R/-4/-13 axes) have been highly effective. They do not, however, prevent exacerbations after treatment.

Alternative pathways within or outside that paradigm are operant, and other epithelial alarmins, such as interleukin-25 and thymic stromal lymphopoietin, promote type 2 inflammation, Dr. Bardin and Dr. Foster state.

“Combination therapy with itepekimab and dupilumab may have failed because these pathways bypass interleukin-33,” they write. Also, preexisting ILC2 and TH2 cells may have residual capacity to release mediators. The short-term trial design, the editorialists write, may have contributed to the failure of the itepekimab/dupilumab combination; interleukin-33 may be appropriate as a target in a longer-term exacerbation-type trial “in which epithelial infection and other relevant stimuli instigate exacerbated disease. Combination therapy may be capable of lowering exacerbations rather than preventing loss of control in chronic disease.

“Clinical translation of basic science in asthma remains a challenge to be pursued. ... It is imperative to harness scientific insights from translational studies that frustrate our hopeful expectations – so that something can also be gained,” they conclude.
 

The role of interleukin-33

“Our study of itepekimab provides valuable insight into pathophysiology of severe asthma,” said Dr. Wechsler, professor of medicine at the NJH Cohen Family Asthma Institute, Denver, in an interview. “As blocking IL-33 reduced asthma worsening and improved lung function compared to placebo, it suggests that IL-33 plays an important role in asthma pathophysiology and may be a valuable target for a subset of patients with severe asthma,” he stated.

“Since the effect of itepekimab is comparable to that of dupilumab, it is suggested that patients may benefit from blockade of this pathway, but what remains to be seen is identifying which patients are more likely to respond better to one therapy vs. another. The future of blocking IL-33 remains exciting, and studies are being planned to evaluate its efficacy in airways diseases, including COPD,” he concluded.

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

Placebo treatment was found to be superior to treatment with risankizumab with respect to time to first asthma worsening and annualized rate of asthma worsening for adults with severe persistent asthma in a phase 2a clinical trial.

The randomized, double-blind, 24-week, parallel group, multicenter trial assessed risankizumab efficacy and safety in 214 adults with severe persistent asthma. The results were reported in The New England Journal of Medicine.

Risankizumab is a humanized, monoclonal antibody directed against subunit p19 of interleukin-23. It is approved for the treatment of moderate to severe psoriasis.

Interleukin-23 has been implicated in airway inflammation mediated by type 2 and type 17 cytokines. Noting that inhibition of interleukin-23 is effective in the treatment of psoriasis and Crohn’s disease, Christopher E. Brightling, MD, and colleagues investigated whether targeting interleukin-23 in asthma patients would improve disease control and reduce airway inflammation.
 

Study details

Patients received either 90 mg of risankizumab (subcutaneous) (n = 105) or placebo (n = 109) once every 4 weeks. Time to first asthma worsening was the primary endpoint. Worsening was defined as decline from baseline on 2 or more consecutive days. Deterioration was defined as a decrease of at least 30% in the morning peak expiratory flow or an increase from baseline of at least 50% in rescue medication puffs over 24 hours. In addition, a severe asthma exacerbation or an increase of 0.75 or more points on the five-item Asthma Control Questionnaire (scores range from 0 to 6, with higher scores indicating less control) were considered to be evidence of worsening. Annualized rate of asthma worsening was a secondary endpoint.

The mean age of the patients was 53 years; 66.5% of the patients were women.
 

Disappointing results

In the risankizumab group, median time to first asthma worsening was 40 days, significantly worse than the 86 days reported for the placebo group (hazard ratio, 1.46; 95% confidence interval, 1.05-2.04; P = .03). For annualized asthma worsening, the rate ratio for the comparison of risankizumab with placebo was 1.49 (95% CI, 1.12-1.99).

Among key secondary endpoints, the adjusted mean change in trough forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV₁₎ from baseline to week 24 was –0.05 L in the risankizumab group and –0.01 L in the placebo group. The adjusted mean change in FEV₁ after bronchodilator use from baseline to week 24 was –0.10 L in the risankizumab group and –0.03 L in the placebo group. Sputum transcriptomic pathway analysis showed that genes involved in the activation of natural killer cells and cytotoxic T cells and the activation of type 1 helper T and type 17 helper T transcription factors were downregulated by risankizumab. Rates of adverse events were similar among patients receiving risankizumab and those taking placebo.
 

Further trials unwarranted

“The findings not only failed to show benefit for any outcome but also showed asthma worsening occurred earlier and more frequently in those treated with risankizumab versus placebo,” Dr. Brightling, professor in the department of respiratory sciences at University of Leicester, England, said in an interview. “This study does not support any further trials for anti-IL23 in asthma.” Dr. Brightling speculated on the cause of accelerated asthma worsening with risankizumab.

“We found that the gene expression of key molecules involved in our response to infection was decreased in airway samples in those treated with risankizumab versus placebo. It is possible that the increased asthma worsening following risankizumab was related to this suppression of antimicrobial immunity,” he said.

He noted that risankizumab did not affect type-2/eosinophilic inflammation, which is the target for current asthma biologics, or gene expression of T2 molecules. “That suggests that this type of inflammation would have continued in the asthma patients during the trial irrespective of receiving risankizumab or placebo,” he said.
 

Caution with investigating biologicals

Downstream biologic responses to risankizumab were detectable, Philip G. Bardin, PhD, and Paul S. Foster, DSc, observed in an accompanying editorial, but there was no discernible clinical benefit, implying attenuation of apposite pathways. Current understanding of the basic science relevant to asthma, they stated, offers clues to the failure of risankizumab to benefit these patients with severe asthma. Although targeting the interleukin-23 and Th17 axis with risankizumab can reduce development of pathogenic Th17 cells, interleukin-23 is not critical for the development of Th17 cells.

“In contrast to pathways operated by interleukin-5 and interleukin-4R alpha, interleukin-23 has only a limited auxiliary role in amplifying type 2 responses. It is possible that the trial conducted by Brightling and colleagues failed because signaling through alternative disease pathways nullified inhibition of inter-leukin-23,” the editorialists wrote.

Dr. Bardin and Dr. Foster further speculate that because interleukin-23 is vital for effective mucosal immunity, risankizumab may have conferred to patients a predisposition to more severe or more frequent virus-induced exacerbations. They stated that generally, however, the reasons for risankizumab’s poorer outcomes compared to placebo are unclear. “Overall, these findings support a cautious approach in future research investigating biologic therapies in asthma,” they concluded.

The clinical trial was sponsored and funded by BI/AbbVie.

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

Placebo treatment was found to be superior to treatment with risankizumab with respect to time to first asthma worsening and annualized rate of asthma worsening for adults with severe persistent asthma in a phase 2a clinical trial.

The randomized, double-blind, 24-week, parallel group, multicenter trial assessed risankizumab efficacy and safety in 214 adults with severe persistent asthma. The results were reported in The New England Journal of Medicine.

Risankizumab is a humanized, monoclonal antibody directed against subunit p19 of interleukin-23. It is approved for the treatment of moderate to severe psoriasis.

Interleukin-23 has been implicated in airway inflammation mediated by type 2 and type 17 cytokines. Noting that inhibition of interleukin-23 is effective in the treatment of psoriasis and Crohn’s disease, Christopher E. Brightling, MD, and colleagues investigated whether targeting interleukin-23 in asthma patients would improve disease control and reduce airway inflammation.
 

Study details

Patients received either 90 mg of risankizumab (subcutaneous) (n = 105) or placebo (n = 109) once every 4 weeks. Time to first asthma worsening was the primary endpoint. Worsening was defined as decline from baseline on 2 or more consecutive days. Deterioration was defined as a decrease of at least 30% in the morning peak expiratory flow or an increase from baseline of at least 50% in rescue medication puffs over 24 hours. In addition, a severe asthma exacerbation or an increase of 0.75 or more points on the five-item Asthma Control Questionnaire (scores range from 0 to 6, with higher scores indicating less control) were considered to be evidence of worsening. Annualized rate of asthma worsening was a secondary endpoint.

The mean age of the patients was 53 years; 66.5% of the patients were women.
 

Disappointing results

In the risankizumab group, median time to first asthma worsening was 40 days, significantly worse than the 86 days reported for the placebo group (hazard ratio, 1.46; 95% confidence interval, 1.05-2.04; P = .03). For annualized asthma worsening, the rate ratio for the comparison of risankizumab with placebo was 1.49 (95% CI, 1.12-1.99).

Among key secondary endpoints, the adjusted mean change in trough forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV₁₎ from baseline to week 24 was –0.05 L in the risankizumab group and –0.01 L in the placebo group. The adjusted mean change in FEV₁ after bronchodilator use from baseline to week 24 was –0.10 L in the risankizumab group and –0.03 L in the placebo group. Sputum transcriptomic pathway analysis showed that genes involved in the activation of natural killer cells and cytotoxic T cells and the activation of type 1 helper T and type 17 helper T transcription factors were downregulated by risankizumab. Rates of adverse events were similar among patients receiving risankizumab and those taking placebo.
 

Further trials unwarranted

“The findings not only failed to show benefit for any outcome but also showed asthma worsening occurred earlier and more frequently in those treated with risankizumab versus placebo,” Dr. Brightling, professor in the department of respiratory sciences at University of Leicester, England, said in an interview. “This study does not support any further trials for anti-IL23 in asthma.” Dr. Brightling speculated on the cause of accelerated asthma worsening with risankizumab.

“We found that the gene expression of key molecules involved in our response to infection was decreased in airway samples in those treated with risankizumab versus placebo. It is possible that the increased asthma worsening following risankizumab was related to this suppression of antimicrobial immunity,” he said.

He noted that risankizumab did not affect type-2/eosinophilic inflammation, which is the target for current asthma biologics, or gene expression of T2 molecules. “That suggests that this type of inflammation would have continued in the asthma patients during the trial irrespective of receiving risankizumab or placebo,” he said.
 

Caution with investigating biologicals

Downstream biologic responses to risankizumab were detectable, Philip G. Bardin, PhD, and Paul S. Foster, DSc, observed in an accompanying editorial, but there was no discernible clinical benefit, implying attenuation of apposite pathways. Current understanding of the basic science relevant to asthma, they stated, offers clues to the failure of risankizumab to benefit these patients with severe asthma. Although targeting the interleukin-23 and Th17 axis with risankizumab can reduce development of pathogenic Th17 cells, interleukin-23 is not critical for the development of Th17 cells.

“In contrast to pathways operated by interleukin-5 and interleukin-4R alpha, interleukin-23 has only a limited auxiliary role in amplifying type 2 responses. It is possible that the trial conducted by Brightling and colleagues failed because signaling through alternative disease pathways nullified inhibition of inter-leukin-23,” the editorialists wrote.

Dr. Bardin and Dr. Foster further speculate that because interleukin-23 is vital for effective mucosal immunity, risankizumab may have conferred to patients a predisposition to more severe or more frequent virus-induced exacerbations. They stated that generally, however, the reasons for risankizumab’s poorer outcomes compared to placebo are unclear. “Overall, these findings support a cautious approach in future research investigating biologic therapies in asthma,” they concluded.

The clinical trial was sponsored and funded by BI/AbbVie.

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

Placebo treatment was found to be superior to treatment with risankizumab with respect to time to first asthma worsening and annualized rate of asthma worsening for adults with severe persistent asthma in a phase 2a clinical trial.

The randomized, double-blind, 24-week, parallel group, multicenter trial assessed risankizumab efficacy and safety in 214 adults with severe persistent asthma. The results were reported in The New England Journal of Medicine.

Risankizumab is a humanized, monoclonal antibody directed against subunit p19 of interleukin-23. It is approved for the treatment of moderate to severe psoriasis.

Interleukin-23 has been implicated in airway inflammation mediated by type 2 and type 17 cytokines. Noting that inhibition of interleukin-23 is effective in the treatment of psoriasis and Crohn’s disease, Christopher E. Brightling, MD, and colleagues investigated whether targeting interleukin-23 in asthma patients would improve disease control and reduce airway inflammation.
 

Study details

Patients received either 90 mg of risankizumab (subcutaneous) (n = 105) or placebo (n = 109) once every 4 weeks. Time to first asthma worsening was the primary endpoint. Worsening was defined as decline from baseline on 2 or more consecutive days. Deterioration was defined as a decrease of at least 30% in the morning peak expiratory flow or an increase from baseline of at least 50% in rescue medication puffs over 24 hours. In addition, a severe asthma exacerbation or an increase of 0.75 or more points on the five-item Asthma Control Questionnaire (scores range from 0 to 6, with higher scores indicating less control) were considered to be evidence of worsening. Annualized rate of asthma worsening was a secondary endpoint.

The mean age of the patients was 53 years; 66.5% of the patients were women.
 

Disappointing results

In the risankizumab group, median time to first asthma worsening was 40 days, significantly worse than the 86 days reported for the placebo group (hazard ratio, 1.46; 95% confidence interval, 1.05-2.04; P = .03). For annualized asthma worsening, the rate ratio for the comparison of risankizumab with placebo was 1.49 (95% CI, 1.12-1.99).

Among key secondary endpoints, the adjusted mean change in trough forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV₁₎ from baseline to week 24 was –0.05 L in the risankizumab group and –0.01 L in the placebo group. The adjusted mean change in FEV₁ after bronchodilator use from baseline to week 24 was –0.10 L in the risankizumab group and –0.03 L in the placebo group. Sputum transcriptomic pathway analysis showed that genes involved in the activation of natural killer cells and cytotoxic T cells and the activation of type 1 helper T and type 17 helper T transcription factors were downregulated by risankizumab. Rates of adverse events were similar among patients receiving risankizumab and those taking placebo.
 

Further trials unwarranted

“The findings not only failed to show benefit for any outcome but also showed asthma worsening occurred earlier and more frequently in those treated with risankizumab versus placebo,” Dr. Brightling, professor in the department of respiratory sciences at University of Leicester, England, said in an interview. “This study does not support any further trials for anti-IL23 in asthma.” Dr. Brightling speculated on the cause of accelerated asthma worsening with risankizumab.

“We found that the gene expression of key molecules involved in our response to infection was decreased in airway samples in those treated with risankizumab versus placebo. It is possible that the increased asthma worsening following risankizumab was related to this suppression of antimicrobial immunity,” he said.

He noted that risankizumab did not affect type-2/eosinophilic inflammation, which is the target for current asthma biologics, or gene expression of T2 molecules. “That suggests that this type of inflammation would have continued in the asthma patients during the trial irrespective of receiving risankizumab or placebo,” he said.
 

Caution with investigating biologicals

Downstream biologic responses to risankizumab were detectable, Philip G. Bardin, PhD, and Paul S. Foster, DSc, observed in an accompanying editorial, but there was no discernible clinical benefit, implying attenuation of apposite pathways. Current understanding of the basic science relevant to asthma, they stated, offers clues to the failure of risankizumab to benefit these patients with severe asthma. Although targeting the interleukin-23 and Th17 axis with risankizumab can reduce development of pathogenic Th17 cells, interleukin-23 is not critical for the development of Th17 cells.

“In contrast to pathways operated by interleukin-5 and interleukin-4R alpha, interleukin-23 has only a limited auxiliary role in amplifying type 2 responses. It is possible that the trial conducted by Brightling and colleagues failed because signaling through alternative disease pathways nullified inhibition of inter-leukin-23,” the editorialists wrote.

Dr. Bardin and Dr. Foster further speculate that because interleukin-23 is vital for effective mucosal immunity, risankizumab may have conferred to patients a predisposition to more severe or more frequent virus-induced exacerbations. They stated that generally, however, the reasons for risankizumab’s poorer outcomes compared to placebo are unclear. “Overall, these findings support a cautious approach in future research investigating biologic therapies in asthma,” they concluded.

The clinical trial was sponsored and funded by BI/AbbVie.

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

LAS VEGAS – Functional lumen imaging probe (FLIP) was equivalent to high-resolution manometry (HRM) in predicting clinical response by Eckardt score 6 months or more after per oral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) for achalasia or esophagogastric junction (EGJ) outlet obstruction (EGJOO).

Measures for clinical response following lower esophageal sphincter myotomy procedures include Eckardt Score, timed barium esophagram, HRM, and FLIP. However, since FLIP is a relatively new technique, there are few clinical data comparing its efficacy versus HRM in patients who have a positive response to POEM measured by the Eckardt score, according to John DeWitt, MD, who presented the research at the annual meeting of the American College of Gastroenterology.

FLIP can be performed during a follow-up endoscopy while a patient is sedated, while HRM requires the patient to be awake. Some patients find the procedure intolerable, and Dr. DeWitt estimates that 10%-20% of patients don’t return for follow-up assessments because of the discomfort.

“[FLIP] is a relatively new technology, the role of which is still being discovered. We have a lot more information on the diagnosis side of things. The role in follow-up, particularly after myotomy, is really not defined well. This is the first study to my knowledge that has evaluated manometry and FLIP head-to-head to compare patient-reported outcomes,” said Dr. DeWitt in an interview. He is a professor of medicine and the director of endoscopic ultrasound at Indiana University Medical Center, in Indianapolis.
 

Going head-to-head

The researchers conducted a retrospective, single-center study of 265 consecutive patients who underwent POEM for achalasia or EGJOO from 2016 through 2020. A clinical response was defined as an Eckardt score ≤3, EGJ distensibility index (EGJ-DI) higher than 2.8 mm²/mm Hg, maximum integrated relaxation pressure (IRP) <15 mm Hg, or a maximum EGJ diameter greater than 14 mm at any balloon distension.

In all, 126 patients returned for follow-up and completed an upper endoscopy with FLIP, HRM, and Eckardt scores within a 6-12 month period after the POEM procedure.

With respect to HRM, an IRP measurement <15 mm Hg predicted post-POEM Eckardt score with a sensitivity of 86.7% (95% confidence interval, 79.3-92.2) and a specificity of 33.3% (95% CI, 4.3-77.7), with an area under the curve of 0.60 (95% CI, 0.39-0.81). A maximum EJG diameter ≥ 14 mm had a sensitivity of 77.5% (95% CI, 69.0-84.6) and a specificity of 33.3% (95% CI, 4.3-77.7), with an AUC of 0.55 (95% CI, 0.34-0.76).

The performance was similar with FLIP: EGJ-DI > 2.8 mm²/mm Hg at any balloon setting had a sensitivity of 95.0% (95% CI, 89.4-98.1) and a specificity% of 0.0, and an AUC of 0.53 (95% CI, 0.51-0.55). A similar measurement at 40 mL or 50 mL distension had a sensitivity of 93.3% (95% CI, 87.3-97.1) and a specificity of 16.7% (95% CI, 0.4-64.1), with an AUC of 0.55 (95% CI, 0.39-0.72). Receiver operator characteristic analysis showed no significant difference between ability of FLIP and HRM to predict a normal Eckardt score.

If the study is repeated in other patient populations, Dr. DeWitt hopes that it could eliminate manometry altogether in a large majority of patients. “That would be potentially a game changer for bringing patients back to see how well they’re doing,” said Dr. DeWitt.

Not all patients who undergo POEM would be good candidates for FLIP, said Dr. DeWitt. The study was limited to patients with hypertension in the lower esophageal sphincter. Other disorders such as diffuse esophageal spasm, jackhammer esophagus, and type III achalasia would not likely be candidates for FLIP. “Those patients are going to probably still need manometry because if the esophageal body abnormalities are still present, then repeat testing might need to be performed,” said Dr. DeWitt. Still, he estimated about 80% of patients could be eligible for FLIP instead.
 

Impact on patients

“I think it’s interesting new data,” said Patrick Young, MD, who comoderated the session where the research was presented. He noted that the treatment of achalasia is evolving away from surgery, and the techniques to measure response are evolving along with it. “As we progress in that technology and using that procedure, we need to understand better how to follow those people up. I think adding this new device may help us to understand who’s going to respond well, and who’s not going to respond well. This is an early investigation, so I think we’ll need to do trials, but I think this is a good first step,” said Dr. Young, who is a professor of medicine at the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, Bethesda, Md.

Comoderator Mohammad Yaghoobi, MD, also praised the study, but noted that the cost of FLIP could be a concern. “We want to have a reasonable ratio of the cost versus the effectiveness,” said Dr. Yaghoobi, who is an associate professor of medicine at McMaster University in Hamilton, Ont.

Dr. DeWitt, Dr. Young, and Dr. Yaghoobi had no relevant disclosures.

LAS VEGAS – Functional lumen imaging probe (FLIP) was equivalent to high-resolution manometry (HRM) in predicting clinical response by Eckardt score 6 months or more after per oral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) for achalasia or esophagogastric junction (EGJ) outlet obstruction (EGJOO).

Measures for clinical response following lower esophageal sphincter myotomy procedures include Eckardt Score, timed barium esophagram, HRM, and FLIP. However, since FLIP is a relatively new technique, there are few clinical data comparing its efficacy versus HRM in patients who have a positive response to POEM measured by the Eckardt score, according to John DeWitt, MD, who presented the research at the annual meeting of the American College of Gastroenterology.

FLIP can be performed during a follow-up endoscopy while a patient is sedated, while HRM requires the patient to be awake. Some patients find the procedure intolerable, and Dr. DeWitt estimates that 10%-20% of patients don’t return for follow-up assessments because of the discomfort.

“[FLIP] is a relatively new technology, the role of which is still being discovered. We have a lot more information on the diagnosis side of things. The role in follow-up, particularly after myotomy, is really not defined well. This is the first study to my knowledge that has evaluated manometry and FLIP head-to-head to compare patient-reported outcomes,” said Dr. DeWitt in an interview. He is a professor of medicine and the director of endoscopic ultrasound at Indiana University Medical Center, in Indianapolis.
 

Going head-to-head

The researchers conducted a retrospective, single-center study of 265 consecutive patients who underwent POEM for achalasia or EGJOO from 2016 through 2020. A clinical response was defined as an Eckardt score ≤3, EGJ distensibility index (EGJ-DI) higher than 2.8 mm²/mm Hg, maximum integrated relaxation pressure (IRP) <15 mm Hg, or a maximum EGJ diameter greater than 14 mm at any balloon distension.

In all, 126 patients returned for follow-up and completed an upper endoscopy with FLIP, HRM, and Eckardt scores within a 6-12 month period after the POEM procedure.

With respect to HRM, an IRP measurement <15 mm Hg predicted post-POEM Eckardt score with a sensitivity of 86.7% (95% confidence interval, 79.3-92.2) and a specificity of 33.3% (95% CI, 4.3-77.7), with an area under the curve of 0.60 (95% CI, 0.39-0.81). A maximum EJG diameter ≥ 14 mm had a sensitivity of 77.5% (95% CI, 69.0-84.6) and a specificity of 33.3% (95% CI, 4.3-77.7), with an AUC of 0.55 (95% CI, 0.34-0.76).

The performance was similar with FLIP: EGJ-DI > 2.8 mm²/mm Hg at any balloon setting had a sensitivity of 95.0% (95% CI, 89.4-98.1) and a specificity% of 0.0, and an AUC of 0.53 (95% CI, 0.51-0.55). A similar measurement at 40 mL or 50 mL distension had a sensitivity of 93.3% (95% CI, 87.3-97.1) and a specificity of 16.7% (95% CI, 0.4-64.1), with an AUC of 0.55 (95% CI, 0.39-0.72). Receiver operator characteristic analysis showed no significant difference between ability of FLIP and HRM to predict a normal Eckardt score.

If the study is repeated in other patient populations, Dr. DeWitt hopes that it could eliminate manometry altogether in a large majority of patients. “That would be potentially a game changer for bringing patients back to see how well they’re doing,” said Dr. DeWitt.

Not all patients who undergo POEM would be good candidates for FLIP, said Dr. DeWitt. The study was limited to patients with hypertension in the lower esophageal sphincter. Other disorders such as diffuse esophageal spasm, jackhammer esophagus, and type III achalasia would not likely be candidates for FLIP. “Those patients are going to probably still need manometry because if the esophageal body abnormalities are still present, then repeat testing might need to be performed,” said Dr. DeWitt. Still, he estimated about 80% of patients could be eligible for FLIP instead.
 

Impact on patients

“I think it’s interesting new data,” said Patrick Young, MD, who comoderated the session where the research was presented. He noted that the treatment of achalasia is evolving away from surgery, and the techniques to measure response are evolving along with it. “As we progress in that technology and using that procedure, we need to understand better how to follow those people up. I think adding this new device may help us to understand who’s going to respond well, and who’s not going to respond well. This is an early investigation, so I think we’ll need to do trials, but I think this is a good first step,” said Dr. Young, who is a professor of medicine at the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, Bethesda, Md.

Comoderator Mohammad Yaghoobi, MD, also praised the study, but noted that the cost of FLIP could be a concern. “We want to have a reasonable ratio of the cost versus the effectiveness,” said Dr. Yaghoobi, who is an associate professor of medicine at McMaster University in Hamilton, Ont.

Dr. DeWitt, Dr. Young, and Dr. Yaghoobi had no relevant disclosures.

LAS VEGAS – Functional lumen imaging probe (FLIP) was equivalent to high-resolution manometry (HRM) in predicting clinical response by Eckardt score 6 months or more after per oral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) for achalasia or esophagogastric junction (EGJ) outlet obstruction (EGJOO).

Measures for clinical response following lower esophageal sphincter myotomy procedures include Eckardt Score, timed barium esophagram, HRM, and FLIP. However, since FLIP is a relatively new technique, there are few clinical data comparing its efficacy versus HRM in patients who have a positive response to POEM measured by the Eckardt score, according to John DeWitt, MD, who presented the research at the annual meeting of the American College of Gastroenterology.

FLIP can be performed during a follow-up endoscopy while a patient is sedated, while HRM requires the patient to be awake. Some patients find the procedure intolerable, and Dr. DeWitt estimates that 10%-20% of patients don’t return for follow-up assessments because of the discomfort.

“[FLIP] is a relatively new technology, the role of which is still being discovered. We have a lot more information on the diagnosis side of things. The role in follow-up, particularly after myotomy, is really not defined well. This is the first study to my knowledge that has evaluated manometry and FLIP head-to-head to compare patient-reported outcomes,” said Dr. DeWitt in an interview. He is a professor of medicine and the director of endoscopic ultrasound at Indiana University Medical Center, in Indianapolis.
 

Going head-to-head

The researchers conducted a retrospective, single-center study of 265 consecutive patients who underwent POEM for achalasia or EGJOO from 2016 through 2020. A clinical response was defined as an Eckardt score ≤3, EGJ distensibility index (EGJ-DI) higher than 2.8 mm²/mm Hg, maximum integrated relaxation pressure (IRP) <15 mm Hg, or a maximum EGJ diameter greater than 14 mm at any balloon distension.

In all, 126 patients returned for follow-up and completed an upper endoscopy with FLIP, HRM, and Eckardt scores within a 6-12 month period after the POEM procedure.

With respect to HRM, an IRP measurement <15 mm Hg predicted post-POEM Eckardt score with a sensitivity of 86.7% (95% confidence interval, 79.3-92.2) and a specificity of 33.3% (95% CI, 4.3-77.7), with an area under the curve of 0.60 (95% CI, 0.39-0.81). A maximum EJG diameter ≥ 14 mm had a sensitivity of 77.5% (95% CI, 69.0-84.6) and a specificity of 33.3% (95% CI, 4.3-77.7), with an AUC of 0.55 (95% CI, 0.34-0.76).

The performance was similar with FLIP: EGJ-DI > 2.8 mm²/mm Hg at any balloon setting had a sensitivity of 95.0% (95% CI, 89.4-98.1) and a specificity% of 0.0, and an AUC of 0.53 (95% CI, 0.51-0.55). A similar measurement at 40 mL or 50 mL distension had a sensitivity of 93.3% (95% CI, 87.3-97.1) and a specificity of 16.7% (95% CI, 0.4-64.1), with an AUC of 0.55 (95% CI, 0.39-0.72). Receiver operator characteristic analysis showed no significant difference between ability of FLIP and HRM to predict a normal Eckardt score.

If the study is repeated in other patient populations, Dr. DeWitt hopes that it could eliminate manometry altogether in a large majority of patients. “That would be potentially a game changer for bringing patients back to see how well they’re doing,” said Dr. DeWitt.

Not all patients who undergo POEM would be good candidates for FLIP, said Dr. DeWitt. The study was limited to patients with hypertension in the lower esophageal sphincter. Other disorders such as diffuse esophageal spasm, jackhammer esophagus, and type III achalasia would not likely be candidates for FLIP. “Those patients are going to probably still need manometry because if the esophageal body abnormalities are still present, then repeat testing might need to be performed,” said Dr. DeWitt. Still, he estimated about 80% of patients could be eligible for FLIP instead.
 

Impact on patients

“I think it’s interesting new data,” said Patrick Young, MD, who comoderated the session where the research was presented. He noted that the treatment of achalasia is evolving away from surgery, and the techniques to measure response are evolving along with it. “As we progress in that technology and using that procedure, we need to understand better how to follow those people up. I think adding this new device may help us to understand who’s going to respond well, and who’s not going to respond well. This is an early investigation, so I think we’ll need to do trials, but I think this is a good first step,” said Dr. Young, who is a professor of medicine at the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, Bethesda, Md.

Comoderator Mohammad Yaghoobi, MD, also praised the study, but noted that the cost of FLIP could be a concern. “We want to have a reasonable ratio of the cost versus the effectiveness,” said Dr. Yaghoobi, who is an associate professor of medicine at McMaster University in Hamilton, Ont.

Dr. DeWitt, Dr. Young, and Dr. Yaghoobi had no relevant disclosures.

LAS VEGAS –Data from the 28-week extension of the Liberty EoE TREET phase 3 clinical trial showed that the anti–interleukin-4/IL-13 antibody dupilumab led to long-term improvement in eosinophil count, histology, and patient-reported symptoms of eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) out to 28 weeks. Dupilumab is Food and Drug Administration approved for the treatment of atopic dermatitis, asthma, and chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyposis.

Many patients don’t respond to the standard therapies of proton pump inhibitors, steroids, or diet. Some evidence suggests that EoE might be driven by type 2 inflammation, and dupilumab’s effect on the shared receptor of IL-4 and IL-13 directly counters that pathway.

“The current treatments are [proton pump inhibitors], steroids, or diet – a good proportion of patients don’t respond to them. And they’re also not targeted,” Evan Dellon, MD, professor of medicine and epidemiology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, said in an interview. Dr. Dellon presented the research at the annual meeting of the American College of Gastroenterology.

“The bottom line is that people who responded up front to dupilumab maintain that response to a year, and the people on placebo gained a similar response as the people who were treated. It looked good. It was histologic, symptomatic, and endoscopic outcomes,” said Dr. Dellon.

Many of the patients in the new study were steroid refractory, making it a difficult population to treat, according to Dr. Dellon. “You can’t compare to the steroid-treated patients, but the 6-month data showed about a 60% response rate histologically, which is right up there with where steroids and diet are for easier to treat patients. So the fact that it’s a harder to treat cohort is pretty impressive from that standpoint,” said Dr. Dellon.

Data from the first 24 weeks was previously reported at UEG Week 2020 and showed that dupilumab outperformed placebo in EoE patients aged 12 years and older, with dupilumab producing better outcomes in peak esophageal intraepithelial eosinophil count and change in Dysphagia Symptom Questionnaire (DSQ) Score at 24 weeks.

At ACG 2021, Dr. Dellon reported on 52-week results, where all patients from both treated and placebo groups received dupilumab after the initial 24-week phase. Dupilumab reduced dysphagia symptoms as measured by the absolute change in DSQ score at 24 weeks (–21.9 vs. –9.6; P < .001). At 52 weeks, the dupilumab group showed a change of –23.4 from the start of the study, and the placebo-to-dupilumab group had a DSQ score change of –21.7. Dupilumab also led to a greater percentage reduction in DSQ score by 24 weeks (69.2% versus 31.7%; P < .001); at 52 weeks, the dupilumab group had a 75.9% reduction and the placebo-to-dupilumab group had a 65.9% reduction (no significant difference).

The dupilumab group had a greater proportion of patients who achieved peak esophageal eosinophil count of 6 eosinophils or less per high power field at 24 weeks (59.5% vs. 5.1%); at 52 weeks, 55.9% had achieved this measure, versus 60.0% of the placebo-to-dupilumab group. At 24 weeks, the dupilumab group had a 71.2% reduction in peak eosinophil count from baseline versus –3.0% in placebo (P < .001). At week 52, the reductions were 88.6% and 83.8%, respectively.

Histology features were improved with dupilumab. At week 24, the absolute change in histology scoring system mean grade score (histologic severity) from initial baseline was greater in the dupilumab group (least squares mean, –0.761 vs. –0.001; P < .001). The improvement continued at week 52 (LS mean, –0.87) and occurred in the placebo-to-dupilumab group (LS mean, –0.87). The dupilumab group had a greater absolute change in mean stage score at 24 weeks (histologic extent, LS mean, –0.753 vs. –0.012; P < .001) and 52 weeks (LS mean, –0.89), while the placebo-to-dupilumab group achieved a similar change at 52 weeks (LS mean, –0.87).

Endoscopic features improved in the dupilumab group as measured by endoscopic reference score at 24 weeks (LS mean, –3.2 versus –0.3; P <.001) and at 52 weeks (LS mean, –4.1). The placebo-to-dupilumab group had a similar outcome at 52 weeks (LS mean, –3.9).

Dupilumab was well tolerated, with the only significant difference in treatment-emergent adverse events being injection-site reactions and injection-site erythema.

“I thought the data was really impressive and compelling,” said Amy Oxentenko, MD, chair of medicine at the Mayo Clinic in Phoenix, who comoderated the session. “It’d be nice to have something like this that is a targeted therapy that clearly shows improvement in not only some of the symptoms and histology, but also having an impact possibly on that fibrotic piece, which I think is really the area of morbidity in these patients long term.”

If approved, dupilumab could improve compliance among patients, who sometimes struggle with taking topical steroids properly, said comoderator David Hass, MD, who is an associate clinical professor at Yale University, New Haven, Conn. He also agreed that the potential for remodeling would be a significant benefit over steroids.

One concern with dupilumab would be any potential for immune suppression. “It’s always something to think about,” Dr. Hass said.

LIBERTY EoE TREET was funded by Sanofi and Regeneron. Dr. Dellon has consulted and received research support from numerous pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Oxentenko and Dr. Hass have no relevant financial disclosures.

This article was updated Nov. 4, 2021.

LAS VEGAS –Data from the 28-week extension of the Liberty EoE TREET phase 3 clinical trial showed that the anti–interleukin-4/IL-13 antibody dupilumab led to long-term improvement in eosinophil count, histology, and patient-reported symptoms of eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) out to 28 weeks. Dupilumab is Food and Drug Administration approved for the treatment of atopic dermatitis, asthma, and chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyposis.

Many patients don’t respond to the standard therapies of proton pump inhibitors, steroids, or diet. Some evidence suggests that EoE might be driven by type 2 inflammation, and dupilumab’s effect on the shared receptor of IL-4 and IL-13 directly counters that pathway.

“The current treatments are [proton pump inhibitors], steroids, or diet – a good proportion of patients don’t respond to them. And they’re also not targeted,” Evan Dellon, MD, professor of medicine and epidemiology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, said in an interview. Dr. Dellon presented the research at the annual meeting of the American College of Gastroenterology.

“The bottom line is that people who responded up front to dupilumab maintain that response to a year, and the people on placebo gained a similar response as the people who were treated. It looked good. It was histologic, symptomatic, and endoscopic outcomes,” said Dr. Dellon.

Many of the patients in the new study were steroid refractory, making it a difficult population to treat, according to Dr. Dellon. “You can’t compare to the steroid-treated patients, but the 6-month data showed about a 60% response rate histologically, which is right up there with where steroids and diet are for easier to treat patients. So the fact that it’s a harder to treat cohort is pretty impressive from that standpoint,” said Dr. Dellon.

Data from the first 24 weeks was previously reported at UEG Week 2020 and showed that dupilumab outperformed placebo in EoE patients aged 12 years and older, with dupilumab producing better outcomes in peak esophageal intraepithelial eosinophil count and change in Dysphagia Symptom Questionnaire (DSQ) Score at 24 weeks.

At ACG 2021, Dr. Dellon reported on 52-week results, where all patients from both treated and placebo groups received dupilumab after the initial 24-week phase. Dupilumab reduced dysphagia symptoms as measured by the absolute change in DSQ score at 24 weeks (–21.9 vs. –9.6; P < .001). At 52 weeks, the dupilumab group showed a change of –23.4 from the start of the study, and the placebo-to-dupilumab group had a DSQ score change of –21.7. Dupilumab also led to a greater percentage reduction in DSQ score by 24 weeks (69.2% versus 31.7%; P < .001); at 52 weeks, the dupilumab group had a 75.9% reduction and the placebo-to-dupilumab group had a 65.9% reduction (no significant difference).

The dupilumab group had a greater proportion of patients who achieved peak esophageal eosinophil count of 6 eosinophils or less per high power field at 24 weeks (59.5% vs. 5.1%); at 52 weeks, 55.9% had achieved this measure, versus 60.0% of the placebo-to-dupilumab group. At 24 weeks, the dupilumab group had a 71.2% reduction in peak eosinophil count from baseline versus –3.0% in placebo (P < .001). At week 52, the reductions were 88.6% and 83.8%, respectively.

Histology features were improved with dupilumab. At week 24, the absolute change in histology scoring system mean grade score (histologic severity) from initial baseline was greater in the dupilumab group (least squares mean, –0.761 vs. –0.001; P < .001). The improvement continued at week 52 (LS mean, –0.87) and occurred in the placebo-to-dupilumab group (LS mean, –0.87). The dupilumab group had a greater absolute change in mean stage score at 24 weeks (histologic extent, LS mean, –0.753 vs. –0.012; P < .001) and 52 weeks (LS mean, –0.89), while the placebo-to-dupilumab group achieved a similar change at 52 weeks (LS mean, –0.87).

Endoscopic features improved in the dupilumab group as measured by endoscopic reference score at 24 weeks (LS mean, –3.2 versus –0.3; P <.001) and at 52 weeks (LS mean, –4.1). The placebo-to-dupilumab group had a similar outcome at 52 weeks (LS mean, –3.9).

Dupilumab was well tolerated, with the only significant difference in treatment-emergent adverse events being injection-site reactions and injection-site erythema.

“I thought the data was really impressive and compelling,” said Amy Oxentenko, MD, chair of medicine at the Mayo Clinic in Phoenix, who comoderated the session. “It’d be nice to have something like this that is a targeted therapy that clearly shows improvement in not only some of the symptoms and histology, but also having an impact possibly on that fibrotic piece, which I think is really the area of morbidity in these patients long term.”

If approved, dupilumab could improve compliance among patients, who sometimes struggle with taking topical steroids properly, said comoderator David Hass, MD, who is an associate clinical professor at Yale University, New Haven, Conn. He also agreed that the potential for remodeling would be a significant benefit over steroids.

One concern with dupilumab would be any potential for immune suppression. “It’s always something to think about,” Dr. Hass said.

LIBERTY EoE TREET was funded by Sanofi and Regeneron. Dr. Dellon has consulted and received research support from numerous pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Oxentenko and Dr. Hass have no relevant financial disclosures.

This article was updated Nov. 4, 2021.

LAS VEGAS –Data from the 28-week extension of the Liberty EoE TREET phase 3 clinical trial showed that the anti–interleukin-4/IL-13 antibody dupilumab led to long-term improvement in eosinophil count, histology, and patient-reported symptoms of eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) out to 28 weeks. Dupilumab is Food and Drug Administration approved for the treatment of atopic dermatitis, asthma, and chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyposis.

Many patients don’t respond to the standard therapies of proton pump inhibitors, steroids, or diet. Some evidence suggests that EoE might be driven by type 2 inflammation, and dupilumab’s effect on the shared receptor of IL-4 and IL-13 directly counters that pathway.

“The current treatments are [proton pump inhibitors], steroids, or diet – a good proportion of patients don’t respond to them. And they’re also not targeted,” Evan Dellon, MD, professor of medicine and epidemiology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, said in an interview. Dr. Dellon presented the research at the annual meeting of the American College of Gastroenterology.

“The bottom line is that people who responded up front to dupilumab maintain that response to a year, and the people on placebo gained a similar response as the people who were treated. It looked good. It was histologic, symptomatic, and endoscopic outcomes,” said Dr. Dellon.

Many of the patients in the new study were steroid refractory, making it a difficult population to treat, according to Dr. Dellon. “You can’t compare to the steroid-treated patients, but the 6-month data showed about a 60% response rate histologically, which is right up there with where steroids and diet are for easier to treat patients. So the fact that it’s a harder to treat cohort is pretty impressive from that standpoint,” said Dr. Dellon.

Data from the first 24 weeks was previously reported at UEG Week 2020 and showed that dupilumab outperformed placebo in EoE patients aged 12 years and older, with dupilumab producing better outcomes in peak esophageal intraepithelial eosinophil count and change in Dysphagia Symptom Questionnaire (DSQ) Score at 24 weeks.

At ACG 2021, Dr. Dellon reported on 52-week results, where all patients from both treated and placebo groups received dupilumab after the initial 24-week phase. Dupilumab reduced dysphagia symptoms as measured by the absolute change in DSQ score at 24 weeks (–21.9 vs. –9.6; P < .001). At 52 weeks, the dupilumab group showed a change of –23.4 from the start of the study, and the placebo-to-dupilumab group had a DSQ score change of –21.7. Dupilumab also led to a greater percentage reduction in DSQ score by 24 weeks (69.2% versus 31.7%; P < .001); at 52 weeks, the dupilumab group had a 75.9% reduction and the placebo-to-dupilumab group had a 65.9% reduction (no significant difference).

The dupilumab group had a greater proportion of patients who achieved peak esophageal eosinophil count of 6 eosinophils or less per high power field at 24 weeks (59.5% vs. 5.1%); at 52 weeks, 55.9% had achieved this measure, versus 60.0% of the placebo-to-dupilumab group. At 24 weeks, the dupilumab group had a 71.2% reduction in peak eosinophil count from baseline versus –3.0% in placebo (P < .001). At week 52, the reductions were 88.6% and 83.8%, respectively.

Histology features were improved with dupilumab. At week 24, the absolute change in histology scoring system mean grade score (histologic severity) from initial baseline was greater in the dupilumab group (least squares mean, –0.761 vs. –0.001; P < .001). The improvement continued at week 52 (LS mean, –0.87) and occurred in the placebo-to-dupilumab group (LS mean, –0.87). The dupilumab group had a greater absolute change in mean stage score at 24 weeks (histologic extent, LS mean, –0.753 vs. –0.012; P < .001) and 52 weeks (LS mean, –0.89), while the placebo-to-dupilumab group achieved a similar change at 52 weeks (LS mean, –0.87).

Endoscopic features improved in the dupilumab group as measured by endoscopic reference score at 24 weeks (LS mean, –3.2 versus –0.3; P <.001) and at 52 weeks (LS mean, –4.1). The placebo-to-dupilumab group had a similar outcome at 52 weeks (LS mean, –3.9).

Dupilumab was well tolerated, with the only significant difference in treatment-emergent adverse events being injection-site reactions and injection-site erythema.

“I thought the data was really impressive and compelling,” said Amy Oxentenko, MD, chair of medicine at the Mayo Clinic in Phoenix, who comoderated the session. “It’d be nice to have something like this that is a targeted therapy that clearly shows improvement in not only some of the symptoms and histology, but also having an impact possibly on that fibrotic piece, which I think is really the area of morbidity in these patients long term.”

If approved, dupilumab could improve compliance among patients, who sometimes struggle with taking topical steroids properly, said comoderator David Hass, MD, who is an associate clinical professor at Yale University, New Haven, Conn. He also agreed that the potential for remodeling would be a significant benefit over steroids.

One concern with dupilumab would be any potential for immune suppression. “It’s always something to think about,” Dr. Hass said.

LIBERTY EoE TREET was funded by Sanofi and Regeneron. Dr. Dellon has consulted and received research support from numerous pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Oxentenko and Dr. Hass have no relevant financial disclosures.

This article was updated Nov. 4, 2021.

New Jersey officials have suspended the license of a physician whose aesthetic medicine practice allegedly poses a “clear and imminent danger” to the public, as reported in NJ.com.

The physician, Muhammad A. Mirza, MD, is a board-certified internal medicine doctor and owner of Mirza Aesthetics, which has its main New Jersey office in Cedar Grove, a township in Essex County. The practice also leases space in New York, Pennsylvania, and Connecticut, where at press time Dr. Mirza was still licensed to practice medicine.

The acting New Jersey attorney general said that Dr. Mirza had deviated from the accepted standards of medical care in at least four key areas: he practiced in ways that put his patients in bodily danger; he lacked the formal training in and an adequate knowledge of aesthetic medicine; he practiced in office settings that inspectors found to be subpar; and he failed to safely store medical supplies or maintain proper medical records.

In one instance singled out by the attorney general’s office, Dr. Mirza used an injectable dermal filler to enhance a patient’s penis. As a result of that nonsurgical procedure, the patient needed to be rushed to a nearby hospital, where he underwent two emergency surgical interventions. Contacted by the emergency department doctor, Dr. Mirza allegedly failed to disclose the name of the filler he used, thereby complicating the patient’s recovery, according to the board complaint.

Dr. Mirza’s other alleged breaches of professional conduct include the following:

• Failure to wear a mask or surgical gloves during procedures
• Failure to keep electronic medical records of any kind
• Improper, off-label use of an injectable dermal filler in proximity to patients’ eyes
• Improper, off-label use of an injectable dermal filler for breast enhancement
• Use of a certain injectable dermal filler without first testing for skin allergies

In addition, site inspections of Dr. Mirza’s offices turned up substandard conditions. On April 23, 2021, in response to numerous patient complaints, the Enforcement Bureau of the Division of Consumer Affairs inspected Dr. Mirza’s Summit, N.J. office, one of several in the state.

Among other things, the inspection uncovered the following:

• The medical office was one large room. A curtain separated the reception area and the examination/treatment area, which consisted of only chairs and a fold-away table.
• “Duffle bags” were used to store injectable fillers. No medical storage refrigerators were observed.
• COVID-19 protocols were not followed. Inspectors could identify no barrier between receptionist and patients, no posted mask mandate, no social distancing policy, and no COVID-19 screening measures.

In addition to temporarily suspending Dr. Mirza’s license, the medical board has prohibited him from treating New Jersey patients in any of the out-of-state locations where he’s licensed to practice medicine.

Prosecutors have urged other patients who believe they’ve been injured by Mirza Aesthetics to file a complaint with the State Division of Consumer Affairs.

Dr. Mirza has agreed to the temporary suspension of his medical license, pending a hearing before an administrative law judge. In addition to facing civil penalties for each of the counts against him, he could be held responsible for paying investigative costs, attorney fees, trial costs, and other costs.
 

Doctor’s failure to diagnose results in mega award

In what is believed to be a record verdict in a wrongful death suit in Volusia County, Fla., a jury awarded $6.46 million to the family of a woman who died from an undiagnosed heart infection after being transferred from a local hospital, according to a report in The Daytona Beach News-Journal, among other news outlets.

In March 2016, Laura Staib went to what was then Florida Hospital DeLand — now AdventHealth DeLand — complaining of a variety of symptoms. There, she was examined by a doctor who was a member of a nearby cardiology group. His diagnosis: congestive heart failure, pneumonia, and sepsis. Transferred to a long-term care facility, Ms. Staib died 4 days later.

In their complaint against the cardiologist and his cardiology group, family members alleged that the doctor failed to identify Ms. Staib’s main problem: viral myocarditis.

“This was primarily a heart failure problem and a heart infection that was probably causing some problems in the lungs,” said the attorney representing the family. “A virus was attacking her heart, and they missed it,” he said. Claims against the hospital and other doctors were eventually resolved and dismissed.

The jury’s verdict will be appealed, said the attorney representing the cardiologist.

He argues that his client “did not cause that woman’s death. She died of an overwhelming lung infection...acute respiratory distress syndrome, caused by an overwhelming pneumonia that got worse after she was transferred to a facility where [my client] doesn’t practice.”

The bulk of the award will be in compensation for family members’ future pain and suffering and for other noneconomic damages.
 

Botched outpatient procedure leaves woman disfigured

In early September, a patient was allegedly administered the wrong drug during an outpatient procedure on her hand. She sued the Austin, Tex., hospital and surgical center where that procedure was performed, according to a story in Law/Street.

On January 9, 2020, Jessica Arguello went to HCA Healthcare’s South Austin Surgery Center to undergo a right-hand first metacarpophalangeal arthrodesis (fusion) and neuroma excision. In her suit against the hospital, Ms. Arguello claims that while her surgeon was preparing to close the incision after having irrigated the site, he called for a syringe containing an anesthetic. He was instead handed a syringe that contained formalin, the chemical used to preserve specimens for later review.

The mistake, Ms. Arguello claims, caused her to suffer massive chemical burns and necrosis of her flesh, which required four additional surgeries. In the end, she says, her right hand is disfigured and has limited mobility.

She adds that her injuries were preventable. Standard surgical procedure typically forbids chemicals such as formalin to be included among items on the prep tray. In addition to other compensation, she seeks damages for past and future medical expenses and past and future pain and suffering.

At press time, the defendants had not responded to Ms. Arguello’s complaint.

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

New Jersey officials have suspended the license of a physician whose aesthetic medicine practice allegedly poses a “clear and imminent danger” to the public, as reported in NJ.com.

The physician, Muhammad A. Mirza, MD, is a board-certified internal medicine doctor and owner of Mirza Aesthetics, which has its main New Jersey office in Cedar Grove, a township in Essex County. The practice also leases space in New York, Pennsylvania, and Connecticut, where at press time Dr. Mirza was still licensed to practice medicine.

The acting New Jersey attorney general said that Dr. Mirza had deviated from the accepted standards of medical care in at least four key areas: he practiced in ways that put his patients in bodily danger; he lacked the formal training in and an adequate knowledge of aesthetic medicine; he practiced in office settings that inspectors found to be subpar; and he failed to safely store medical supplies or maintain proper medical records.

In one instance singled out by the attorney general’s office, Dr. Mirza used an injectable dermal filler to enhance a patient’s penis. As a result of that nonsurgical procedure, the patient needed to be rushed to a nearby hospital, where he underwent two emergency surgical interventions. Contacted by the emergency department doctor, Dr. Mirza allegedly failed to disclose the name of the filler he used, thereby complicating the patient’s recovery, according to the board complaint.

Dr. Mirza’s other alleged breaches of professional conduct include the following:

• Failure to wear a mask or surgical gloves during procedures
• Failure to keep electronic medical records of any kind
• Improper, off-label use of an injectable dermal filler in proximity to patients’ eyes
• Improper, off-label use of an injectable dermal filler for breast enhancement
• Use of a certain injectable dermal filler without first testing for skin allergies

In addition, site inspections of Dr. Mirza’s offices turned up substandard conditions. On April 23, 2021, in response to numerous patient complaints, the Enforcement Bureau of the Division of Consumer Affairs inspected Dr. Mirza’s Summit, N.J. office, one of several in the state.

Among other things, the inspection uncovered the following:

• The medical office was one large room. A curtain separated the reception area and the examination/treatment area, which consisted of only chairs and a fold-away table.
• “Duffle bags” were used to store injectable fillers. No medical storage refrigerators were observed.
• COVID-19 protocols were not followed. Inspectors could identify no barrier between receptionist and patients, no posted mask mandate, no social distancing policy, and no COVID-19 screening measures.

In addition to temporarily suspending Dr. Mirza’s license, the medical board has prohibited him from treating New Jersey patients in any of the out-of-state locations where he’s licensed to practice medicine.

Prosecutors have urged other patients who believe they’ve been injured by Mirza Aesthetics to file a complaint with the State Division of Consumer Affairs.

Dr. Mirza has agreed to the temporary suspension of his medical license, pending a hearing before an administrative law judge. In addition to facing civil penalties for each of the counts against him, he could be held responsible for paying investigative costs, attorney fees, trial costs, and other costs.
 

Doctor’s failure to diagnose results in mega award

In what is believed to be a record verdict in a wrongful death suit in Volusia County, Fla., a jury awarded $6.46 million to the family of a woman who died from an undiagnosed heart infection after being transferred from a local hospital, according to a report in The Daytona Beach News-Journal, among other news outlets.

In March 2016, Laura Staib went to what was then Florida Hospital DeLand — now AdventHealth DeLand — complaining of a variety of symptoms. There, she was examined by a doctor who was a member of a nearby cardiology group. His diagnosis: congestive heart failure, pneumonia, and sepsis. Transferred to a long-term care facility, Ms. Staib died 4 days later.

In their complaint against the cardiologist and his cardiology group, family members alleged that the doctor failed to identify Ms. Staib’s main problem: viral myocarditis.

“This was primarily a heart failure problem and a heart infection that was probably causing some problems in the lungs,” said the attorney representing the family. “A virus was attacking her heart, and they missed it,” he said. Claims against the hospital and other doctors were eventually resolved and dismissed.

The jury’s verdict will be appealed, said the attorney representing the cardiologist.

He argues that his client “did not cause that woman’s death. She died of an overwhelming lung infection...acute respiratory distress syndrome, caused by an overwhelming pneumonia that got worse after she was transferred to a facility where [my client] doesn’t practice.”

The bulk of the award will be in compensation for family members’ future pain and suffering and for other noneconomic damages.
 

Botched outpatient procedure leaves woman disfigured

In early September, a patient was allegedly administered the wrong drug during an outpatient procedure on her hand. She sued the Austin, Tex., hospital and surgical center where that procedure was performed, according to a story in Law/Street.

On January 9, 2020, Jessica Arguello went to HCA Healthcare’s South Austin Surgery Center to undergo a right-hand first metacarpophalangeal arthrodesis (fusion) and neuroma excision. In her suit against the hospital, Ms. Arguello claims that while her surgeon was preparing to close the incision after having irrigated the site, he called for a syringe containing an anesthetic. He was instead handed a syringe that contained formalin, the chemical used to preserve specimens for later review.

The mistake, Ms. Arguello claims, caused her to suffer massive chemical burns and necrosis of her flesh, which required four additional surgeries. In the end, she says, her right hand is disfigured and has limited mobility.

She adds that her injuries were preventable. Standard surgical procedure typically forbids chemicals such as formalin to be included among items on the prep tray. In addition to other compensation, she seeks damages for past and future medical expenses and past and future pain and suffering.

At press time, the defendants had not responded to Ms. Arguello’s complaint.

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

New Jersey officials have suspended the license of a physician whose aesthetic medicine practice allegedly poses a “clear and imminent danger” to the public, as reported in NJ.com.

The physician, Muhammad A. Mirza, MD, is a board-certified internal medicine doctor and owner of Mirza Aesthetics, which has its main New Jersey office in Cedar Grove, a township in Essex County. The practice also leases space in New York, Pennsylvania, and Connecticut, where at press time Dr. Mirza was still licensed to practice medicine.

The acting New Jersey attorney general said that Dr. Mirza had deviated from the accepted standards of medical care in at least four key areas: he practiced in ways that put his patients in bodily danger; he lacked the formal training in and an adequate knowledge of aesthetic medicine; he practiced in office settings that inspectors found to be subpar; and he failed to safely store medical supplies or maintain proper medical records.

In one instance singled out by the attorney general’s office, Dr. Mirza used an injectable dermal filler to enhance a patient’s penis. As a result of that nonsurgical procedure, the patient needed to be rushed to a nearby hospital, where he underwent two emergency surgical interventions. Contacted by the emergency department doctor, Dr. Mirza allegedly failed to disclose the name of the filler he used, thereby complicating the patient’s recovery, according to the board complaint.

Dr. Mirza’s other alleged breaches of professional conduct include the following:

• Failure to wear a mask or surgical gloves during procedures
• Failure to keep electronic medical records of any kind
• Improper, off-label use of an injectable dermal filler in proximity to patients’ eyes
• Improper, off-label use of an injectable dermal filler for breast enhancement
• Use of a certain injectable dermal filler without first testing for skin allergies

In addition, site inspections of Dr. Mirza’s offices turned up substandard conditions. On April 23, 2021, in response to numerous patient complaints, the Enforcement Bureau of the Division of Consumer Affairs inspected Dr. Mirza’s Summit, N.J. office, one of several in the state.

Among other things, the inspection uncovered the following:

• The medical office was one large room. A curtain separated the reception area and the examination/treatment area, which consisted of only chairs and a fold-away table.
• “Duffle bags” were used to store injectable fillers. No medical storage refrigerators were observed.
• COVID-19 protocols were not followed. Inspectors could identify no barrier between receptionist and patients, no posted mask mandate, no social distancing policy, and no COVID-19 screening measures.

In addition to temporarily suspending Dr. Mirza’s license, the medical board has prohibited him from treating New Jersey patients in any of the out-of-state locations where he’s licensed to practice medicine.

Prosecutors have urged other patients who believe they’ve been injured by Mirza Aesthetics to file a complaint with the State Division of Consumer Affairs.

Dr. Mirza has agreed to the temporary suspension of his medical license, pending a hearing before an administrative law judge. In addition to facing civil penalties for each of the counts against him, he could be held responsible for paying investigative costs, attorney fees, trial costs, and other costs.
 

Doctor’s failure to diagnose results in mega award

In what is believed to be a record verdict in a wrongful death suit in Volusia County, Fla., a jury awarded $6.46 million to the family of a woman who died from an undiagnosed heart infection after being transferred from a local hospital, according to a report in The Daytona Beach News-Journal, among other news outlets.

In March 2016, Laura Staib went to what was then Florida Hospital DeLand — now AdventHealth DeLand — complaining of a variety of symptoms. There, she was examined by a doctor who was a member of a nearby cardiology group. His diagnosis: congestive heart failure, pneumonia, and sepsis. Transferred to a long-term care facility, Ms. Staib died 4 days later.

In their complaint against the cardiologist and his cardiology group, family members alleged that the doctor failed to identify Ms. Staib’s main problem: viral myocarditis.

“This was primarily a heart failure problem and a heart infection that was probably causing some problems in the lungs,” said the attorney representing the family. “A virus was attacking her heart, and they missed it,” he said. Claims against the hospital and other doctors were eventually resolved and dismissed.

The jury’s verdict will be appealed, said the attorney representing the cardiologist.

He argues that his client “did not cause that woman’s death. She died of an overwhelming lung infection...acute respiratory distress syndrome, caused by an overwhelming pneumonia that got worse after she was transferred to a facility where [my client] doesn’t practice.”

The bulk of the award will be in compensation for family members’ future pain and suffering and for other noneconomic damages.
 

Botched outpatient procedure leaves woman disfigured

In early September, a patient was allegedly administered the wrong drug during an outpatient procedure on her hand. She sued the Austin, Tex., hospital and surgical center where that procedure was performed, according to a story in Law/Street.

On January 9, 2020, Jessica Arguello went to HCA Healthcare’s South Austin Surgery Center to undergo a right-hand first metacarpophalangeal arthrodesis (fusion) and neuroma excision. In her suit against the hospital, Ms. Arguello claims that while her surgeon was preparing to close the incision after having irrigated the site, he called for a syringe containing an anesthetic. He was instead handed a syringe that contained formalin, the chemical used to preserve specimens for later review.

The mistake, Ms. Arguello claims, caused her to suffer massive chemical burns and necrosis of her flesh, which required four additional surgeries. In the end, she says, her right hand is disfigured and has limited mobility.

She adds that her injuries were preventable. Standard surgical procedure typically forbids chemicals such as formalin to be included among items on the prep tray. In addition to other compensation, she seeks damages for past and future medical expenses and past and future pain and suffering.

At press time, the defendants had not responded to Ms. Arguello’s complaint.

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

The number of adenomas per colonoscopy (APC) is inversely correlated with postcolonoscopy colorectal cancer (PCCRC), which supports use of APC as a new quality control measure, according to investigators.

Data from 138 endoscopists showed that patients screened by physicians with higher APCs had significantly lower rates of PCCRC, and an APC of 0.6 offered more protection than either an APC of 0.4 or an adenoma detection rate (ADR) of 25%, reported lead author Joseph C. Anderson, MD, of White River Junction VA Medical Center, Hanover, N.H., and colleagues.

“Unfortunately, APC has never been validated as a quality measure by demonstrating a reduction in PCCRC in exams performed by endoscopists with higher rates,” Dr. Anderson said at the annual meeting of the American College of Gastroenterology.

To this end, Dr. Anderson and colleagues reviewed data from the New Hampshire Colonoscopy Registry (NHCR), including 9,023 screening colonoscopies with a follow-up event 6-60 months after the initial exam. Procedures were conducted by 138 endoscopists in New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, and Maine.

Three quality measures were analyzed for associations with PCCRC: an APC of 0.4, an APC of 0.6, and an ADR of 25%. Hazard ratios were calculated for all PCCRCs, as well as PCCRCs diagnosed at first follow-up event. Rates were reported for two time periods: 6-36 months and 6-60 months.

From 6 to 60 months, 82 cases of PCCRC were diagnosed, among which 50 were diagnosed between 6 and 36 months.

For both periods, all three quality measures were significantly associated with reductions in PCCRC. The higher APC of 0.6, however, offered greater protection, reducing all PCCRCs by 71% and 61% in the shorter and longer period, respectively. In comparison, the lower APC of 0.4 reduced rates by 63% and 53%, while the ADR benchmark reduced rates by 62% and 42%.

These trends were maintained for PCCRCs diagnosed at first follow-up event. An APC of 0.6 was associated with respective reductions of 79% and 65% for the shorter and longer period, compared with 64% and 57% for the lower APC, and 67% and 49% for ADR.

Additional analysis clarified the relationship between APC level and likelihood of developing PCCRC. In terms of absolute risk, patients screened by an endoscopist with an APC greater than 0.6 had a 0.5% chance of developing PCCRC from 6 to 36 months, compared with 0.7% for an APC of 0.4-0.6, and 2.1% for an APC of less than 0.4 (P = .0001). This pattern held through 60 months, during which time an APC greater than 0.6 was associated with an absolute risk of PCCRC of 0.4%, compared with 0.7% for an APC of 0.4-0.6, and 1.6% for an APC less than 0.4 (P = .0001).

“Our novel data support the use of APC as a quality measure by demonstrating a reduction in PCCRC risk in exams performed by endoscopists with higher APCs,” Dr. Anderson concluded, noting that an APC of 0.6 appeared to offer more protection than an APC of 0.4. “I feel that ... APC as a quality measure, now that we’ve validated it, may be accepted because of its ability to differentiate endoscopists on their adenoma detection skills.”

According to Lawrence Hookey, MD, of Queen’s University, Kingston, Ont., “It’s an important study that will probably contribute to where we’re going forward.”

Dr. Lawrence, chair of the division and medical director of the endoscopy units at Kingston General and Hotel Dieu hospitals, said that APC may overcome the main concern with ADR – that endoscopists who find one adenoma may not be motivated to seek out as many as possible.

“The problem with ADR, in general, is that if you find one polyp, and if ADR is the stat you’re living by, then you don’t need to find any other polyps, and that obviously doesn’t do that patient a favor, necessarily,” Dr. Hookey said in an interview. “It does bring them back sooner for surveillance, but it doesn’t help remove the rest of the polyps that they have. And not that someone is going to find one polyp and turn off the light and pull the scope out, but you may not be looking as hard.”

APC mitigates this issue, he explained, because it determines “whether or not you’re truly clearing things out and getting rid of as many [polyps] as possible.”

Dr. Hookey said that APC is “probably the best” quality control measure on the horizon, and he suggested that more work is needed to determine the optimal benchmark figure, which should ideally be investigated through larger studies.

“I just want to see it in bigger groups,” he said.

The investigators and Dr. Hookey reported no conflicts of interest.

The number of adenomas per colonoscopy (APC) is inversely correlated with postcolonoscopy colorectal cancer (PCCRC), which supports use of APC as a new quality control measure, according to investigators.

Data from 138 endoscopists showed that patients screened by physicians with higher APCs had significantly lower rates of PCCRC, and an APC of 0.6 offered more protection than either an APC of 0.4 or an adenoma detection rate (ADR) of 25%, reported lead author Joseph C. Anderson, MD, of White River Junction VA Medical Center, Hanover, N.H., and colleagues.

“Unfortunately, APC has never been validated as a quality measure by demonstrating a reduction in PCCRC in exams performed by endoscopists with higher rates,” Dr. Anderson said at the annual meeting of the American College of Gastroenterology.

To this end, Dr. Anderson and colleagues reviewed data from the New Hampshire Colonoscopy Registry (NHCR), including 9,023 screening colonoscopies with a follow-up event 6-60 months after the initial exam. Procedures were conducted by 138 endoscopists in New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, and Maine.

Three quality measures were analyzed for associations with PCCRC: an APC of 0.4, an APC of 0.6, and an ADR of 25%. Hazard ratios were calculated for all PCCRCs, as well as PCCRCs diagnosed at first follow-up event. Rates were reported for two time periods: 6-36 months and 6-60 months.

From 6 to 60 months, 82 cases of PCCRC were diagnosed, among which 50 were diagnosed between 6 and 36 months.

For both periods, all three quality measures were significantly associated with reductions in PCCRC. The higher APC of 0.6, however, offered greater protection, reducing all PCCRCs by 71% and 61% in the shorter and longer period, respectively. In comparison, the lower APC of 0.4 reduced rates by 63% and 53%, while the ADR benchmark reduced rates by 62% and 42%.

These trends were maintained for PCCRCs diagnosed at first follow-up event. An APC of 0.6 was associated with respective reductions of 79% and 65% for the shorter and longer period, compared with 64% and 57% for the lower APC, and 67% and 49% for ADR.

Additional analysis clarified the relationship between APC level and likelihood of developing PCCRC. In terms of absolute risk, patients screened by an endoscopist with an APC greater than 0.6 had a 0.5% chance of developing PCCRC from 6 to 36 months, compared with 0.7% for an APC of 0.4-0.6, and 2.1% for an APC of less than 0.4 (P = .0001). This pattern held through 60 months, during which time an APC greater than 0.6 was associated with an absolute risk of PCCRC of 0.4%, compared with 0.7% for an APC of 0.4-0.6, and 1.6% for an APC less than 0.4 (P = .0001).

“Our novel data support the use of APC as a quality measure by demonstrating a reduction in PCCRC risk in exams performed by endoscopists with higher APCs,” Dr. Anderson concluded, noting that an APC of 0.6 appeared to offer more protection than an APC of 0.4. “I feel that ... APC as a quality measure, now that we’ve validated it, may be accepted because of its ability to differentiate endoscopists on their adenoma detection skills.”

According to Lawrence Hookey, MD, of Queen’s University, Kingston, Ont., “It’s an important study that will probably contribute to where we’re going forward.”

Dr. Lawrence, chair of the division and medical director of the endoscopy units at Kingston General and Hotel Dieu hospitals, said that APC may overcome the main concern with ADR – that endoscopists who find one adenoma may not be motivated to seek out as many as possible.

“The problem with ADR, in general, is that if you find one polyp, and if ADR is the stat you’re living by, then you don’t need to find any other polyps, and that obviously doesn’t do that patient a favor, necessarily,” Dr. Hookey said in an interview. “It does bring them back sooner for surveillance, but it doesn’t help remove the rest of the polyps that they have. And not that someone is going to find one polyp and turn off the light and pull the scope out, but you may not be looking as hard.”

APC mitigates this issue, he explained, because it determines “whether or not you’re truly clearing things out and getting rid of as many [polyps] as possible.”

Dr. Hookey said that APC is “probably the best” quality control measure on the horizon, and he suggested that more work is needed to determine the optimal benchmark figure, which should ideally be investigated through larger studies.

“I just want to see it in bigger groups,” he said.

The investigators and Dr. Hookey reported no conflicts of interest.

The number of adenomas per colonoscopy (APC) is inversely correlated with postcolonoscopy colorectal cancer (PCCRC), which supports use of APC as a new quality control measure, according to investigators.

Data from 138 endoscopists showed that patients screened by physicians with higher APCs had significantly lower rates of PCCRC, and an APC of 0.6 offered more protection than either an APC of 0.4 or an adenoma detection rate (ADR) of 25%, reported lead author Joseph C. Anderson, MD, of White River Junction VA Medical Center, Hanover, N.H., and colleagues.

“Unfortunately, APC has never been validated as a quality measure by demonstrating a reduction in PCCRC in exams performed by endoscopists with higher rates,” Dr. Anderson said at the annual meeting of the American College of Gastroenterology.

To this end, Dr. Anderson and colleagues reviewed data from the New Hampshire Colonoscopy Registry (NHCR), including 9,023 screening colonoscopies with a follow-up event 6-60 months after the initial exam. Procedures were conducted by 138 endoscopists in New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, and Maine.

Three quality measures were analyzed for associations with PCCRC: an APC of 0.4, an APC of 0.6, and an ADR of 25%. Hazard ratios were calculated for all PCCRCs, as well as PCCRCs diagnosed at first follow-up event. Rates were reported for two time periods: 6-36 months and 6-60 months.

From 6 to 60 months, 82 cases of PCCRC were diagnosed, among which 50 were diagnosed between 6 and 36 months.

For both periods, all three quality measures were significantly associated with reductions in PCCRC. The higher APC of 0.6, however, offered greater protection, reducing all PCCRCs by 71% and 61% in the shorter and longer period, respectively. In comparison, the lower APC of 0.4 reduced rates by 63% and 53%, while the ADR benchmark reduced rates by 62% and 42%.

These trends were maintained for PCCRCs diagnosed at first follow-up event. An APC of 0.6 was associated with respective reductions of 79% and 65% for the shorter and longer period, compared with 64% and 57% for the lower APC, and 67% and 49% for ADR.

Additional analysis clarified the relationship between APC level and likelihood of developing PCCRC. In terms of absolute risk, patients screened by an endoscopist with an APC greater than 0.6 had a 0.5% chance of developing PCCRC from 6 to 36 months, compared with 0.7% for an APC of 0.4-0.6, and 2.1% for an APC of less than 0.4 (P = .0001). This pattern held through 60 months, during which time an APC greater than 0.6 was associated with an absolute risk of PCCRC of 0.4%, compared with 0.7% for an APC of 0.4-0.6, and 1.6% for an APC less than 0.4 (P = .0001).

“Our novel data support the use of APC as a quality measure by demonstrating a reduction in PCCRC risk in exams performed by endoscopists with higher APCs,” Dr. Anderson concluded, noting that an APC of 0.6 appeared to offer more protection than an APC of 0.4. “I feel that ... APC as a quality measure, now that we’ve validated it, may be accepted because of its ability to differentiate endoscopists on their adenoma detection skills.”

According to Lawrence Hookey, MD, of Queen’s University, Kingston, Ont., “It’s an important study that will probably contribute to where we’re going forward.”

Dr. Lawrence, chair of the division and medical director of the endoscopy units at Kingston General and Hotel Dieu hospitals, said that APC may overcome the main concern with ADR – that endoscopists who find one adenoma may not be motivated to seek out as many as possible.

“The problem with ADR, in general, is that if you find one polyp, and if ADR is the stat you’re living by, then you don’t need to find any other polyps, and that obviously doesn’t do that patient a favor, necessarily,” Dr. Hookey said in an interview. “It does bring them back sooner for surveillance, but it doesn’t help remove the rest of the polyps that they have. And not that someone is going to find one polyp and turn off the light and pull the scope out, but you may not be looking as hard.”

APC mitigates this issue, he explained, because it determines “whether or not you’re truly clearing things out and getting rid of as many [polyps] as possible.”

Dr. Hookey said that APC is “probably the best” quality control measure on the horizon, and he suggested that more work is needed to determine the optimal benchmark figure, which should ideally be investigated through larger studies.

“I just want to see it in bigger groups,” he said.

The investigators and Dr. Hookey reported no conflicts of interest.

Most patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) develop a humoral immune response after completing an mRNA SARS-CoV-2 vaccine series, according to data from almost 800 patients.

Choreograph/iStock/Getty Images

Anti–receptor binding domain IgG antibodies specific to SARS-CoV-2 were detectable in 95% of patients, with “generally similar” results across vaccine type, age group, and medication class, apart from corticosteroid users, who had an 86% antibody detection rate, reported lead author Kimberly N. Weaver, MD, of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and colleagues.

“Patients with IBD on immunosuppressive medications have the potential for attenuated response to the SARS-CoV-2 vaccination,” Dr. Weaver said at the annual meeting of the American College of Gastroenterology.

In support of this possibility, Dr. Weaver cited two recent trials from earlier in 2021: one demonstrated blunted antibody responses in IBD patients taking infliximab, while the other showed that full vaccination was less effective at preventing SARS-CoV-2 infection among patients with IBD than nonimmunosuppressed individuals.

To better characterize antibody responses after receiving an mRNA vaccination series, Dr. Weaver and colleagues launched the PREVENT-COVID trial, including the present dataset of 787 patients with IBD older than 12 years, all of whom provided serum samples 8 weeks after completing an mRNA vaccine series. Patients with positive nucleocapsid antibody (indicating prior infection), and/or those who reported prior COVID-19 infection, were excluded. Most patients were White (95%) and female (73%), with an average age of 48 years. Slightly more patients received the BNT162b2 vaccine than the mRNA-1273 vaccine (58% vs. 42%).

At 8 weeks, 752 out of 787 patients had detectable antibodies (95%). Antibody rates were highest among patients receiving vedolizumab monotherapy (n = 83; 99%) or ustekinumab monotherapy (n = 102; 99%), followed by mercaptopurine, azathioprine, or methotrexate monotherapy (n = 67; 97%); anti–tumor necrosis factor monotherapy (n = 270; 96%); mesalamine, sulfasalazine, or budesonide monotherapy or no medication (n = 143; 95%); and finally anti-TNF/immunosuppressive combination therapy (n = 75; 86%). Median and mean antibody titers were lowest for anti-TNF combination therapy and highest for vedolizumab.

Thirty-five patients taking corticosteroids had an antibody detection rate of 85.7% (95% CI, 70.6-93.7), compared with 95.9% (95% CI, 94.2-97.1) among nonsteroid users. In contrast, antibody detection rates were not significantly affected by age or vaccine type.

“Reassuringly, most IBD medications do not prevent an initial antibody response after SARS-CoV-2 vaccination, and this is unlike other classes of immune suppression such as B-cell depletion therapy,” Dr. Weaver concluded. “Additional data are forthcoming on a larger subset of participants in the PREVENT-COVID study which will allow for analysis of factors associated with humoral immune response and potential optimization of immunization strategies.” She described a dataset of about 500 IBD patients in which booster vaccines overcame poor antibody responses to the initial vaccine series.
 

‘The data we need’

Serre-yu Wong, MD, PhD, of Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, agreed that the findings should offer some reassurance to patients with IBD and their care providers.

“At the end of the day we have really nice seroconversion rates for the IBD population,” Dr. Wong said.

In April 2021, Dr. Wong and the ICARUS-IBD Working Group published a similar report of 48 patients with IBD receiving biologic therapies, among whom the seroconversion rate was 100%.

“A lot of the early data, including ours, are on infusion medications, and that’s sort of a practical thing because those were the only patients we could get samples from, but [Dr. Weaver and colleagues] were able to get samples from patients not on medications, on oral medications, and on other injection medications that people can take at home, and these are really the data we need for all of our other IBD patients,” Dr. Wong said.

Dr. Wong highlighted that both trials showed some IBD patients generating “very, very high” titers, many of them above the threshold needed for donating convalescent plasma for COVID-19 treatment; still, exact titer levels needed to protect against SARS-CoV-2 infection remain unclear.

“This is going to require longitudinal studies,” Dr. Wong said. “We can’t answer that perfectly right now. We don’t know the magic level of antibodies. I don’t know if you need a titer of 1:100 or 1:1,000.”

Although postvaccination antibody testing is not recommended by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Dr. Wong said that “many patients” check their titers anyway, leading to anxiety if antibodies are low or undetectable.

“I know that it’s very disconcerting sometimes when you don’t see an antibody response, and this is one of the hardest things to try to explain to patients,” Dr. Wong said. “[It’s necessary] to have a frank discussion about the fact that we don’t know the magic level of antibodies, and that there are also other parts of the immune system that we haven’t tested with antibodies. We haven’t tested the T-cell response, and we do know you can have a T-cell response even if you don’t have a B-cell response.”

Dr. Wong suggested that more work is needed to determine the impact of the IBD disease process on susceptibility to SARS-CoV-2 infection, and the rates of antibody responses for the various other vaccines being used around the world.

The PREVENT-COVID study was supported by the Leona M. and Harry B. Helmsley Charitable Trust. The investigators disclosed additional relationships with AbbVie, Johnson & Johnson, Genentech, and others. Dr. Wong reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

This article was updated Oct. 28, 2021.

Most patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) develop a humoral immune response after completing an mRNA SARS-CoV-2 vaccine series, according to data from almost 800 patients.

Choreograph/iStock/Getty Images

Anti–receptor binding domain IgG antibodies specific to SARS-CoV-2 were detectable in 95% of patients, with “generally similar” results across vaccine type, age group, and medication class, apart from corticosteroid users, who had an 86% antibody detection rate, reported lead author Kimberly N. Weaver, MD, of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and colleagues.

“Patients with IBD on immunosuppressive medications have the potential for attenuated response to the SARS-CoV-2 vaccination,” Dr. Weaver said at the annual meeting of the American College of Gastroenterology.

In support of this possibility, Dr. Weaver cited two recent trials from earlier in 2021: one demonstrated blunted antibody responses in IBD patients taking infliximab, while the other showed that full vaccination was less effective at preventing SARS-CoV-2 infection among patients with IBD than nonimmunosuppressed individuals.

To better characterize antibody responses after receiving an mRNA vaccination series, Dr. Weaver and colleagues launched the PREVENT-COVID trial, including the present dataset of 787 patients with IBD older than 12 years, all of whom provided serum samples 8 weeks after completing an mRNA vaccine series. Patients with positive nucleocapsid antibody (indicating prior infection), and/or those who reported prior COVID-19 infection, were excluded. Most patients were White (95%) and female (73%), with an average age of 48 years. Slightly more patients received the BNT162b2 vaccine than the mRNA-1273 vaccine (58% vs. 42%).

At 8 weeks, 752 out of 787 patients had detectable antibodies (95%). Antibody rates were highest among patients receiving vedolizumab monotherapy (n = 83; 99%) or ustekinumab monotherapy (n = 102; 99%), followed by mercaptopurine, azathioprine, or methotrexate monotherapy (n = 67; 97%); anti–tumor necrosis factor monotherapy (n = 270; 96%); mesalamine, sulfasalazine, or budesonide monotherapy or no medication (n = 143; 95%); and finally anti-TNF/immunosuppressive combination therapy (n = 75; 86%). Median and mean antibody titers were lowest for anti-TNF combination therapy and highest for vedolizumab.

Thirty-five patients taking corticosteroids had an antibody detection rate of 85.7% (95% CI, 70.6-93.7), compared with 95.9% (95% CI, 94.2-97.1) among nonsteroid users. In contrast, antibody detection rates were not significantly affected by age or vaccine type.

“Reassuringly, most IBD medications do not prevent an initial antibody response after SARS-CoV-2 vaccination, and this is unlike other classes of immune suppression such as B-cell depletion therapy,” Dr. Weaver concluded. “Additional data are forthcoming on a larger subset of participants in the PREVENT-COVID study which will allow for analysis of factors associated with humoral immune response and potential optimization of immunization strategies.” She described a dataset of about 500 IBD patients in which booster vaccines overcame poor antibody responses to the initial vaccine series.
 

‘The data we need’

Serre-yu Wong, MD, PhD, of Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, agreed that the findings should offer some reassurance to patients with IBD and their care providers.

“At the end of the day we have really nice seroconversion rates for the IBD population,” Dr. Wong said.

In April 2021, Dr. Wong and the ICARUS-IBD Working Group published a similar report of 48 patients with IBD receiving biologic therapies, among whom the seroconversion rate was 100%.

“A lot of the early data, including ours, are on infusion medications, and that’s sort of a practical thing because those were the only patients we could get samples from, but [Dr. Weaver and colleagues] were able to get samples from patients not on medications, on oral medications, and on other injection medications that people can take at home, and these are really the data we need for all of our other IBD patients,” Dr. Wong said.

Dr. Wong highlighted that both trials showed some IBD patients generating “very, very high” titers, many of them above the threshold needed for donating convalescent plasma for COVID-19 treatment; still, exact titer levels needed to protect against SARS-CoV-2 infection remain unclear.

“This is going to require longitudinal studies,” Dr. Wong said. “We can’t answer that perfectly right now. We don’t know the magic level of antibodies. I don’t know if you need a titer of 1:100 or 1:1,000.”

Although postvaccination antibody testing is not recommended by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Dr. Wong said that “many patients” check their titers anyway, leading to anxiety if antibodies are low or undetectable.

“I know that it’s very disconcerting sometimes when you don’t see an antibody response, and this is one of the hardest things to try to explain to patients,” Dr. Wong said. “[It’s necessary] to have a frank discussion about the fact that we don’t know the magic level of antibodies, and that there are also other parts of the immune system that we haven’t tested with antibodies. We haven’t tested the T-cell response, and we do know you can have a T-cell response even if you don’t have a B-cell response.”

Dr. Wong suggested that more work is needed to determine the impact of the IBD disease process on susceptibility to SARS-CoV-2 infection, and the rates of antibody responses for the various other vaccines being used around the world.

The PREVENT-COVID study was supported by the Leona M. and Harry B. Helmsley Charitable Trust. The investigators disclosed additional relationships with AbbVie, Johnson & Johnson, Genentech, and others. Dr. Wong reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

This article was updated Oct. 28, 2021.

Most patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) develop a humoral immune response after completing an mRNA SARS-CoV-2 vaccine series, according to data from almost 800 patients.

Choreograph/iStock/Getty Images

Anti–receptor binding domain IgG antibodies specific to SARS-CoV-2 were detectable in 95% of patients, with “generally similar” results across vaccine type, age group, and medication class, apart from corticosteroid users, who had an 86% antibody detection rate, reported lead author Kimberly N. Weaver, MD, of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and colleagues.

“Patients with IBD on immunosuppressive medications have the potential for attenuated response to the SARS-CoV-2 vaccination,” Dr. Weaver said at the annual meeting of the American College of Gastroenterology.

In support of this possibility, Dr. Weaver cited two recent trials from earlier in 2021: one demonstrated blunted antibody responses in IBD patients taking infliximab, while the other showed that full vaccination was less effective at preventing SARS-CoV-2 infection among patients with IBD than nonimmunosuppressed individuals.

To better characterize antibody responses after receiving an mRNA vaccination series, Dr. Weaver and colleagues launched the PREVENT-COVID trial, including the present dataset of 787 patients with IBD older than 12 years, all of whom provided serum samples 8 weeks after completing an mRNA vaccine series. Patients with positive nucleocapsid antibody (indicating prior infection), and/or those who reported prior COVID-19 infection, were excluded. Most patients were White (95%) and female (73%), with an average age of 48 years. Slightly more patients received the BNT162b2 vaccine than the mRNA-1273 vaccine (58% vs. 42%).

At 8 weeks, 752 out of 787 patients had detectable antibodies (95%). Antibody rates were highest among patients receiving vedolizumab monotherapy (n = 83; 99%) or ustekinumab monotherapy (n = 102; 99%), followed by mercaptopurine, azathioprine, or methotrexate monotherapy (n = 67; 97%); anti–tumor necrosis factor monotherapy (n = 270; 96%); mesalamine, sulfasalazine, or budesonide monotherapy or no medication (n = 143; 95%); and finally anti-TNF/immunosuppressive combination therapy (n = 75; 86%). Median and mean antibody titers were lowest for anti-TNF combination therapy and highest for vedolizumab.

Thirty-five patients taking corticosteroids had an antibody detection rate of 85.7% (95% CI, 70.6-93.7), compared with 95.9% (95% CI, 94.2-97.1) among nonsteroid users. In contrast, antibody detection rates were not significantly affected by age or vaccine type.

“Reassuringly, most IBD medications do not prevent an initial antibody response after SARS-CoV-2 vaccination, and this is unlike other classes of immune suppression such as B-cell depletion therapy,” Dr. Weaver concluded. “Additional data are forthcoming on a larger subset of participants in the PREVENT-COVID study which will allow for analysis of factors associated with humoral immune response and potential optimization of immunization strategies.” She described a dataset of about 500 IBD patients in which booster vaccines overcame poor antibody responses to the initial vaccine series.
 

‘The data we need’

Serre-yu Wong, MD, PhD, of Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, agreed that the findings should offer some reassurance to patients with IBD and their care providers.

“At the end of the day we have really nice seroconversion rates for the IBD population,” Dr. Wong said.

In April 2021, Dr. Wong and the ICARUS-IBD Working Group published a similar report of 48 patients with IBD receiving biologic therapies, among whom the seroconversion rate was 100%.

“A lot of the early data, including ours, are on infusion medications, and that’s sort of a practical thing because those were the only patients we could get samples from, but [Dr. Weaver and colleagues] were able to get samples from patients not on medications, on oral medications, and on other injection medications that people can take at home, and these are really the data we need for all of our other IBD patients,” Dr. Wong said.

Dr. Wong highlighted that both trials showed some IBD patients generating “very, very high” titers, many of them above the threshold needed for donating convalescent plasma for COVID-19 treatment; still, exact titer levels needed to protect against SARS-CoV-2 infection remain unclear.

“This is going to require longitudinal studies,” Dr. Wong said. “We can’t answer that perfectly right now. We don’t know the magic level of antibodies. I don’t know if you need a titer of 1:100 or 1:1,000.”

Although postvaccination antibody testing is not recommended by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Dr. Wong said that “many patients” check their titers anyway, leading to anxiety if antibodies are low or undetectable.

“I know that it’s very disconcerting sometimes when you don’t see an antibody response, and this is one of the hardest things to try to explain to patients,” Dr. Wong said. “[It’s necessary] to have a frank discussion about the fact that we don’t know the magic level of antibodies, and that there are also other parts of the immune system that we haven’t tested with antibodies. We haven’t tested the T-cell response, and we do know you can have a T-cell response even if you don’t have a B-cell response.”

Dr. Wong suggested that more work is needed to determine the impact of the IBD disease process on susceptibility to SARS-CoV-2 infection, and the rates of antibody responses for the various other vaccines being used around the world.

The PREVENT-COVID study was supported by the Leona M. and Harry B. Helmsley Charitable Trust. The investigators disclosed additional relationships with AbbVie, Johnson & Johnson, Genentech, and others. Dr. Wong reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

This article was updated Oct. 28, 2021.

Use of sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors does not appear to raise the risk for fractures in older adults, new research suggests.

The data come from a nationwide propensity score-matched study of U.S. Medicare recipients with type 2 diabetes who were new users of either an SGLT2 inhibitor, a dipeptidyl peptidase 4 (DPP-4) inhibitor, or a glucagon-like peptide (GLP-1) receptor agonist.

“The use of SGLT2 inhibitors was not associated with an increased risk of nontraumatic fractures compared with DPP-4 inhibitors or GLP-1 agonists. Results were consistent across categories of sex, frailty, age, and insulin use,” say Min Zhuo, MD, of Harvard Medical School, Boston, and colleagues, who published their work online October 27 in JAMA Network Open.

“Our results add to the evidence base evaluating the safety profile of SGLT2 inhibitors in older adults outside of [randomized controlled trials] and further characterize the risk-benefit balance of SGLT2 inhibitors in clinical practice,” they write.

Asked to comment, Simeon I. Taylor, MD, PhD, told this news organization, “This is a high-quality study that is generally reassuring that relatively short, less than 1 year, treatment with an SGLT2 inhibitor does not appear to significantly increase the risk of bone fractures.”

However, Dr. Taylor, of the Division of Endocrinology, Diabetes, and Nutrition, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, also noted: “Notwithstanding these reassuring data, the paper also does a good job of pointing out important limitations.”

“Most importantly, these data do not address questions related to the risk of long-term chronic therapy. It is instructive to refer back to the published data demonstrating an approximately 2-year lag before a significant increase in the risk of fracture was observed in rosiglitazone-treated patients in the ADOPT study. The length of the lag is likely related to the baseline bone mineral density at the time drug therapy is initiated. These considerations may contribute to the observed variation in bone-related outcomes in different studies.”

Concern about SGLT2 inhibitors and fractures first arose in 2017 from the CANVAS study, in which the overall fracture risk with canagliflozin was a significant 26% higher than placebo. However, subsequent larger randomized trials of canagliflozin and other SGLT2 inhibitors did not find the same risk.

In addition, previous observational studies in younger adults have also not found use of SGLT2 inhibitors to be associated with increased fracture risk compared with DPP-4 inhibitors or GLP-1 agonists.
 

Understanding fracture risk with SGLT2 inhibitors is ‘critical’

Older adults with type 2 diabetes may benefit from reductions in atherosclerotic cardiovascular events, hospitalization for heart failure, end-stage kidney disease, and death associated with SGLT2 inhibitors, but the fact that aging may have negative effects on bone metabolism means “understanding the fracture risk associated with SGLT2 inhibitors in older adults with type 2 diabetes is critical,” say Dr. Zhuo and colleagues.

In the current study, they analyzed claims data for Medicare beneficiaries aged 66 years and older (1 year past Medicare eligibility) who were newly prescribed an SGLT2 inhibitor, DPP-4 inhibitor, or GLP-1 agonist between April 1, 2013 and Dec. 31, 2017.

A total of 45,889 patients from each treatment group were propensity-matched using 58 baseline characteristics, for a total of 137,667 patients.

After matching, there were 501 events of the primary composite outcome (nontraumatic pelvic fracture, hip fracture requiring surgery, or humerus, radius, or ulna fracture requiring intervention) within 30 days. By treatment group, fracture rates per 1,000 person-years were 4.69, 5.26, and 4.71 for SGLT2 inhibitors, DPP-4 inhibitors, and GLP-1 agonists respectively.

The differences between patients taking DPP-4 inhibitors or GLP-1 agonists compared with SGLT2 inhibitors were not significant, with hazard ratios of 0.90 and 1.00, respectively.     

Results remained consistent in various sensitivity and subgroup analyses, including limiting the data to just the canagliflozin group. Overall, the fracture rate was greater with female sex, frailty, older age, and insulin use, consistent across drug classes.

The risks for falls and hypoglycemia were lower in the SGLT2 inhibitor versus matched DPP-4 inhibitor groups (hazard ratio, 0.82), and there was no difference in syncope. None of those differences were significant for the SGLT2 inhibitor group compared with the GLP-1 agonist group.

Consistent with previous data, the risk for diabetic ketoacidosis was higher with SGLT2 inhibitors versus DPP-4 inhibitors and GLP-1 agonists (HR, 1.29 and 1.58), and the risk for heart failure hospitalization was lower (HR, 0.42 and 0.69).

The study was funded by the Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics, department of medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School. Dr. Zhuo was supported by the National Institutes of Health National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. Dr. Taylor is a consultant for Ionis Pharmaceuticals.

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

Use of sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors does not appear to raise the risk for fractures in older adults, new research suggests.

The data come from a nationwide propensity score-matched study of U.S. Medicare recipients with type 2 diabetes who were new users of either an SGLT2 inhibitor, a dipeptidyl peptidase 4 (DPP-4) inhibitor, or a glucagon-like peptide (GLP-1) receptor agonist.

“The use of SGLT2 inhibitors was not associated with an increased risk of nontraumatic fractures compared with DPP-4 inhibitors or GLP-1 agonists. Results were consistent across categories of sex, frailty, age, and insulin use,” say Min Zhuo, MD, of Harvard Medical School, Boston, and colleagues, who published their work online October 27 in JAMA Network Open.

“Our results add to the evidence base evaluating the safety profile of SGLT2 inhibitors in older adults outside of [randomized controlled trials] and further characterize the risk-benefit balance of SGLT2 inhibitors in clinical practice,” they write.

Asked to comment, Simeon I. Taylor, MD, PhD, told this news organization, “This is a high-quality study that is generally reassuring that relatively short, less than 1 year, treatment with an SGLT2 inhibitor does not appear to significantly increase the risk of bone fractures.”

However, Dr. Taylor, of the Division of Endocrinology, Diabetes, and Nutrition, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, also noted: “Notwithstanding these reassuring data, the paper also does a good job of pointing out important limitations.”

“Most importantly, these data do not address questions related to the risk of long-term chronic therapy. It is instructive to refer back to the published data demonstrating an approximately 2-year lag before a significant increase in the risk of fracture was observed in rosiglitazone-treated patients in the ADOPT study. The length of the lag is likely related to the baseline bone mineral density at the time drug therapy is initiated. These considerations may contribute to the observed variation in bone-related outcomes in different studies.”

Concern about SGLT2 inhibitors and fractures first arose in 2017 from the CANVAS study, in which the overall fracture risk with canagliflozin was a significant 26% higher than placebo. However, subsequent larger randomized trials of canagliflozin and other SGLT2 inhibitors did not find the same risk.

In addition, previous observational studies in younger adults have also not found use of SGLT2 inhibitors to be associated with increased fracture risk compared with DPP-4 inhibitors or GLP-1 agonists.
 

Understanding fracture risk with SGLT2 inhibitors is ‘critical’

Older adults with type 2 diabetes may benefit from reductions in atherosclerotic cardiovascular events, hospitalization for heart failure, end-stage kidney disease, and death associated with SGLT2 inhibitors, but the fact that aging may have negative effects on bone metabolism means “understanding the fracture risk associated with SGLT2 inhibitors in older adults with type 2 diabetes is critical,” say Dr. Zhuo and colleagues.

In the current study, they analyzed claims data for Medicare beneficiaries aged 66 years and older (1 year past Medicare eligibility) who were newly prescribed an SGLT2 inhibitor, DPP-4 inhibitor, or GLP-1 agonist between April 1, 2013 and Dec. 31, 2017.

A total of 45,889 patients from each treatment group were propensity-matched using 58 baseline characteristics, for a total of 137,667 patients.

After matching, there were 501 events of the primary composite outcome (nontraumatic pelvic fracture, hip fracture requiring surgery, or humerus, radius, or ulna fracture requiring intervention) within 30 days. By treatment group, fracture rates per 1,000 person-years were 4.69, 5.26, and 4.71 for SGLT2 inhibitors, DPP-4 inhibitors, and GLP-1 agonists respectively.

The differences between patients taking DPP-4 inhibitors or GLP-1 agonists compared with SGLT2 inhibitors were not significant, with hazard ratios of 0.90 and 1.00, respectively.     

Results remained consistent in various sensitivity and subgroup analyses, including limiting the data to just the canagliflozin group. Overall, the fracture rate was greater with female sex, frailty, older age, and insulin use, consistent across drug classes.

The risks for falls and hypoglycemia were lower in the SGLT2 inhibitor versus matched DPP-4 inhibitor groups (hazard ratio, 0.82), and there was no difference in syncope. None of those differences were significant for the SGLT2 inhibitor group compared with the GLP-1 agonist group.

Consistent with previous data, the risk for diabetic ketoacidosis was higher with SGLT2 inhibitors versus DPP-4 inhibitors and GLP-1 agonists (HR, 1.29 and 1.58), and the risk for heart failure hospitalization was lower (HR, 0.42 and 0.69).

The study was funded by the Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics, department of medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School. Dr. Zhuo was supported by the National Institutes of Health National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. Dr. Taylor is a consultant for Ionis Pharmaceuticals.

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

Use of sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors does not appear to raise the risk for fractures in older adults, new research suggests.

The data come from a nationwide propensity score-matched study of U.S. Medicare recipients with type 2 diabetes who were new users of either an SGLT2 inhibitor, a dipeptidyl peptidase 4 (DPP-4) inhibitor, or a glucagon-like peptide (GLP-1) receptor agonist.

“The use of SGLT2 inhibitors was not associated with an increased risk of nontraumatic fractures compared with DPP-4 inhibitors or GLP-1 agonists. Results were consistent across categories of sex, frailty, age, and insulin use,” say Min Zhuo, MD, of Harvard Medical School, Boston, and colleagues, who published their work online October 27 in JAMA Network Open.

“Our results add to the evidence base evaluating the safety profile of SGLT2 inhibitors in older adults outside of [randomized controlled trials] and further characterize the risk-benefit balance of SGLT2 inhibitors in clinical practice,” they write.

Asked to comment, Simeon I. Taylor, MD, PhD, told this news organization, “This is a high-quality study that is generally reassuring that relatively short, less than 1 year, treatment with an SGLT2 inhibitor does not appear to significantly increase the risk of bone fractures.”

However, Dr. Taylor, of the Division of Endocrinology, Diabetes, and Nutrition, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, also noted: “Notwithstanding these reassuring data, the paper also does a good job of pointing out important limitations.”

“Most importantly, these data do not address questions related to the risk of long-term chronic therapy. It is instructive to refer back to the published data demonstrating an approximately 2-year lag before a significant increase in the risk of fracture was observed in rosiglitazone-treated patients in the ADOPT study. The length of the lag is likely related to the baseline bone mineral density at the time drug therapy is initiated. These considerations may contribute to the observed variation in bone-related outcomes in different studies.”

Concern about SGLT2 inhibitors and fractures first arose in 2017 from the CANVAS study, in which the overall fracture risk with canagliflozin was a significant 26% higher than placebo. However, subsequent larger randomized trials of canagliflozin and other SGLT2 inhibitors did not find the same risk.

In addition, previous observational studies in younger adults have also not found use of SGLT2 inhibitors to be associated with increased fracture risk compared with DPP-4 inhibitors or GLP-1 agonists.
 

Understanding fracture risk with SGLT2 inhibitors is ‘critical’

Older adults with type 2 diabetes may benefit from reductions in atherosclerotic cardiovascular events, hospitalization for heart failure, end-stage kidney disease, and death associated with SGLT2 inhibitors, but the fact that aging may have negative effects on bone metabolism means “understanding the fracture risk associated with SGLT2 inhibitors in older adults with type 2 diabetes is critical,” say Dr. Zhuo and colleagues.

In the current study, they analyzed claims data for Medicare beneficiaries aged 66 years and older (1 year past Medicare eligibility) who were newly prescribed an SGLT2 inhibitor, DPP-4 inhibitor, or GLP-1 agonist between April 1, 2013 and Dec. 31, 2017.

A total of 45,889 patients from each treatment group were propensity-matched using 58 baseline characteristics, for a total of 137,667 patients.

After matching, there were 501 events of the primary composite outcome (nontraumatic pelvic fracture, hip fracture requiring surgery, or humerus, radius, or ulna fracture requiring intervention) within 30 days. By treatment group, fracture rates per 1,000 person-years were 4.69, 5.26, and 4.71 for SGLT2 inhibitors, DPP-4 inhibitors, and GLP-1 agonists respectively.

The differences between patients taking DPP-4 inhibitors or GLP-1 agonists compared with SGLT2 inhibitors were not significant, with hazard ratios of 0.90 and 1.00, respectively.     

Results remained consistent in various sensitivity and subgroup analyses, including limiting the data to just the canagliflozin group. Overall, the fracture rate was greater with female sex, frailty, older age, and insulin use, consistent across drug classes.

The risks for falls and hypoglycemia were lower in the SGLT2 inhibitor versus matched DPP-4 inhibitor groups (hazard ratio, 0.82), and there was no difference in syncope. None of those differences were significant for the SGLT2 inhibitor group compared with the GLP-1 agonist group.

Consistent with previous data, the risk for diabetic ketoacidosis was higher with SGLT2 inhibitors versus DPP-4 inhibitors and GLP-1 agonists (HR, 1.29 and 1.58), and the risk for heart failure hospitalization was lower (HR, 0.42 and 0.69).

The study was funded by the Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics, department of medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School. Dr. Zhuo was supported by the National Institutes of Health National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. Dr. Taylor is a consultant for Ionis Pharmaceuticals.

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