Mr. K, age 21, is admitted to the psychiatry unit with agitation, disorganized behavior, and paranoia. Upon presentation, he has no known medical history or current medications. He is diagnosed with schizophrenia and subsequently tolerates but does not respond to adequate durations of treatment with fluphenazine, 20 mg/d; aripiprazole, 30 mg/d; and risperidone, 6 mg/d. Medication adherence is verified, but Mr. K is reluctant to try a fourth antipsychotic. The treatment team suspects that Mr. K may be a cytochrome P450 (CYP) 2D6 ultra-rapid metabolizer, so they obtain a serum risperidone level. The serum risperidone concentration is subtherapeutic (10 ng/mL). What should be considered next?

Several factors must be considered when a patient with psychosis does not experience significant symptomatic improvement with an adequate antipsychotic trial. This article focuses on high-dose second-generation antipsychotic (SGA) therapy in adults with psychosis. “High-dose” antipsychotic therapy is dosing that exceeds the standard maximum dosage for a given antipsychotic. Existing evidence on the use of high-dose SGAs consists of open-label studies and case reports, as well as a handful of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with small sample sizes and high dropout rates. In some studies, the use of concomitant interventions (eg, duplicate antipsychotic therapy) limit the interpretation of data. High-dose first-generation antipsychotic therapy is discouraged because of a heightened risk of extrapyramidal symptoms (EPS).

Steps to take before increasing the dose

When considering prescribing high-dose antipsychotic therapy, first confirm that the patient has been adherent to the current medication regimen. Also, screen for factors that might impair drug absorption, such as bariatric surgery or noncompliance with administration precautions.¹ For example, administration of lurasidone with less than 350 calories may considerably decrease absorption.² Dosage requirements may vary based on ethnicity, gender, CYP polymorphisms, and pharmacokinetic drug interactions (Table 1^2-17).^1,18,19 Causes of inadequate efficacy should be addressed before considering the use of high-dose antipsychotic therapy.¹ Under certain circumstances, serum drug concentrations may be used to guide antipsychotic dosing (Table 2^2-17). Inadequate response despite a therapeutic serum concentration may indicate pharmacodynamic failure.¹ Inadequate response in the context of subtherapeutic serum concentrations, good medication adherence, and compliance to administration precautions may be indicative of a genetic polymorphism or drug interaction.¹ Changes in antipsychotic dosing or selection may be warranted, depending on associated risks and benefits.

SGAs and high-dose administration

The SGA with the greatest evidence for high-dose administration is olanzapine, which is similar in structure and receptor pharma­cology to clozapine.^20,21 The use of high-dose olanzapine is controversial. High-dose olanzapine has been compared to clozapine in patients with treatment-resistant schizophrenia (TRS) and schizoaffective disorder. Meltzer et al²² reported similar efficacy with clozapine, 300 to 900 mg/d, and olanzapine, 25 to 45 mg/d. In this study, high-dose olanzapine caused more weight gain when compared to clozapine. Olanzapine dosages of up to 100 mg/d have been prescribed for TRS; however, this is not common practice.²³ A study comparing 10, 20, and 40 mg/d in patients with non-TRS or schizoaffective disorder showed no advantage with higher dosages.²⁴

There is limited data on high-dose treatment with other SGAs.¹⁷ Orthostasis may limit iloperidone’s safety at high doses, and single doses of asenapine should not exceed 10 mg.²⁵ Limited sublingual surface area and saliva saturation result in decreased bioavailability with higher asen­apine doses.^25,26 In a small RCT of patients with stable schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder, aripiprazole was relatively well-tolerated up to 75 mg/d, whereas akathisia and tachycardia occurred with 90 mg/d.²⁷ Case reports have documented successful treatment with aripiprazole, 60 to 75 mg/d; however, dizziness and worsening psychosis, agitation, and confusion have been observed.^28-31

There is a paucity of data on high-dose risperidone and paliperidone, possibly due to their potent dopamine-2 (D2) receptor antagonism and dose-related risk of EPS.¹ At risperidone dosages >6 mg/d, the balance between D2 and serotonin-2A (5-HT2A) receptor potency is lost, which increases the potential for EPS.³² In one RCT, long-acting injectable (LAI) risperidone, up to 100 mg biweekly, was well-tolerated but no more effective for TRS than 50 mg biweekly.³³ A case report suggested improvement of TRS in a patient administered risperidone LAI, 75 mg vs 37.5 mg biweekly, but it is unclear if a 50-mg dosage was tried.³⁴ Another case report documented improvement in schizophrenia symptoms with risperidone LAI, 125 mg biweekly; however, anticholinergic therapy was required for EPS.³⁵

Dose-dependent adverse effects, including EPS, sedation, anticholinergic effects, orthostasis, hyperprolactinemia, and QTc prolongation, may limit the safety of high-dose antipsychotic therapy.^1,20,36 Two studies showed no correlation between QTc prolongation and ziprasidone dosages of up to 320 mg/d for psychosis.^37,38 QTc prolongation was more likely at higher ziprasidone concentrations.³⁷ Higher concentrations, but not higher dosages, also trended toward improvement in positive symptoms, and concentrations >100 ng/mL were associated with more negative symptoms.³⁷ A case report described improvement in positive symptoms of schizoaffective disorder with ziprasidone, 320 mg/d, but activation, hostility, and depression worsened.³⁹

Continue to: Compared with other antipsychotics...

Compared with other antipsychotics, high-dose clozapine and quetiapine may be less likely to cause EPS due to lower D2 receptor occupancies.⁴⁰ Nevertheless, increased activity at other postsynaptic receptors may lead to constipation, metabolic effects, and sedation.^1,41,42 Case reports suggest efficacy with quetiapine, 1,200 to 2,400 mg/d, vs lower dosages for patients with TRS.^43,44 However, RCTs of quetiapine, 600 and 800 mg/d vs 1,200 mg/d, have not demonstrated an efficacy advantage with high-dose treatment in patients with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder.^41,45 High-dose quetiapine has also resulted in photopsia, cardiotoxicity, orthostasis, dysphagia, and sedation.^43,46,47

Proceed with caution

In light of safety concerns and a lack of high-quality evidence for high-dose antipsychotic therapy, alternative solutions for inadequate response to treatment should be considered. Underlying causes of poor response should be addressed, and alternative antipsychotics should be utilized, when appropriate. A clozapine trial remains first-line for TRS. Olanzapine may be the best-supported high-dose antipsychotic alternative when clozapine is not an option. High antipsychotic dosages are not well-studied in patients with genetic polymorphisms or unavoidable drug interactions. Serum antipsychotic concentrations may facilitate dosing in these patients.

If high-dose antipsychotic therapy is deemed necessary, its ongoing appropriateness should be continually re-evaluated. Higher antipsychotic dosages and D2 receptor occupancies may be required to manage acute psychosis, but efficacy may be maintained and adverse effects limited with the use of lower dosages during maintenance treatment.^48,49 Long-term treatment with high-dose antipsychotic therapy should be avoided, when possible. If high-dose antipsychotic therapy is prescribed, the rationale should be well-documented. Dosage adjustments should not be made until steady state is reached on a given dosage. Electrocardiograms should be obtained at baseline, steady state, and routinely thereafter.^3,20 Tolerability should be assessed regularly, and screening for drug interactions should be conducted when new medications are initiated.

Case CONTINUED

Because Mr. K’s serum risperidone level is subtherapeutic (10 ng/mL), his risperidone dosage is cautiously titrated to 10 mg/d, divided (serum concentration: 22 ng/mL). Mr. K develops mild orthostasis but denies other adverse effects. His psychotic symptoms resolve, and he is discharged with education on nonpharmacologic management of orthostasis. The rationale for high-dose risperidone is relayed to his outpatient psychiatrist, as well as a recommendation to monitor Mr. K closely for continued efficacy and tolerability.

Related Resource

• Barnes TRE, Drake R, Paton C, et al. Evidence-based guidelines for the pharmacological treatment of schizophrenia: updated recommendations from the British Association for Psychopharmacology. J Psychopharmacol. 2020;34(1):3-78.

Drug Brand Names

Aripiprazole • Abilify
Asenapine • Saphris
Brexpiprazole • Rexulti
Cariprazine • Vraylar
Clozapine • Clozaril
Iloperidone • Fanapt
Lumateperone • Caplyta
Lurasidone • Latuda
Olanzapine • Zyprexa
Paliperidone • Invega
Quetiapine • Seroquel
Risperidone • Risperdal
Risperidone long-acting injection • Risperdal Consta
Ziprasidone • Geodon

Mr. K, age 21, is admitted to the psychiatry unit with agitation, disorganized behavior, and paranoia. Upon presentation, he has no known medical history or current medications. He is diagnosed with schizophrenia and subsequently tolerates but does not respond to adequate durations of treatment with fluphenazine, 20 mg/d; aripiprazole, 30 mg/d; and risperidone, 6 mg/d. Medication adherence is verified, but Mr. K is reluctant to try a fourth antipsychotic. The treatment team suspects that Mr. K may be a cytochrome P450 (CYP) 2D6 ultra-rapid metabolizer, so they obtain a serum risperidone level. The serum risperidone concentration is subtherapeutic (10 ng/mL). What should be considered next?

Several factors must be considered when a patient with psychosis does not experience significant symptomatic improvement with an adequate antipsychotic trial. This article focuses on high-dose second-generation antipsychotic (SGA) therapy in adults with psychosis. “High-dose” antipsychotic therapy is dosing that exceeds the standard maximum dosage for a given antipsychotic. Existing evidence on the use of high-dose SGAs consists of open-label studies and case reports, as well as a handful of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with small sample sizes and high dropout rates. In some studies, the use of concomitant interventions (eg, duplicate antipsychotic therapy) limit the interpretation of data. High-dose first-generation antipsychotic therapy is discouraged because of a heightened risk of extrapyramidal symptoms (EPS).

Steps to take before increasing the dose

When considering prescribing high-dose antipsychotic therapy, first confirm that the patient has been adherent to the current medication regimen. Also, screen for factors that might impair drug absorption, such as bariatric surgery or noncompliance with administration precautions.¹ For example, administration of lurasidone with less than 350 calories may considerably decrease absorption.² Dosage requirements may vary based on ethnicity, gender, CYP polymorphisms, and pharmacokinetic drug interactions (Table 1^2-17).^1,18,19 Causes of inadequate efficacy should be addressed before considering the use of high-dose antipsychotic therapy.¹ Under certain circumstances, serum drug concentrations may be used to guide antipsychotic dosing (Table 2^2-17). Inadequate response despite a therapeutic serum concentration may indicate pharmacodynamic failure.¹ Inadequate response in the context of subtherapeutic serum concentrations, good medication adherence, and compliance to administration precautions may be indicative of a genetic polymorphism or drug interaction.¹ Changes in antipsychotic dosing or selection may be warranted, depending on associated risks and benefits.

SGAs and high-dose administration

The SGA with the greatest evidence for high-dose administration is olanzapine, which is similar in structure and receptor pharma­cology to clozapine.^20,21 The use of high-dose olanzapine is controversial. High-dose olanzapine has been compared to clozapine in patients with treatment-resistant schizophrenia (TRS) and schizoaffective disorder. Meltzer et al²² reported similar efficacy with clozapine, 300 to 900 mg/d, and olanzapine, 25 to 45 mg/d. In this study, high-dose olanzapine caused more weight gain when compared to clozapine. Olanzapine dosages of up to 100 mg/d have been prescribed for TRS; however, this is not common practice.²³ A study comparing 10, 20, and 40 mg/d in patients with non-TRS or schizoaffective disorder showed no advantage with higher dosages.²⁴

There is limited data on high-dose treatment with other SGAs.¹⁷ Orthostasis may limit iloperidone’s safety at high doses, and single doses of asenapine should not exceed 10 mg.²⁵ Limited sublingual surface area and saliva saturation result in decreased bioavailability with higher asen­apine doses.^25,26 In a small RCT of patients with stable schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder, aripiprazole was relatively well-tolerated up to 75 mg/d, whereas akathisia and tachycardia occurred with 90 mg/d.²⁷ Case reports have documented successful treatment with aripiprazole, 60 to 75 mg/d; however, dizziness and worsening psychosis, agitation, and confusion have been observed.^28-31

There is a paucity of data on high-dose risperidone and paliperidone, possibly due to their potent dopamine-2 (D2) receptor antagonism and dose-related risk of EPS.¹ At risperidone dosages >6 mg/d, the balance between D2 and serotonin-2A (5-HT2A) receptor potency is lost, which increases the potential for EPS.³² In one RCT, long-acting injectable (LAI) risperidone, up to 100 mg biweekly, was well-tolerated but no more effective for TRS than 50 mg biweekly.³³ A case report suggested improvement of TRS in a patient administered risperidone LAI, 75 mg vs 37.5 mg biweekly, but it is unclear if a 50-mg dosage was tried.³⁴ Another case report documented improvement in schizophrenia symptoms with risperidone LAI, 125 mg biweekly; however, anticholinergic therapy was required for EPS.³⁵

Dose-dependent adverse effects, including EPS, sedation, anticholinergic effects, orthostasis, hyperprolactinemia, and QTc prolongation, may limit the safety of high-dose antipsychotic therapy.^1,20,36 Two studies showed no correlation between QTc prolongation and ziprasidone dosages of up to 320 mg/d for psychosis.^37,38 QTc prolongation was more likely at higher ziprasidone concentrations.³⁷ Higher concentrations, but not higher dosages, also trended toward improvement in positive symptoms, and concentrations >100 ng/mL were associated with more negative symptoms.³⁷ A case report described improvement in positive symptoms of schizoaffective disorder with ziprasidone, 320 mg/d, but activation, hostility, and depression worsened.³⁹

Continue to: Compared with other antipsychotics...

Compared with other antipsychotics, high-dose clozapine and quetiapine may be less likely to cause EPS due to lower D2 receptor occupancies.⁴⁰ Nevertheless, increased activity at other postsynaptic receptors may lead to constipation, metabolic effects, and sedation.^1,41,42 Case reports suggest efficacy with quetiapine, 1,200 to 2,400 mg/d, vs lower dosages for patients with TRS.^43,44 However, RCTs of quetiapine, 600 and 800 mg/d vs 1,200 mg/d, have not demonstrated an efficacy advantage with high-dose treatment in patients with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder.^41,45 High-dose quetiapine has also resulted in photopsia, cardiotoxicity, orthostasis, dysphagia, and sedation.^43,46,47

Proceed with caution

In light of safety concerns and a lack of high-quality evidence for high-dose antipsychotic therapy, alternative solutions for inadequate response to treatment should be considered. Underlying causes of poor response should be addressed, and alternative antipsychotics should be utilized, when appropriate. A clozapine trial remains first-line for TRS. Olanzapine may be the best-supported high-dose antipsychotic alternative when clozapine is not an option. High antipsychotic dosages are not well-studied in patients with genetic polymorphisms or unavoidable drug interactions. Serum antipsychotic concentrations may facilitate dosing in these patients.

If high-dose antipsychotic therapy is deemed necessary, its ongoing appropriateness should be continually re-evaluated. Higher antipsychotic dosages and D2 receptor occupancies may be required to manage acute psychosis, but efficacy may be maintained and adverse effects limited with the use of lower dosages during maintenance treatment.^48,49 Long-term treatment with high-dose antipsychotic therapy should be avoided, when possible. If high-dose antipsychotic therapy is prescribed, the rationale should be well-documented. Dosage adjustments should not be made until steady state is reached on a given dosage. Electrocardiograms should be obtained at baseline, steady state, and routinely thereafter.^3,20 Tolerability should be assessed regularly, and screening for drug interactions should be conducted when new medications are initiated.

Case CONTINUED

Because Mr. K’s serum risperidone level is subtherapeutic (10 ng/mL), his risperidone dosage is cautiously titrated to 10 mg/d, divided (serum concentration: 22 ng/mL). Mr. K develops mild orthostasis but denies other adverse effects. His psychotic symptoms resolve, and he is discharged with education on nonpharmacologic management of orthostasis. The rationale for high-dose risperidone is relayed to his outpatient psychiatrist, as well as a recommendation to monitor Mr. K closely for continued efficacy and tolerability.

Related Resource

• Barnes TRE, Drake R, Paton C, et al. Evidence-based guidelines for the pharmacological treatment of schizophrenia: updated recommendations from the British Association for Psychopharmacology. J Psychopharmacol. 2020;34(1):3-78.

Drug Brand Names

Aripiprazole • Abilify
Asenapine • Saphris
Brexpiprazole • Rexulti
Cariprazine • Vraylar
Clozapine • Clozaril
Iloperidone • Fanapt
Lumateperone • Caplyta
Lurasidone • Latuda
Olanzapine • Zyprexa
Paliperidone • Invega
Quetiapine • Seroquel
Risperidone • Risperdal
Risperidone long-acting injection • Risperdal Consta
Ziprasidone • Geodon

Mr. K, age 21, is admitted to the psychiatry unit with agitation, disorganized behavior, and paranoia. Upon presentation, he has no known medical history or current medications. He is diagnosed with schizophrenia and subsequently tolerates but does not respond to adequate durations of treatment with fluphenazine, 20 mg/d; aripiprazole, 30 mg/d; and risperidone, 6 mg/d. Medication adherence is verified, but Mr. K is reluctant to try a fourth antipsychotic. The treatment team suspects that Mr. K may be a cytochrome P450 (CYP) 2D6 ultra-rapid metabolizer, so they obtain a serum risperidone level. The serum risperidone concentration is subtherapeutic (10 ng/mL). What should be considered next?

Several factors must be considered when a patient with psychosis does not experience significant symptomatic improvement with an adequate antipsychotic trial. This article focuses on high-dose second-generation antipsychotic (SGA) therapy in adults with psychosis. “High-dose” antipsychotic therapy is dosing that exceeds the standard maximum dosage for a given antipsychotic. Existing evidence on the use of high-dose SGAs consists of open-label studies and case reports, as well as a handful of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with small sample sizes and high dropout rates. In some studies, the use of concomitant interventions (eg, duplicate antipsychotic therapy) limit the interpretation of data. High-dose first-generation antipsychotic therapy is discouraged because of a heightened risk of extrapyramidal symptoms (EPS).

Steps to take before increasing the dose

When considering prescribing high-dose antipsychotic therapy, first confirm that the patient has been adherent to the current medication regimen. Also, screen for factors that might impair drug absorption, such as bariatric surgery or noncompliance with administration precautions.¹ For example, administration of lurasidone with less than 350 calories may considerably decrease absorption.² Dosage requirements may vary based on ethnicity, gender, CYP polymorphisms, and pharmacokinetic drug interactions (Table 1^2-17).^1,18,19 Causes of inadequate efficacy should be addressed before considering the use of high-dose antipsychotic therapy.¹ Under certain circumstances, serum drug concentrations may be used to guide antipsychotic dosing (Table 2^2-17). Inadequate response despite a therapeutic serum concentration may indicate pharmacodynamic failure.¹ Inadequate response in the context of subtherapeutic serum concentrations, good medication adherence, and compliance to administration precautions may be indicative of a genetic polymorphism or drug interaction.¹ Changes in antipsychotic dosing or selection may be warranted, depending on associated risks and benefits.

SGAs and high-dose administration

The SGA with the greatest evidence for high-dose administration is olanzapine, which is similar in structure and receptor pharma­cology to clozapine.^20,21 The use of high-dose olanzapine is controversial. High-dose olanzapine has been compared to clozapine in patients with treatment-resistant schizophrenia (TRS) and schizoaffective disorder. Meltzer et al²² reported similar efficacy with clozapine, 300 to 900 mg/d, and olanzapine, 25 to 45 mg/d. In this study, high-dose olanzapine caused more weight gain when compared to clozapine. Olanzapine dosages of up to 100 mg/d have been prescribed for TRS; however, this is not common practice.²³ A study comparing 10, 20, and 40 mg/d in patients with non-TRS or schizoaffective disorder showed no advantage with higher dosages.²⁴

There is limited data on high-dose treatment with other SGAs.¹⁷ Orthostasis may limit iloperidone’s safety at high doses, and single doses of asenapine should not exceed 10 mg.²⁵ Limited sublingual surface area and saliva saturation result in decreased bioavailability with higher asen­apine doses.^25,26 In a small RCT of patients with stable schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder, aripiprazole was relatively well-tolerated up to 75 mg/d, whereas akathisia and tachycardia occurred with 90 mg/d.²⁷ Case reports have documented successful treatment with aripiprazole, 60 to 75 mg/d; however, dizziness and worsening psychosis, agitation, and confusion have been observed.^28-31

There is a paucity of data on high-dose risperidone and paliperidone, possibly due to their potent dopamine-2 (D2) receptor antagonism and dose-related risk of EPS.¹ At risperidone dosages >6 mg/d, the balance between D2 and serotonin-2A (5-HT2A) receptor potency is lost, which increases the potential for EPS.³² In one RCT, long-acting injectable (LAI) risperidone, up to 100 mg biweekly, was well-tolerated but no more effective for TRS than 50 mg biweekly.³³ A case report suggested improvement of TRS in a patient administered risperidone LAI, 75 mg vs 37.5 mg biweekly, but it is unclear if a 50-mg dosage was tried.³⁴ Another case report documented improvement in schizophrenia symptoms with risperidone LAI, 125 mg biweekly; however, anticholinergic therapy was required for EPS.³⁵

Dose-dependent adverse effects, including EPS, sedation, anticholinergic effects, orthostasis, hyperprolactinemia, and QTc prolongation, may limit the safety of high-dose antipsychotic therapy.^1,20,36 Two studies showed no correlation between QTc prolongation and ziprasidone dosages of up to 320 mg/d for psychosis.^37,38 QTc prolongation was more likely at higher ziprasidone concentrations.³⁷ Higher concentrations, but not higher dosages, also trended toward improvement in positive symptoms, and concentrations >100 ng/mL were associated with more negative symptoms.³⁷ A case report described improvement in positive symptoms of schizoaffective disorder with ziprasidone, 320 mg/d, but activation, hostility, and depression worsened.³⁹

Continue to: Compared with other antipsychotics...

Compared with other antipsychotics, high-dose clozapine and quetiapine may be less likely to cause EPS due to lower D2 receptor occupancies.⁴⁰ Nevertheless, increased activity at other postsynaptic receptors may lead to constipation, metabolic effects, and sedation.^1,41,42 Case reports suggest efficacy with quetiapine, 1,200 to 2,400 mg/d, vs lower dosages for patients with TRS.^43,44 However, RCTs of quetiapine, 600 and 800 mg/d vs 1,200 mg/d, have not demonstrated an efficacy advantage with high-dose treatment in patients with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder.^41,45 High-dose quetiapine has also resulted in photopsia, cardiotoxicity, orthostasis, dysphagia, and sedation.^43,46,47

Proceed with caution

In light of safety concerns and a lack of high-quality evidence for high-dose antipsychotic therapy, alternative solutions for inadequate response to treatment should be considered. Underlying causes of poor response should be addressed, and alternative antipsychotics should be utilized, when appropriate. A clozapine trial remains first-line for TRS. Olanzapine may be the best-supported high-dose antipsychotic alternative when clozapine is not an option. High antipsychotic dosages are not well-studied in patients with genetic polymorphisms or unavoidable drug interactions. Serum antipsychotic concentrations may facilitate dosing in these patients.

If high-dose antipsychotic therapy is deemed necessary, its ongoing appropriateness should be continually re-evaluated. Higher antipsychotic dosages and D2 receptor occupancies may be required to manage acute psychosis, but efficacy may be maintained and adverse effects limited with the use of lower dosages during maintenance treatment.^48,49 Long-term treatment with high-dose antipsychotic therapy should be avoided, when possible. If high-dose antipsychotic therapy is prescribed, the rationale should be well-documented. Dosage adjustments should not be made until steady state is reached on a given dosage. Electrocardiograms should be obtained at baseline, steady state, and routinely thereafter.^3,20 Tolerability should be assessed regularly, and screening for drug interactions should be conducted when new medications are initiated.

Case CONTINUED

Because Mr. K’s serum risperidone level is subtherapeutic (10 ng/mL), his risperidone dosage is cautiously titrated to 10 mg/d, divided (serum concentration: 22 ng/mL). Mr. K develops mild orthostasis but denies other adverse effects. His psychotic symptoms resolve, and he is discharged with education on nonpharmacologic management of orthostasis. The rationale for high-dose risperidone is relayed to his outpatient psychiatrist, as well as a recommendation to monitor Mr. K closely for continued efficacy and tolerability.

Related Resource

• Barnes TRE, Drake R, Paton C, et al. Evidence-based guidelines for the pharmacological treatment of schizophrenia: updated recommendations from the British Association for Psychopharmacology. J Psychopharmacol. 2020;34(1):3-78.

Drug Brand Names

Aripiprazole • Abilify
Asenapine • Saphris
Brexpiprazole • Rexulti
Cariprazine • Vraylar
Clozapine • Clozaril
Iloperidone • Fanapt
Lumateperone • Caplyta
Lurasidone • Latuda
Olanzapine • Zyprexa
Paliperidone • Invega
Quetiapine • Seroquel
Risperidone • Risperdal
Risperidone long-acting injection • Risperdal Consta
Ziprasidone • Geodon

Researchers are trying to understand how e-cigarette use affects pregnancy and birth outcomes. This question may become more relevant as younger vapers, among whom the devices gained considerable popularity, start having children.

Limited emerging data from animal experiments and human epidemiologic studies suggest that vaping may have negative effects on fertility and pregnancy. “Even if these impacts are less severe than conventional smoking, we really should be thinking about alternate options that may be safer for our patients than inhalation of this aerosol,” said Blair J. Wylie, MD, MPH, a maternal-fetal medicine physician at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston.

Dr. Wylie reviewed what is known about vaping, including chemicals other than nicotine that have been detected in vape aerosols, and pregnancy at the 2021 virtual meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

“There’s a lot we don’t know,” she said. “These products were only introduced recently, in 2003. They are marketed aggressively to our youth and have gained tremendous popularity among that population. And it’s only a matter of time, I think, before we see a lot of use in our own patient population.”

In a separate study presented at the ACOG meeting, Nicole Izhakoff, a researcher at Florida International University, Miami, and colleagues evaluated the association between e-cigarette use during pregnancy and unfavorable birth outcomes, such as preterm birth, low birth weight, or extended hospital stay for the newborn.

The investigators used 2016-2017 survey data from the Pregnancy Risk Assessment Monitoring System. In all, 71,940 women completed the survey, including 859 who reported e-cigarette use during pregnancy.

After adjusting for age, race, ethnicity, insurance, maternal education, prenatal care, abuse during pregnancy, and complications during pregnancy, the researchers estimated that the odds of an unfavorable birth outcome were 62% greater among women who used e-cigarettes during pregnancy, compared with those who did not.

The researchers lacked information about simultaneous use of alcohol, traditional tobacco, or other drugs, however.

“Physicians of all subspecialties, especially those of obstetrics-gynecology and pediatrics, need to increase the implementation of screening for past or current e-cigarette use in at-risk patients,” Ms. Izhakoff and coauthors concluded. “Further research regarding the long-term health effects of e-cigarettes is warranted.”

Dr. Wylie coauthored another study related to this topic that was published online May 24, 2021, in the Journal of Maternal-Fetal & Neonatal Medicine.

The researchers examined birth weights of children whose mothers use e-cigarettes alone, those whose mothers used both e-cigarettes and conventional cigarettes, and those whose mothers smoked conventional cigarettes only. Their estimates were imprecise, but signaled that e-cigarette use may reduce birth weight. The use of e-cigarettes alone appeared to have less of an impact on birth weight than the dual use of conventional cigarettes and e-cigarettes did.

Dr. Wylie cautioned that outcomes like birth weight are “pretty crude measures of whether an exposure is okay or not in pregnancy. Many of these toxins that we know that are in the aerosols can cause harm, but they may not be reflected in the absolute value of the birth weight.”

In addition, clinicians should avoid focusing on the wrong question when caring for patients.

“I think the wrong question is: Is vaping safer than smoking?” Dr. Wylie said in an interview. “Metals are going into your lungs. Plastics are going into your lungs. It is hard for me to think that we are going to identify that as our champion smoking cessation strategy in pregnancy.”
 

Rapidly changing landscape

Answering the question of which is safer is a challenge anyway because researchers likely have incomplete information about who vapes, who smokes, and who does both.

Still, the new research illustrates that “people are starting to think about this and beginning to do some analysis that is really hypothesis generating at this point,” Dr. Wylie said. Such studies may prompt clinicians to ask their patients about e-cigarette use. “Marijuana is sort of a similar thing where patients’ perception of safety, because things are legal, can lead to use during pregnancy without ... letting their care teams know,” she said. “Things are changing so rapidly in terms of what’s available to people to use that we need to stay on top of that as obstetricians and ask the right questions and try to understand what the risks are and potential benefits.”

Dr. Wylie is an obstetric consultant to the New England Pediatric Environmental Health Specialty Unit, which is where she heard pediatricians discussing widespread e-cigarette use among youth. It occurred to her that some of these teens eventually would be seeing obstetricians. She also saw parallels to prior research she conducted that focused on household air pollution or cooking from wood-burning fires in Africa.

“What is frightening, I think, about these electronic cigarettes is that you’re heating this liquid to extraordinarily high temperatures to create the vapor,” and the extreme heat vaporizes plastics and metals as well as nicotine, Dr. Wylie said.

An ACOG committee opinion discusses approaches to smoking and vaping cessation such as counseling, behavioral therapy, and medication.

The publication also lists a host of elements have been isolated from vape aerosol, including “carbonyl compounds (formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, acetone, and acrolein); volatile organic compounds (benzene and toluene); nitrosamines; particulate matter; and heavy metals such as copper, lead, zinc, and tin.”

In addition to the nicotine in e-cigarette liquids, which is harmful in itself, there is “all of this other company that it keeps,” including solvent byproducts, known carcinogens, and lung irritants, Dr. Wylie said. Fine particulate matter “can land in the small airways and cause inflammation, even translocate into the systemic circulation and cause systemic inflammation.”

The use of flavoring “likely alters perceptions of harm” and contributes to the popularity of vaping, Dr. Wylie noted. At the same time, the use of flavoring also has little regulatory oversight. Flavors usually are approved for marketing based on safety for ingestion, but that may not translate into safety for inhalation.
 

Parsing the health effects

People who vape have increased cough, wheezing, and phlegm production, compared with people who do not vape. Vaping also may worsen underlying lung disease like asthma. Lung function on spirometry decreases after e-cigarette use, studies have shown.

In 2019, researchers described e-cigarette or vaping product use–related acute lung injury (EVALI), which has caused more than 60 deaths in the United States. The condition may be related to vitamin E acetate, a component that had been used in some liquids used by patients with EVALI.

And the nicotine in e-cigarettes can accelerate atherogenesis and affect blood pressure, heart rate, and arterial stiffness.

Initially introduced as a smoking cessation tool, e-cigarettes now often are used on their own or in addition to cigarettes, rather than strictly for smoking cessation.

A Cochrane review suggests that e-cigarettes may be more effective than other approaches to smoking cessation. But “the effect is modest at best,” Dr. Wylie said. Among 100 people attempting to quit cigarette smoking, there might four to six more quitters with the use of e-cigarettes as a smoking cessation intervention, compared with other approaches.

Animal models provide other reasons for caution. One experiment in mice showed that exposure to e-cigarette aerosol impaired implantation and fetal health. The results suggest “that there might be some negative impacts across generations,” Dr. Wylie said.

Another study has suggested the possibility that women who currently use e-cigarettes may have slightly diminished fecundability. The results were not statistically significant, but the study “gives us pause about whether there could be some impact on early pregnancy and fertility,” Dr. Wylie said.

In mouse models, prenatal exposure to e-cigarette aerosol has decreased fetal weight and length, altered neurodevelopment and neuroregulatory gene expression, and increased proinflammatory cytokines. E-cigarette aerosol also has caused birth defects in zebrafish and facial clefting in frogs. Whether and how these data relate to human pregnancy is unclear.

While e-cigarette ads may convey a sense of style and harmlessness, clinicians have reasons to worry about the effects. “We have to be a little bit more cautious when we are talking about this with our patients,” Dr. Wylie said.

Dr. Wylie had no relevant financial disclosures. She is a Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine board member and receives grant support related to research of household air pollution and pregnancy, prenatal pesticide exposure, preeclampsia in low income settings, and malaria during pregnancy. Ms. Izhakoff and coauthors had no disclosures.

jremaly@mdedge.com

Researchers are trying to understand how e-cigarette use affects pregnancy and birth outcomes. This question may become more relevant as younger vapers, among whom the devices gained considerable popularity, start having children.

Limited emerging data from animal experiments and human epidemiologic studies suggest that vaping may have negative effects on fertility and pregnancy. “Even if these impacts are less severe than conventional smoking, we really should be thinking about alternate options that may be safer for our patients than inhalation of this aerosol,” said Blair J. Wylie, MD, MPH, a maternal-fetal medicine physician at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston.

Dr. Wylie reviewed what is known about vaping, including chemicals other than nicotine that have been detected in vape aerosols, and pregnancy at the 2021 virtual meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

“There’s a lot we don’t know,” she said. “These products were only introduced recently, in 2003. They are marketed aggressively to our youth and have gained tremendous popularity among that population. And it’s only a matter of time, I think, before we see a lot of use in our own patient population.”

In a separate study presented at the ACOG meeting, Nicole Izhakoff, a researcher at Florida International University, Miami, and colleagues evaluated the association between e-cigarette use during pregnancy and unfavorable birth outcomes, such as preterm birth, low birth weight, or extended hospital stay for the newborn.

The investigators used 2016-2017 survey data from the Pregnancy Risk Assessment Monitoring System. In all, 71,940 women completed the survey, including 859 who reported e-cigarette use during pregnancy.

After adjusting for age, race, ethnicity, insurance, maternal education, prenatal care, abuse during pregnancy, and complications during pregnancy, the researchers estimated that the odds of an unfavorable birth outcome were 62% greater among women who used e-cigarettes during pregnancy, compared with those who did not.

The researchers lacked information about simultaneous use of alcohol, traditional tobacco, or other drugs, however.

“Physicians of all subspecialties, especially those of obstetrics-gynecology and pediatrics, need to increase the implementation of screening for past or current e-cigarette use in at-risk patients,” Ms. Izhakoff and coauthors concluded. “Further research regarding the long-term health effects of e-cigarettes is warranted.”

Dr. Wylie coauthored another study related to this topic that was published online May 24, 2021, in the Journal of Maternal-Fetal & Neonatal Medicine.

The researchers examined birth weights of children whose mothers use e-cigarettes alone, those whose mothers used both e-cigarettes and conventional cigarettes, and those whose mothers smoked conventional cigarettes only. Their estimates were imprecise, but signaled that e-cigarette use may reduce birth weight. The use of e-cigarettes alone appeared to have less of an impact on birth weight than the dual use of conventional cigarettes and e-cigarettes did.

Dr. Wylie cautioned that outcomes like birth weight are “pretty crude measures of whether an exposure is okay or not in pregnancy. Many of these toxins that we know that are in the aerosols can cause harm, but they may not be reflected in the absolute value of the birth weight.”

In addition, clinicians should avoid focusing on the wrong question when caring for patients.

“I think the wrong question is: Is vaping safer than smoking?” Dr. Wylie said in an interview. “Metals are going into your lungs. Plastics are going into your lungs. It is hard for me to think that we are going to identify that as our champion smoking cessation strategy in pregnancy.”
 

Rapidly changing landscape

Answering the question of which is safer is a challenge anyway because researchers likely have incomplete information about who vapes, who smokes, and who does both.

Still, the new research illustrates that “people are starting to think about this and beginning to do some analysis that is really hypothesis generating at this point,” Dr. Wylie said. Such studies may prompt clinicians to ask their patients about e-cigarette use. “Marijuana is sort of a similar thing where patients’ perception of safety, because things are legal, can lead to use during pregnancy without ... letting their care teams know,” she said. “Things are changing so rapidly in terms of what’s available to people to use that we need to stay on top of that as obstetricians and ask the right questions and try to understand what the risks are and potential benefits.”

Dr. Wylie is an obstetric consultant to the New England Pediatric Environmental Health Specialty Unit, which is where she heard pediatricians discussing widespread e-cigarette use among youth. It occurred to her that some of these teens eventually would be seeing obstetricians. She also saw parallels to prior research she conducted that focused on household air pollution or cooking from wood-burning fires in Africa.

“What is frightening, I think, about these electronic cigarettes is that you’re heating this liquid to extraordinarily high temperatures to create the vapor,” and the extreme heat vaporizes plastics and metals as well as nicotine, Dr. Wylie said.

An ACOG committee opinion discusses approaches to smoking and vaping cessation such as counseling, behavioral therapy, and medication.

The publication also lists a host of elements have been isolated from vape aerosol, including “carbonyl compounds (formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, acetone, and acrolein); volatile organic compounds (benzene and toluene); nitrosamines; particulate matter; and heavy metals such as copper, lead, zinc, and tin.”

In addition to the nicotine in e-cigarette liquids, which is harmful in itself, there is “all of this other company that it keeps,” including solvent byproducts, known carcinogens, and lung irritants, Dr. Wylie said. Fine particulate matter “can land in the small airways and cause inflammation, even translocate into the systemic circulation and cause systemic inflammation.”

The use of flavoring “likely alters perceptions of harm” and contributes to the popularity of vaping, Dr. Wylie noted. At the same time, the use of flavoring also has little regulatory oversight. Flavors usually are approved for marketing based on safety for ingestion, but that may not translate into safety for inhalation.
 

Parsing the health effects

People who vape have increased cough, wheezing, and phlegm production, compared with people who do not vape. Vaping also may worsen underlying lung disease like asthma. Lung function on spirometry decreases after e-cigarette use, studies have shown.

In 2019, researchers described e-cigarette or vaping product use–related acute lung injury (EVALI), which has caused more than 60 deaths in the United States. The condition may be related to vitamin E acetate, a component that had been used in some liquids used by patients with EVALI.

And the nicotine in e-cigarettes can accelerate atherogenesis and affect blood pressure, heart rate, and arterial stiffness.

Initially introduced as a smoking cessation tool, e-cigarettes now often are used on their own or in addition to cigarettes, rather than strictly for smoking cessation.

A Cochrane review suggests that e-cigarettes may be more effective than other approaches to smoking cessation. But “the effect is modest at best,” Dr. Wylie said. Among 100 people attempting to quit cigarette smoking, there might four to six more quitters with the use of e-cigarettes as a smoking cessation intervention, compared with other approaches.

Animal models provide other reasons for caution. One experiment in mice showed that exposure to e-cigarette aerosol impaired implantation and fetal health. The results suggest “that there might be some negative impacts across generations,” Dr. Wylie said.

Another study has suggested the possibility that women who currently use e-cigarettes may have slightly diminished fecundability. The results were not statistically significant, but the study “gives us pause about whether there could be some impact on early pregnancy and fertility,” Dr. Wylie said.

In mouse models, prenatal exposure to e-cigarette aerosol has decreased fetal weight and length, altered neurodevelopment and neuroregulatory gene expression, and increased proinflammatory cytokines. E-cigarette aerosol also has caused birth defects in zebrafish and facial clefting in frogs. Whether and how these data relate to human pregnancy is unclear.

While e-cigarette ads may convey a sense of style and harmlessness, clinicians have reasons to worry about the effects. “We have to be a little bit more cautious when we are talking about this with our patients,” Dr. Wylie said.

Dr. Wylie had no relevant financial disclosures. She is a Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine board member and receives grant support related to research of household air pollution and pregnancy, prenatal pesticide exposure, preeclampsia in low income settings, and malaria during pregnancy. Ms. Izhakoff and coauthors had no disclosures.

jremaly@mdedge.com

Researchers are trying to understand how e-cigarette use affects pregnancy and birth outcomes. This question may become more relevant as younger vapers, among whom the devices gained considerable popularity, start having children.

Limited emerging data from animal experiments and human epidemiologic studies suggest that vaping may have negative effects on fertility and pregnancy. “Even if these impacts are less severe than conventional smoking, we really should be thinking about alternate options that may be safer for our patients than inhalation of this aerosol,” said Blair J. Wylie, MD, MPH, a maternal-fetal medicine physician at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston.

Dr. Wylie reviewed what is known about vaping, including chemicals other than nicotine that have been detected in vape aerosols, and pregnancy at the 2021 virtual meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

“There’s a lot we don’t know,” she said. “These products were only introduced recently, in 2003. They are marketed aggressively to our youth and have gained tremendous popularity among that population. And it’s only a matter of time, I think, before we see a lot of use in our own patient population.”

In a separate study presented at the ACOG meeting, Nicole Izhakoff, a researcher at Florida International University, Miami, and colleagues evaluated the association between e-cigarette use during pregnancy and unfavorable birth outcomes, such as preterm birth, low birth weight, or extended hospital stay for the newborn.

The investigators used 2016-2017 survey data from the Pregnancy Risk Assessment Monitoring System. In all, 71,940 women completed the survey, including 859 who reported e-cigarette use during pregnancy.

After adjusting for age, race, ethnicity, insurance, maternal education, prenatal care, abuse during pregnancy, and complications during pregnancy, the researchers estimated that the odds of an unfavorable birth outcome were 62% greater among women who used e-cigarettes during pregnancy, compared with those who did not.

The researchers lacked information about simultaneous use of alcohol, traditional tobacco, or other drugs, however.

“Physicians of all subspecialties, especially those of obstetrics-gynecology and pediatrics, need to increase the implementation of screening for past or current e-cigarette use in at-risk patients,” Ms. Izhakoff and coauthors concluded. “Further research regarding the long-term health effects of e-cigarettes is warranted.”

Dr. Wylie coauthored another study related to this topic that was published online May 24, 2021, in the Journal of Maternal-Fetal & Neonatal Medicine.

The researchers examined birth weights of children whose mothers use e-cigarettes alone, those whose mothers used both e-cigarettes and conventional cigarettes, and those whose mothers smoked conventional cigarettes only. Their estimates were imprecise, but signaled that e-cigarette use may reduce birth weight. The use of e-cigarettes alone appeared to have less of an impact on birth weight than the dual use of conventional cigarettes and e-cigarettes did.

Dr. Wylie cautioned that outcomes like birth weight are “pretty crude measures of whether an exposure is okay or not in pregnancy. Many of these toxins that we know that are in the aerosols can cause harm, but they may not be reflected in the absolute value of the birth weight.”

In addition, clinicians should avoid focusing on the wrong question when caring for patients.

“I think the wrong question is: Is vaping safer than smoking?” Dr. Wylie said in an interview. “Metals are going into your lungs. Plastics are going into your lungs. It is hard for me to think that we are going to identify that as our champion smoking cessation strategy in pregnancy.”
 

Rapidly changing landscape

Answering the question of which is safer is a challenge anyway because researchers likely have incomplete information about who vapes, who smokes, and who does both.

Still, the new research illustrates that “people are starting to think about this and beginning to do some analysis that is really hypothesis generating at this point,” Dr. Wylie said. Such studies may prompt clinicians to ask their patients about e-cigarette use. “Marijuana is sort of a similar thing where patients’ perception of safety, because things are legal, can lead to use during pregnancy without ... letting their care teams know,” she said. “Things are changing so rapidly in terms of what’s available to people to use that we need to stay on top of that as obstetricians and ask the right questions and try to understand what the risks are and potential benefits.”

Dr. Wylie is an obstetric consultant to the New England Pediatric Environmental Health Specialty Unit, which is where she heard pediatricians discussing widespread e-cigarette use among youth. It occurred to her that some of these teens eventually would be seeing obstetricians. She also saw parallels to prior research she conducted that focused on household air pollution or cooking from wood-burning fires in Africa.

“What is frightening, I think, about these electronic cigarettes is that you’re heating this liquid to extraordinarily high temperatures to create the vapor,” and the extreme heat vaporizes plastics and metals as well as nicotine, Dr. Wylie said.

An ACOG committee opinion discusses approaches to smoking and vaping cessation such as counseling, behavioral therapy, and medication.

The publication also lists a host of elements have been isolated from vape aerosol, including “carbonyl compounds (formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, acetone, and acrolein); volatile organic compounds (benzene and toluene); nitrosamines; particulate matter; and heavy metals such as copper, lead, zinc, and tin.”

In addition to the nicotine in e-cigarette liquids, which is harmful in itself, there is “all of this other company that it keeps,” including solvent byproducts, known carcinogens, and lung irritants, Dr. Wylie said. Fine particulate matter “can land in the small airways and cause inflammation, even translocate into the systemic circulation and cause systemic inflammation.”

The use of flavoring “likely alters perceptions of harm” and contributes to the popularity of vaping, Dr. Wylie noted. At the same time, the use of flavoring also has little regulatory oversight. Flavors usually are approved for marketing based on safety for ingestion, but that may not translate into safety for inhalation.
 

Parsing the health effects

People who vape have increased cough, wheezing, and phlegm production, compared with people who do not vape. Vaping also may worsen underlying lung disease like asthma. Lung function on spirometry decreases after e-cigarette use, studies have shown.

In 2019, researchers described e-cigarette or vaping product use–related acute lung injury (EVALI), which has caused more than 60 deaths in the United States. The condition may be related to vitamin E acetate, a component that had been used in some liquids used by patients with EVALI.

And the nicotine in e-cigarettes can accelerate atherogenesis and affect blood pressure, heart rate, and arterial stiffness.

Initially introduced as a smoking cessation tool, e-cigarettes now often are used on their own or in addition to cigarettes, rather than strictly for smoking cessation.

A Cochrane review suggests that e-cigarettes may be more effective than other approaches to smoking cessation. But “the effect is modest at best,” Dr. Wylie said. Among 100 people attempting to quit cigarette smoking, there might four to six more quitters with the use of e-cigarettes as a smoking cessation intervention, compared with other approaches.

Animal models provide other reasons for caution. One experiment in mice showed that exposure to e-cigarette aerosol impaired implantation and fetal health. The results suggest “that there might be some negative impacts across generations,” Dr. Wylie said.

Another study has suggested the possibility that women who currently use e-cigarettes may have slightly diminished fecundability. The results were not statistically significant, but the study “gives us pause about whether there could be some impact on early pregnancy and fertility,” Dr. Wylie said.

In mouse models, prenatal exposure to e-cigarette aerosol has decreased fetal weight and length, altered neurodevelopment and neuroregulatory gene expression, and increased proinflammatory cytokines. E-cigarette aerosol also has caused birth defects in zebrafish and facial clefting in frogs. Whether and how these data relate to human pregnancy is unclear.

While e-cigarette ads may convey a sense of style and harmlessness, clinicians have reasons to worry about the effects. “We have to be a little bit more cautious when we are talking about this with our patients,” Dr. Wylie said.

Dr. Wylie had no relevant financial disclosures. She is a Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine board member and receives grant support related to research of household air pollution and pregnancy, prenatal pesticide exposure, preeclampsia in low income settings, and malaria during pregnancy. Ms. Izhakoff and coauthors had no disclosures.

jremaly@mdedge.com

Gastrointestinal symptoms and chronic fatigue may persist months after the COVID-19 virus infection resolves, results of a recent cohort-controlled study suggest.

About 5 months after SARS-CoV-2 infection, relative risks of loose stools, somatization, and chronic fatigue were increased by approximately two- to three fold, compared to individuals who had not been infected, according to study results presented at the annual Digestive Disease Week® (DDW).

These longer-term consequences of SARS-CoV-2 appeared to be more severe in patients who had experienced diarrhea during the acute infection, according to investigator Daniele Noviello, MD, a second-year resident in gastroenterology and hepatology at the University of Milan.

This is the first cohort-controlled study that specifically investigates gastrointestinal symptoms and somatoform disorders, Dr. Noviello said in a virtual presentation of the results.

“Based on our data, chronic fatigue, gastrointestinal, and somatoform symptoms may have a common postinfectious origin, and they should be investigated in the follow-up of SARS-CoV-2 patients,” he said.
 

Links between SARS-CoV-2 and gastrointestinal symptoms

Gastrointestinal symptoms are known to be relatively common during acute infection. According to Dr. Noviello, the most frequent gastrointestinal symptom associated with SARS-CoV-2 is diarrhea, occurring in 4% to nearly 40% of patients in case series to date.

However, data on the longer-term gastrointestinal impacts of SARS-CoV-2 remain scarce.

In one noncontrolled cohort study in China, loss of appetite, nausea, acid reflux, and diarrhea were seen in 15%-24% of patients 3 months after the infection, Dr. Noviello said. In another cohort study in China, diarrhea and vomiting were reported in 5% of patients 6 months after infection.

In any case, it is known that viral, bacterial, and protozoal infections of the gastrointestinal tract are a risk factor for development of functional disorders including irritable bowel syndrome (IBS), functional dyspepsia, and chronic fatigue, according to Dr. Noviello.

Accordingly, the results of the present study suggest that SARS-CoV-2 also “may affect the brain-gut axis in the long term,” Dr. Noviello and coauthors wrote in an abstract of the study.

It is plausible that SARS-CoV-2 infection could be a trigger for longer-term gastrointestinal symptoms, especially given the previous evidence linking infections and IBS symptoms, or postinfectious IBS, said Juan Pablo Stefanolo, MD, a physician with the neurogastroenterology and motility section, Hospital de Clínicas José de San Martín, Buenos Aires University.

“If it is demonstrated [that SARS-CoV-2 infection is a trigger], the microbiota-gut-brain axis concept in IBS pathophysiology is reinforced,” Dr. Stefanolo said in an interview.

In the meantime, practitioners may want to take into account COVID-19 infection history in the evaluation of a patient with IBS-like symptoms and, in case of a known positive COVID-19 result in an IBS patient, be aware of the possibility of symptom exacerbation, Dr. Stefanolo said.
 

Pandemic in Italy: Unique study opportunity

The severe outbreak in the Milan region early in the COVID-19 pandemic provided a “unique opportunity” to assess the long-term impact of infection on gastrointestinal and extraintestinal somatoform symptoms, said Dr. Noviello.

The investigators sent an online questionnaire to patients who had a molecular diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection by nasal swab between February and April of 2020. To form a control group, they also sent questionnaires to hospital employees and health care providers who had tested negative over that same time period.

In all, 378 questionnaires were completed by 177 SARS-CoV-2–positive individuals and 201 controls. The SARS-CoV-2–positive patients were somewhat older (about 44 years vs. 40 years for controls), were less often female (40% vs. 61%), had a lower education level, and smoked less than did controls, according to the investigators.

A mean of 4.8 months had elapsed between the time of SARS-CoV-2 infection and when the questionnaires were compiled, said Dr. Noviello.

In the acute phase, diarrhea was the most common gastrointestinal symptom among virus-positive individuals, occurring in about 50% compared to 20% of controls (P < .001), data show. Other symptoms reported by 40% of SARS-CoV-2–infected individuals included fever, dyspnea, loss of smell or taste, weight loss, myalgia, arthralgia, and asthenia in the acute phase controls in the acute phase, Dr. Noviello said.
 

Persistent gastrointestinal symptoms after SARS-CoV-2

Persistent symptoms included loose stools, as measured by the Bristol Stool scale, occurring in 17.8% of SARS-CoV-2–positive individuals, but only 9.3% of the SARS-CoV-2–negative controls, according to Dr. Noviello, with an adjusted risk ratio of 1.88 (95% confidence interval, 0.99-3.54).

Chronic fatigue symptoms, as measured by the Structured Assessment of Gastrointestinal Symptoms questionnaire, were reported by about 30% of SARS-CoV-2–positive patients and about 15% of controls, for an adjusted risk ratio of 2.24 (95% CI, 1.48-3.37), according to Dr. Noviello’s presentation.

The mean t-score on the Symptom Checklist–12 for somatoform disorders was higher for the virus-positive patients compared to controls, according to Dr. Noviello. The scores were 54.6 and 50.5, respectively, with an adjusted score difference of 3.6 (95% CI, 1.0-6.2).

The longer-term sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection might be more severe in individuals who experienced diarrhea during acute infection, according to Dr. Noviello. In a post hoc analysis, reports of irritable bowel syndrome and loose stools were significantly higher in SARS-CoV-2–infected individuals who had diarrhea in the acute phase compared to those who did not experience diarrhea, he said.

Somatoform disorder scores were significantly higher, and reports of headache, back pain, and chronic fatigue were significantly more common, in individuals who had diarrhea at the time of SARS-CoV-2 infection, he added.

Dr. Noviello and coauthors reported no competing interests related to the study. Dr. Stefanolo had no disclosures to report.
 

Gastrointestinal symptoms and chronic fatigue may persist months after the COVID-19 virus infection resolves, results of a recent cohort-controlled study suggest.

About 5 months after SARS-CoV-2 infection, relative risks of loose stools, somatization, and chronic fatigue were increased by approximately two- to three fold, compared to individuals who had not been infected, according to study results presented at the annual Digestive Disease Week® (DDW).

These longer-term consequences of SARS-CoV-2 appeared to be more severe in patients who had experienced diarrhea during the acute infection, according to investigator Daniele Noviello, MD, a second-year resident in gastroenterology and hepatology at the University of Milan.

This is the first cohort-controlled study that specifically investigates gastrointestinal symptoms and somatoform disorders, Dr. Noviello said in a virtual presentation of the results.

“Based on our data, chronic fatigue, gastrointestinal, and somatoform symptoms may have a common postinfectious origin, and they should be investigated in the follow-up of SARS-CoV-2 patients,” he said.
 

Links between SARS-CoV-2 and gastrointestinal symptoms

Gastrointestinal symptoms are known to be relatively common during acute infection. According to Dr. Noviello, the most frequent gastrointestinal symptom associated with SARS-CoV-2 is diarrhea, occurring in 4% to nearly 40% of patients in case series to date.

However, data on the longer-term gastrointestinal impacts of SARS-CoV-2 remain scarce.

In one noncontrolled cohort study in China, loss of appetite, nausea, acid reflux, and diarrhea were seen in 15%-24% of patients 3 months after the infection, Dr. Noviello said. In another cohort study in China, diarrhea and vomiting were reported in 5% of patients 6 months after infection.

In any case, it is known that viral, bacterial, and protozoal infections of the gastrointestinal tract are a risk factor for development of functional disorders including irritable bowel syndrome (IBS), functional dyspepsia, and chronic fatigue, according to Dr. Noviello.

Accordingly, the results of the present study suggest that SARS-CoV-2 also “may affect the brain-gut axis in the long term,” Dr. Noviello and coauthors wrote in an abstract of the study.

It is plausible that SARS-CoV-2 infection could be a trigger for longer-term gastrointestinal symptoms, especially given the previous evidence linking infections and IBS symptoms, or postinfectious IBS, said Juan Pablo Stefanolo, MD, a physician with the neurogastroenterology and motility section, Hospital de Clínicas José de San Martín, Buenos Aires University.

“If it is demonstrated [that SARS-CoV-2 infection is a trigger], the microbiota-gut-brain axis concept in IBS pathophysiology is reinforced,” Dr. Stefanolo said in an interview.

In the meantime, practitioners may want to take into account COVID-19 infection history in the evaluation of a patient with IBS-like symptoms and, in case of a known positive COVID-19 result in an IBS patient, be aware of the possibility of symptom exacerbation, Dr. Stefanolo said.
 

Pandemic in Italy: Unique study opportunity

The severe outbreak in the Milan region early in the COVID-19 pandemic provided a “unique opportunity” to assess the long-term impact of infection on gastrointestinal and extraintestinal somatoform symptoms, said Dr. Noviello.

The investigators sent an online questionnaire to patients who had a molecular diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection by nasal swab between February and April of 2020. To form a control group, they also sent questionnaires to hospital employees and health care providers who had tested negative over that same time period.

In all, 378 questionnaires were completed by 177 SARS-CoV-2–positive individuals and 201 controls. The SARS-CoV-2–positive patients were somewhat older (about 44 years vs. 40 years for controls), were less often female (40% vs. 61%), had a lower education level, and smoked less than did controls, according to the investigators.

A mean of 4.8 months had elapsed between the time of SARS-CoV-2 infection and when the questionnaires were compiled, said Dr. Noviello.

In the acute phase, diarrhea was the most common gastrointestinal symptom among virus-positive individuals, occurring in about 50% compared to 20% of controls (P < .001), data show. Other symptoms reported by 40% of SARS-CoV-2–infected individuals included fever, dyspnea, loss of smell or taste, weight loss, myalgia, arthralgia, and asthenia in the acute phase controls in the acute phase, Dr. Noviello said.
 

Persistent gastrointestinal symptoms after SARS-CoV-2

Persistent symptoms included loose stools, as measured by the Bristol Stool scale, occurring in 17.8% of SARS-CoV-2–positive individuals, but only 9.3% of the SARS-CoV-2–negative controls, according to Dr. Noviello, with an adjusted risk ratio of 1.88 (95% confidence interval, 0.99-3.54).

Chronic fatigue symptoms, as measured by the Structured Assessment of Gastrointestinal Symptoms questionnaire, were reported by about 30% of SARS-CoV-2–positive patients and about 15% of controls, for an adjusted risk ratio of 2.24 (95% CI, 1.48-3.37), according to Dr. Noviello’s presentation.

The mean t-score on the Symptom Checklist–12 for somatoform disorders was higher for the virus-positive patients compared to controls, according to Dr. Noviello. The scores were 54.6 and 50.5, respectively, with an adjusted score difference of 3.6 (95% CI, 1.0-6.2).

The longer-term sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection might be more severe in individuals who experienced diarrhea during acute infection, according to Dr. Noviello. In a post hoc analysis, reports of irritable bowel syndrome and loose stools were significantly higher in SARS-CoV-2–infected individuals who had diarrhea in the acute phase compared to those who did not experience diarrhea, he said.

Somatoform disorder scores were significantly higher, and reports of headache, back pain, and chronic fatigue were significantly more common, in individuals who had diarrhea at the time of SARS-CoV-2 infection, he added.

Dr. Noviello and coauthors reported no competing interests related to the study. Dr. Stefanolo had no disclosures to report.
 

Gastrointestinal symptoms and chronic fatigue may persist months after the COVID-19 virus infection resolves, results of a recent cohort-controlled study suggest.

About 5 months after SARS-CoV-2 infection, relative risks of loose stools, somatization, and chronic fatigue were increased by approximately two- to three fold, compared to individuals who had not been infected, according to study results presented at the annual Digestive Disease Week® (DDW).

These longer-term consequences of SARS-CoV-2 appeared to be more severe in patients who had experienced diarrhea during the acute infection, according to investigator Daniele Noviello, MD, a second-year resident in gastroenterology and hepatology at the University of Milan.

This is the first cohort-controlled study that specifically investigates gastrointestinal symptoms and somatoform disorders, Dr. Noviello said in a virtual presentation of the results.

“Based on our data, chronic fatigue, gastrointestinal, and somatoform symptoms may have a common postinfectious origin, and they should be investigated in the follow-up of SARS-CoV-2 patients,” he said.
 

Links between SARS-CoV-2 and gastrointestinal symptoms

Gastrointestinal symptoms are known to be relatively common during acute infection. According to Dr. Noviello, the most frequent gastrointestinal symptom associated with SARS-CoV-2 is diarrhea, occurring in 4% to nearly 40% of patients in case series to date.

However, data on the longer-term gastrointestinal impacts of SARS-CoV-2 remain scarce.

In one noncontrolled cohort study in China, loss of appetite, nausea, acid reflux, and diarrhea were seen in 15%-24% of patients 3 months after the infection, Dr. Noviello said. In another cohort study in China, diarrhea and vomiting were reported in 5% of patients 6 months after infection.

In any case, it is known that viral, bacterial, and protozoal infections of the gastrointestinal tract are a risk factor for development of functional disorders including irritable bowel syndrome (IBS), functional dyspepsia, and chronic fatigue, according to Dr. Noviello.

Accordingly, the results of the present study suggest that SARS-CoV-2 also “may affect the brain-gut axis in the long term,” Dr. Noviello and coauthors wrote in an abstract of the study.

It is plausible that SARS-CoV-2 infection could be a trigger for longer-term gastrointestinal symptoms, especially given the previous evidence linking infections and IBS symptoms, or postinfectious IBS, said Juan Pablo Stefanolo, MD, a physician with the neurogastroenterology and motility section, Hospital de Clínicas José de San Martín, Buenos Aires University.

“If it is demonstrated [that SARS-CoV-2 infection is a trigger], the microbiota-gut-brain axis concept in IBS pathophysiology is reinforced,” Dr. Stefanolo said in an interview.

In the meantime, practitioners may want to take into account COVID-19 infection history in the evaluation of a patient with IBS-like symptoms and, in case of a known positive COVID-19 result in an IBS patient, be aware of the possibility of symptom exacerbation, Dr. Stefanolo said.
 

Pandemic in Italy: Unique study opportunity

The severe outbreak in the Milan region early in the COVID-19 pandemic provided a “unique opportunity” to assess the long-term impact of infection on gastrointestinal and extraintestinal somatoform symptoms, said Dr. Noviello.

The investigators sent an online questionnaire to patients who had a molecular diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection by nasal swab between February and April of 2020. To form a control group, they also sent questionnaires to hospital employees and health care providers who had tested negative over that same time period.

In all, 378 questionnaires were completed by 177 SARS-CoV-2–positive individuals and 201 controls. The SARS-CoV-2–positive patients were somewhat older (about 44 years vs. 40 years for controls), were less often female (40% vs. 61%), had a lower education level, and smoked less than did controls, according to the investigators.

A mean of 4.8 months had elapsed between the time of SARS-CoV-2 infection and when the questionnaires were compiled, said Dr. Noviello.

In the acute phase, diarrhea was the most common gastrointestinal symptom among virus-positive individuals, occurring in about 50% compared to 20% of controls (P < .001), data show. Other symptoms reported by 40% of SARS-CoV-2–infected individuals included fever, dyspnea, loss of smell or taste, weight loss, myalgia, arthralgia, and asthenia in the acute phase controls in the acute phase, Dr. Noviello said.
 

Persistent gastrointestinal symptoms after SARS-CoV-2

Persistent symptoms included loose stools, as measured by the Bristol Stool scale, occurring in 17.8% of SARS-CoV-2–positive individuals, but only 9.3% of the SARS-CoV-2–negative controls, according to Dr. Noviello, with an adjusted risk ratio of 1.88 (95% confidence interval, 0.99-3.54).

Chronic fatigue symptoms, as measured by the Structured Assessment of Gastrointestinal Symptoms questionnaire, were reported by about 30% of SARS-CoV-2–positive patients and about 15% of controls, for an adjusted risk ratio of 2.24 (95% CI, 1.48-3.37), according to Dr. Noviello’s presentation.

The mean t-score on the Symptom Checklist–12 for somatoform disorders was higher for the virus-positive patients compared to controls, according to Dr. Noviello. The scores were 54.6 and 50.5, respectively, with an adjusted score difference of 3.6 (95% CI, 1.0-6.2).

The longer-term sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection might be more severe in individuals who experienced diarrhea during acute infection, according to Dr. Noviello. In a post hoc analysis, reports of irritable bowel syndrome and loose stools were significantly higher in SARS-CoV-2–infected individuals who had diarrhea in the acute phase compared to those who did not experience diarrhea, he said.

Somatoform disorder scores were significantly higher, and reports of headache, back pain, and chronic fatigue were significantly more common, in individuals who had diarrhea at the time of SARS-CoV-2 infection, he added.

Dr. Noviello and coauthors reported no competing interests related to the study. Dr. Stefanolo had no disclosures to report.
 

Q2. Correct answer: D. Glucose hydrogen breath test. 

Rationale  
The etiology of small intestinal bacterial overgrowth (SIBO) is complex but may include an issue with altered antibacterial defense mechanisms, such as achlorhydria from atrophic gastritis. SIBO can be diagnosed by a glucose hydrogen breath test, and therefore, it is the best next step in the management of this patient's symptoms given the history of atrophic gastritis. Chromogranin A testing and video capsule endoscopy are used in the diagnostic evaluation of suspected carcinoid syndrome and inflammatory bowel disease, respectively, and may be indicated in the subsequent evaluation of this patient's symptoms. In addition, both of these diagnoses are unlikely to cause intermittent diarrhea. Eluxadoline is an agent that combines a mu-opioid receptor agonist and a delta-opioid receptor antagonist and is indicated for the treatment of irritable bowel syndrome - diarrhea predominant (IBS-D). The diagnosis of IBS requires the presence of abdominal pain and is unlikely in an elderly patient with new onset of symptoms; therefore, this is not the diagnosis in this patient's case.  
 
Reference  
Jan Bures et al. World J Gastroenterol. 2010 Jun 28;16(24):2978-90.

Q2. Correct answer: D. Glucose hydrogen breath test. 

Rationale  
The etiology of small intestinal bacterial overgrowth (SIBO) is complex but may include an issue with altered antibacterial defense mechanisms, such as achlorhydria from atrophic gastritis. SIBO can be diagnosed by a glucose hydrogen breath test, and therefore, it is the best next step in the management of this patient's symptoms given the history of atrophic gastritis. Chromogranin A testing and video capsule endoscopy are used in the diagnostic evaluation of suspected carcinoid syndrome and inflammatory bowel disease, respectively, and may be indicated in the subsequent evaluation of this patient's symptoms. In addition, both of these diagnoses are unlikely to cause intermittent diarrhea. Eluxadoline is an agent that combines a mu-opioid receptor agonist and a delta-opioid receptor antagonist and is indicated for the treatment of irritable bowel syndrome - diarrhea predominant (IBS-D). The diagnosis of IBS requires the presence of abdominal pain and is unlikely in an elderly patient with new onset of symptoms; therefore, this is not the diagnosis in this patient's case.  
 
Reference  
Jan Bures et al. World J Gastroenterol. 2010 Jun 28;16(24):2978-90.

Q2. Correct answer: D. Glucose hydrogen breath test. 

Rationale  
The etiology of small intestinal bacterial overgrowth (SIBO) is complex but may include an issue with altered antibacterial defense mechanisms, such as achlorhydria from atrophic gastritis. SIBO can be diagnosed by a glucose hydrogen breath test, and therefore, it is the best next step in the management of this patient's symptoms given the history of atrophic gastritis. Chromogranin A testing and video capsule endoscopy are used in the diagnostic evaluation of suspected carcinoid syndrome and inflammatory bowel disease, respectively, and may be indicated in the subsequent evaluation of this patient's symptoms. In addition, both of these diagnoses are unlikely to cause intermittent diarrhea. Eluxadoline is an agent that combines a mu-opioid receptor agonist and a delta-opioid receptor antagonist and is indicated for the treatment of irritable bowel syndrome - diarrhea predominant (IBS-D). The diagnosis of IBS requires the presence of abdominal pain and is unlikely in an elderly patient with new onset of symptoms; therefore, this is not the diagnosis in this patient's case.  
 
Reference  
Jan Bures et al. World J Gastroenterol. 2010 Jun 28;16(24):2978-90.

Q1. Correct answer: B. Expulsion of water-filled balloon in 3 minutes.  

Rationale  
The balloon expulsion test is highly suggestive of dyssynergia. A balloon expulsion time of greater than 2 minutes is abnormal. An absent RAIR can be seen in Hirschsprung's disease or megarectum. Defecation index equals maximum rectal pressure during attempted defecation divided by minimum anal residual pressure during attempted defecation. A normal defecation index is greater than 1.5. Decreased anal sphincter pressure during simulated defecation is normal and therefore not consistent with dyssynergic defecation.  
 
References  
Wald A et al. Am J Gastroenterol. 2014 Aug;109(8):1141-57.  
Bharucha AE et al. Gastroenterology. 2013 Jan;144(1):218-38.

Q1. Correct answer: B. Expulsion of water-filled balloon in 3 minutes.  

Rationale  
The balloon expulsion test is highly suggestive of dyssynergia. A balloon expulsion time of greater than 2 minutes is abnormal. An absent RAIR can be seen in Hirschsprung's disease or megarectum. Defecation index equals maximum rectal pressure during attempted defecation divided by minimum anal residual pressure during attempted defecation. A normal defecation index is greater than 1.5. Decreased anal sphincter pressure during simulated defecation is normal and therefore not consistent with dyssynergic defecation.  
 
References  
Wald A et al. Am J Gastroenterol. 2014 Aug;109(8):1141-57.  
Bharucha AE et al. Gastroenterology. 2013 Jan;144(1):218-38.

Q1. Correct answer: B. Expulsion of water-filled balloon in 3 minutes.  

Rationale  
The balloon expulsion test is highly suggestive of dyssynergia. A balloon expulsion time of greater than 2 minutes is abnormal. An absent RAIR can be seen in Hirschsprung's disease or megarectum. Defecation index equals maximum rectal pressure during attempted defecation divided by minimum anal residual pressure during attempted defecation. A normal defecation index is greater than 1.5. Decreased anal sphincter pressure during simulated defecation is normal and therefore not consistent with dyssynergic defecation.  
 
References  
Wald A et al. Am J Gastroenterol. 2014 Aug;109(8):1141-57.  
Bharucha AE et al. Gastroenterology. 2013 Jan;144(1):218-38.

Background: Following the ACA’s implementation, several measures were introduced to reduce unnecessary admissions of long-term nursing home residents to hospitals. These measures included an initiative to enhance a nursing home’s on-site capability to handle target populations; the accountable care organization payment model; and the Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program.

Dr. Cool is a hospitalist at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, and instructor in medicine, Harvard Medical School, both in Boston.

Background: Following the ACA’s implementation, several measures were introduced to reduce unnecessary admissions of long-term nursing home residents to hospitals. These measures included an initiative to enhance a nursing home’s on-site capability to handle target populations; the accountable care organization payment model; and the Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program.

Dr. Cool is a hospitalist at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, and instructor in medicine, Harvard Medical School, both in Boston.

Background: Following the ACA’s implementation, several measures were introduced to reduce unnecessary admissions of long-term nursing home residents to hospitals. These measures included an initiative to enhance a nursing home’s on-site capability to handle target populations; the accountable care organization payment model; and the Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program.

Dr. Cool is a hospitalist at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, and instructor in medicine, Harvard Medical School, both in Boston.

A 14-day course of hybrid therapy was as effective as 10-day bismuth quadruple therapy, but with fewer side effects, according to results of a randomized trial conducted in Taiwan.

“However, the former had fewer adverse events than the latter,” investigator Ping-I Hsu, MD, of An Nan Hospital, China Medical University, Taiwan said in a virtual presentation at the annual Digestive Disease Week® (DDW). Some patients in the trial received 14-day high-dose dual therapy, which also had a lower rate of adverse events but a lower eradication rate, compared with quadruple therapy, Dr. Hsu added.

This study confirms previous data showing that hybrid therapy has high eradication rates and a lower frequency of adverse events compared with bismuth quadruple therapy, noted Joseph Adrian L. Buensalido, MD, clinical associate professor of medicine in the division of infectious diseases at the University of the Philippines–Philippine General Hospital in Manila. “Clinicians and specialty/guideline groups may need to start looking at moving to first-line hybrid therapy as opposed to the traditional approach,” Dr. Buensalido said in an interview.
 

Current guidelines and data to date

An American College of Gastroenterology clinical guideline published in 2017 strongly recommends bismuth quadruple therapy, with a duration of 10-14 days, as a first-line treatment option. Hybrid therapy is conditionally recommended as a first-line option in the ACG guideline, while high-dose dual therapy is conditionally recommended as a salvage regimen.

In a prospective, randomized comparative study published in 2017, the eradication rates (93.9%) in patients receiving 14-day bismuth quadruple therapy (pantoprazole, bismuth subcitrate, tetracycline, and metronidazole) were comparable with eradication rates (92.8%) with 14-day hybrid therapy (dual therapy with pantoprazole plus amoxicillin for 7 days, followed by quadruple therapy with pantoprazole, amoxicillin, clarithromycin, and metronidazole for 7 days).

Quadruple therapy had a higher frequency of adverse events, at 55%, compared with 15.7% for hybrid therapy (P < .001). “Whether shortening the treatment duration of bismuth quadruple therapy from 14 days to 10 days can reduce the frequency of adverse effects remains unclear,” Dr. Hsu said in introductory comments to his study.
 

Comparing three approaches

In the multicenter, randomized, open-label superiority trial presented at DDW, Dr. Hsu and colleagues randomly assigned 600 Helicobacter pylori–infected participants in equal numbers to receive 14-day hybrid therapy, 14-day high-dose dual therapy, or 10-day bismuth quadruple therapy.

The hybrid therapy regimen consisted of rabeprazole 20 mg twice a day plus amoxicillin 1 g twice a day for 14 days, with clarithromycin 500 mg and metronidazole 500 mg twice a day in the final 7 days. The high-dose dual therapy regimen consisted of rabeprazole 20 mg and amoxicillin 750 mg four times a day for 14 days. The bismuth quadruple therapy regimen consisted of rabeprazole 20 mg twice a day, tripotassium dicitrato bismuthate 300 mg four times a day, tetracycline 500 mg twice a day, and metronidazole 250 mg four times a day for 10 days.

Investigators assessed H. pylori status 6 weeks following the end of therapy. In an intention-to-treat analysis, the hybrid therapy regimen yielded an eradication rate of 96.5%, which was comparable with the 93.5% eradication rate seen with bismuth quadruple therapy and was significantly higher than the 86.0% eradication rate seen with high-dose dual therapy (P < .001), according to Dr. Hsu. Similar efficacy outcomes were seen in per-protocol analysis.

The frequency of adverse events was lowest with high-dose dual therapy, at 13.0%, according to Dr. Hsu. That was significantly lower than the 25.5% frequency of adverse events with hybrid therapy. Bismuth quadruple therapy had a rate of 34.0%.
 

Antibiotic resistance results

Antibiotic resistance was most common for metronidazole, seen in approximately 28% of the quadruple-therapy group, 34% of the hybrid group, and 37% of the high-dose therapy groups. Clarithromycin resistance occurred in about 23% of quadruple therapy recipients, 16% of hybrid recipients, and 16% of high-dose therapy recipients. Amoxicillin and tetracycline resistance was rare, occurring in approximately 0%-3% of groups.

In the quadruple therapy arm, metronidazole resistance was associated with H. pylori eradication failure, according to Dr. Hsu. The eradication rate was about 96% for those subjects with no metronidazole resistance, and 88% for those with resistance (P = .05). Amoxicillin resistance, although rare in the study, independently predicted eradication failure of high-dose dual therapy, Dr. Hsu said. The eradication rate with high-dose dual therapy was 87.6% for individuals without amoxicillin resistance, and 40.0% in individuals with resistance, according to presented data.

The authors reported no financial disclosures related to their research. Dr. Buensalido has been a speaker for Unilab, BSV Bioscience, and Philcare Pharma, and has received sponsorship from Pfizer.

A 14-day course of hybrid therapy was as effective as 10-day bismuth quadruple therapy, but with fewer side effects, according to results of a randomized trial conducted in Taiwan.

“However, the former had fewer adverse events than the latter,” investigator Ping-I Hsu, MD, of An Nan Hospital, China Medical University, Taiwan said in a virtual presentation at the annual Digestive Disease Week® (DDW). Some patients in the trial received 14-day high-dose dual therapy, which also had a lower rate of adverse events but a lower eradication rate, compared with quadruple therapy, Dr. Hsu added.

This study confirms previous data showing that hybrid therapy has high eradication rates and a lower frequency of adverse events compared with bismuth quadruple therapy, noted Joseph Adrian L. Buensalido, MD, clinical associate professor of medicine in the division of infectious diseases at the University of the Philippines–Philippine General Hospital in Manila. “Clinicians and specialty/guideline groups may need to start looking at moving to first-line hybrid therapy as opposed to the traditional approach,” Dr. Buensalido said in an interview.
 

Current guidelines and data to date

An American College of Gastroenterology clinical guideline published in 2017 strongly recommends bismuth quadruple therapy, with a duration of 10-14 days, as a first-line treatment option. Hybrid therapy is conditionally recommended as a first-line option in the ACG guideline, while high-dose dual therapy is conditionally recommended as a salvage regimen.

In a prospective, randomized comparative study published in 2017, the eradication rates (93.9%) in patients receiving 14-day bismuth quadruple therapy (pantoprazole, bismuth subcitrate, tetracycline, and metronidazole) were comparable with eradication rates (92.8%) with 14-day hybrid therapy (dual therapy with pantoprazole plus amoxicillin for 7 days, followed by quadruple therapy with pantoprazole, amoxicillin, clarithromycin, and metronidazole for 7 days).

Quadruple therapy had a higher frequency of adverse events, at 55%, compared with 15.7% for hybrid therapy (P < .001). “Whether shortening the treatment duration of bismuth quadruple therapy from 14 days to 10 days can reduce the frequency of adverse effects remains unclear,” Dr. Hsu said in introductory comments to his study.
 

Comparing three approaches

In the multicenter, randomized, open-label superiority trial presented at DDW, Dr. Hsu and colleagues randomly assigned 600 Helicobacter pylori–infected participants in equal numbers to receive 14-day hybrid therapy, 14-day high-dose dual therapy, or 10-day bismuth quadruple therapy.

The hybrid therapy regimen consisted of rabeprazole 20 mg twice a day plus amoxicillin 1 g twice a day for 14 days, with clarithromycin 500 mg and metronidazole 500 mg twice a day in the final 7 days. The high-dose dual therapy regimen consisted of rabeprazole 20 mg and amoxicillin 750 mg four times a day for 14 days. The bismuth quadruple therapy regimen consisted of rabeprazole 20 mg twice a day, tripotassium dicitrato bismuthate 300 mg four times a day, tetracycline 500 mg twice a day, and metronidazole 250 mg four times a day for 10 days.

Investigators assessed H. pylori status 6 weeks following the end of therapy. In an intention-to-treat analysis, the hybrid therapy regimen yielded an eradication rate of 96.5%, which was comparable with the 93.5% eradication rate seen with bismuth quadruple therapy and was significantly higher than the 86.0% eradication rate seen with high-dose dual therapy (P < .001), according to Dr. Hsu. Similar efficacy outcomes were seen in per-protocol analysis.

The frequency of adverse events was lowest with high-dose dual therapy, at 13.0%, according to Dr. Hsu. That was significantly lower than the 25.5% frequency of adverse events with hybrid therapy. Bismuth quadruple therapy had a rate of 34.0%.
 

Antibiotic resistance results

Antibiotic resistance was most common for metronidazole, seen in approximately 28% of the quadruple-therapy group, 34% of the hybrid group, and 37% of the high-dose therapy groups. Clarithromycin resistance occurred in about 23% of quadruple therapy recipients, 16% of hybrid recipients, and 16% of high-dose therapy recipients. Amoxicillin and tetracycline resistance was rare, occurring in approximately 0%-3% of groups.

In the quadruple therapy arm, metronidazole resistance was associated with H. pylori eradication failure, according to Dr. Hsu. The eradication rate was about 96% for those subjects with no metronidazole resistance, and 88% for those with resistance (P = .05). Amoxicillin resistance, although rare in the study, independently predicted eradication failure of high-dose dual therapy, Dr. Hsu said. The eradication rate with high-dose dual therapy was 87.6% for individuals without amoxicillin resistance, and 40.0% in individuals with resistance, according to presented data.

The authors reported no financial disclosures related to their research. Dr. Buensalido has been a speaker for Unilab, BSV Bioscience, and Philcare Pharma, and has received sponsorship from Pfizer.

A 14-day course of hybrid therapy was as effective as 10-day bismuth quadruple therapy, but with fewer side effects, according to results of a randomized trial conducted in Taiwan.

“However, the former had fewer adverse events than the latter,” investigator Ping-I Hsu, MD, of An Nan Hospital, China Medical University, Taiwan said in a virtual presentation at the annual Digestive Disease Week® (DDW). Some patients in the trial received 14-day high-dose dual therapy, which also had a lower rate of adverse events but a lower eradication rate, compared with quadruple therapy, Dr. Hsu added.

This study confirms previous data showing that hybrid therapy has high eradication rates and a lower frequency of adverse events compared with bismuth quadruple therapy, noted Joseph Adrian L. Buensalido, MD, clinical associate professor of medicine in the division of infectious diseases at the University of the Philippines–Philippine General Hospital in Manila. “Clinicians and specialty/guideline groups may need to start looking at moving to first-line hybrid therapy as opposed to the traditional approach,” Dr. Buensalido said in an interview.
 

Current guidelines and data to date

An American College of Gastroenterology clinical guideline published in 2017 strongly recommends bismuth quadruple therapy, with a duration of 10-14 days, as a first-line treatment option. Hybrid therapy is conditionally recommended as a first-line option in the ACG guideline, while high-dose dual therapy is conditionally recommended as a salvage regimen.

In a prospective, randomized comparative study published in 2017, the eradication rates (93.9%) in patients receiving 14-day bismuth quadruple therapy (pantoprazole, bismuth subcitrate, tetracycline, and metronidazole) were comparable with eradication rates (92.8%) with 14-day hybrid therapy (dual therapy with pantoprazole plus amoxicillin for 7 days, followed by quadruple therapy with pantoprazole, amoxicillin, clarithromycin, and metronidazole for 7 days).

Quadruple therapy had a higher frequency of adverse events, at 55%, compared with 15.7% for hybrid therapy (P < .001). “Whether shortening the treatment duration of bismuth quadruple therapy from 14 days to 10 days can reduce the frequency of adverse effects remains unclear,” Dr. Hsu said in introductory comments to his study.
 

Comparing three approaches

In the multicenter, randomized, open-label superiority trial presented at DDW, Dr. Hsu and colleagues randomly assigned 600 Helicobacter pylori–infected participants in equal numbers to receive 14-day hybrid therapy, 14-day high-dose dual therapy, or 10-day bismuth quadruple therapy.

The hybrid therapy regimen consisted of rabeprazole 20 mg twice a day plus amoxicillin 1 g twice a day for 14 days, with clarithromycin 500 mg and metronidazole 500 mg twice a day in the final 7 days. The high-dose dual therapy regimen consisted of rabeprazole 20 mg and amoxicillin 750 mg four times a day for 14 days. The bismuth quadruple therapy regimen consisted of rabeprazole 20 mg twice a day, tripotassium dicitrato bismuthate 300 mg four times a day, tetracycline 500 mg twice a day, and metronidazole 250 mg four times a day for 10 days.

Investigators assessed H. pylori status 6 weeks following the end of therapy. In an intention-to-treat analysis, the hybrid therapy regimen yielded an eradication rate of 96.5%, which was comparable with the 93.5% eradication rate seen with bismuth quadruple therapy and was significantly higher than the 86.0% eradication rate seen with high-dose dual therapy (P < .001), according to Dr. Hsu. Similar efficacy outcomes were seen in per-protocol analysis.

The frequency of adverse events was lowest with high-dose dual therapy, at 13.0%, according to Dr. Hsu. That was significantly lower than the 25.5% frequency of adverse events with hybrid therapy. Bismuth quadruple therapy had a rate of 34.0%.
 

Antibiotic resistance results

Antibiotic resistance was most common for metronidazole, seen in approximately 28% of the quadruple-therapy group, 34% of the hybrid group, and 37% of the high-dose therapy groups. Clarithromycin resistance occurred in about 23% of quadruple therapy recipients, 16% of hybrid recipients, and 16% of high-dose therapy recipients. Amoxicillin and tetracycline resistance was rare, occurring in approximately 0%-3% of groups.

In the quadruple therapy arm, metronidazole resistance was associated with H. pylori eradication failure, according to Dr. Hsu. The eradication rate was about 96% for those subjects with no metronidazole resistance, and 88% for those with resistance (P = .05). Amoxicillin resistance, although rare in the study, independently predicted eradication failure of high-dose dual therapy, Dr. Hsu said. The eradication rate with high-dose dual therapy was 87.6% for individuals without amoxicillin resistance, and 40.0% in individuals with resistance, according to presented data.

The authors reported no financial disclosures related to their research. Dr. Buensalido has been a speaker for Unilab, BSV Bioscience, and Philcare Pharma, and has received sponsorship from Pfizer.

For biologic-naive adults with moderate to severe Crohn’s disease, treatment with adalimumab or ustekinumab leads to similar outcomes, according to results of the head-to-head SEAVUE trial.

When lead author Bruce E. Sands, MD, of Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, compared treatment arms, patients had similar rates of clinical remission at one year. All major secondary endpoints, such as endoscopic remission, were comparable, as were safety profiles, Dr. Sands reported at the annual Digestive Disease Week^® (DDW).

“From my perspective, this is an important study,” Dr. Sands wrote in a virtual chat following his presentation. “We need more head-to-head studies!”

Results from the SEAVUE trial come almost 2 years after Dr. Sands reported findings of another head-to-head IBD trial: VARSITY, which demonstrated the superiority of vedolizumab over adalimumab among patients with moderate to severe ulcerative colitis.

The multicenter, double-blinded SEAVUE trial involved 386 patients with biologic-naive Crohn’s disease who had failed corticosteroids or immunomodulators. All patients had Crohn’s Disease Activity Index (CDAI) scores ranging from 220 to 450 and had at least one ulcer detected at baseline ileocolonoscopy.

Participants were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive monotherapy with either subcutaneous adalimumab (citrate-free; 160 mg at baseline, 70 mg at week 2, then 40 mg every 2 weeks) or ustekinumab, which was given first intravenously at a dose of 6 mg/kg then subcutaneously at 90 mg every 8 weeks.

The primary endpoint was clinical remission at week 52, defined by a CDAI score less than 150. Major secondary endpoints included clinical response, corticosteroid-free remission, endoscopic remission, remission in patient-reported CDAI components, and clinical remission at week 16.

Results were statistically similar across all endpoints, with clinical remission at 1 year occurring in 64.9% and 61.0% of patients receiving ustekinumab and adalimumab, respectively (P = .417).

“Both treatments demonstrated rapid onset of action and robust endoscopy results,” Dr. Sands noted during his presentation; he reported comparable rates of endoscopic remission, at 28.5% and 30.7% for ustekinumab and adalimumab, respectively (P = .631).

Among secondary endpoints, ustekinumab demonstrated some superiority, with greater maintenance of clinical response at week 52 among patients with response at week 16 (88.6% vs. 78.0%; P = .016), greater reduction in liquid/soft stools in prior 7 days from baseline to week 52 (–19.9 vs. –16.2; P = .004), and greater reduction in sum number of liquid/soft stools and abdominal pain scores in prior 7 days from baseline to week 52 (–29.6 vs. –25.1; P = .013).

Safety metrics were similar between groups, and consistent with previous experience. Although the adalimumab group had a higher rate of discontinuation due to adverse events, this trend was not statistically significant (11.3% vs. 6.3%; P value not provided).
 

Don’t ignore discontinuation rates

Jordan E. Axelrad, MD, assistant professor of medicine at NYU and a clinician at the Inflammatory Bowel Disease Center at NYU Langone Health, New York, commended the SEAVUE trial for its head-to-head design, which is a first for biologics in Crohn’s disease.

“With newer drugs, there’s a critical need for head-to-head studies for us to understand where to position a lot of these agents,” he said in an interview. “[T]his was a good undifferentiated group to understand what’s the first biologic you should use in a patient with moderate-to-severe Crohn’s disease. The primary, major take-home is that [ustekinumab and adalimumab] are similarly effective.”

When asked about the slight superiority in minor secondary endpoints associated with ustekinumab, Dr. Axelrad suggested that rates of discontinuation deserve more attention.

“For me, maybe the major focus would be on the number of patients who stopped treatment,” Dr. Axelrad said, noting a higher rate of discontinuation in the adalimumab group. “Although that was just numerical, that to me is actually more important than [the minor secondary endpoints].” He also highlighted the lower injection burden associated with ustekinumab, which is given every 8 weeks, compared with every 2 weeks for adalimumab.

Ultimately, however, it’s unlikely that treatment sequencing will depend on these finer points, Dr. Axelrad suggested, and will instead come down to finances, especially with adalimumab biosimilars on the horizon, which may be the most cost-effective.

“A lot of the decision-making of where to position [ustekinumab in Crohn’s disease] is going to come down to the payer,” Dr. Axelrad said. “If there was a clear signal, providers such as myself would have a better leg to stand on, like we saw with VARSITY, where vedolizumab was clearly superior to adalimumab on multiple endpoints. We didn’t see that sort of robust signal here.”

The SEAVUE trial was supported by Janssen Scientific Affairs. Dr. Sands disclosed relationships with Janssen, AbbVie, Takeda, and others. Dr. Axelrad disclosed previous consulting fees from Janssen and research support from BioFire.

For biologic-naive adults with moderate to severe Crohn’s disease, treatment with adalimumab or ustekinumab leads to similar outcomes, according to results of the head-to-head SEAVUE trial.

When lead author Bruce E. Sands, MD, of Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, compared treatment arms, patients had similar rates of clinical remission at one year. All major secondary endpoints, such as endoscopic remission, were comparable, as were safety profiles, Dr. Sands reported at the annual Digestive Disease Week^® (DDW).

“From my perspective, this is an important study,” Dr. Sands wrote in a virtual chat following his presentation. “We need more head-to-head studies!”

Results from the SEAVUE trial come almost 2 years after Dr. Sands reported findings of another head-to-head IBD trial: VARSITY, which demonstrated the superiority of vedolizumab over adalimumab among patients with moderate to severe ulcerative colitis.

The multicenter, double-blinded SEAVUE trial involved 386 patients with biologic-naive Crohn’s disease who had failed corticosteroids or immunomodulators. All patients had Crohn’s Disease Activity Index (CDAI) scores ranging from 220 to 450 and had at least one ulcer detected at baseline ileocolonoscopy.

Participants were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive monotherapy with either subcutaneous adalimumab (citrate-free; 160 mg at baseline, 70 mg at week 2, then 40 mg every 2 weeks) or ustekinumab, which was given first intravenously at a dose of 6 mg/kg then subcutaneously at 90 mg every 8 weeks.

The primary endpoint was clinical remission at week 52, defined by a CDAI score less than 150. Major secondary endpoints included clinical response, corticosteroid-free remission, endoscopic remission, remission in patient-reported CDAI components, and clinical remission at week 16.

Results were statistically similar across all endpoints, with clinical remission at 1 year occurring in 64.9% and 61.0% of patients receiving ustekinumab and adalimumab, respectively (P = .417).

“Both treatments demonstrated rapid onset of action and robust endoscopy results,” Dr. Sands noted during his presentation; he reported comparable rates of endoscopic remission, at 28.5% and 30.7% for ustekinumab and adalimumab, respectively (P = .631).

Among secondary endpoints, ustekinumab demonstrated some superiority, with greater maintenance of clinical response at week 52 among patients with response at week 16 (88.6% vs. 78.0%; P = .016), greater reduction in liquid/soft stools in prior 7 days from baseline to week 52 (–19.9 vs. –16.2; P = .004), and greater reduction in sum number of liquid/soft stools and abdominal pain scores in prior 7 days from baseline to week 52 (–29.6 vs. –25.1; P = .013).

Safety metrics were similar between groups, and consistent with previous experience. Although the adalimumab group had a higher rate of discontinuation due to adverse events, this trend was not statistically significant (11.3% vs. 6.3%; P value not provided).
 

Don’t ignore discontinuation rates

Jordan E. Axelrad, MD, assistant professor of medicine at NYU and a clinician at the Inflammatory Bowel Disease Center at NYU Langone Health, New York, commended the SEAVUE trial for its head-to-head design, which is a first for biologics in Crohn’s disease.

“With newer drugs, there’s a critical need for head-to-head studies for us to understand where to position a lot of these agents,” he said in an interview. “[T]his was a good undifferentiated group to understand what’s the first biologic you should use in a patient with moderate-to-severe Crohn’s disease. The primary, major take-home is that [ustekinumab and adalimumab] are similarly effective.”

When asked about the slight superiority in minor secondary endpoints associated with ustekinumab, Dr. Axelrad suggested that rates of discontinuation deserve more attention.

“For me, maybe the major focus would be on the number of patients who stopped treatment,” Dr. Axelrad said, noting a higher rate of discontinuation in the adalimumab group. “Although that was just numerical, that to me is actually more important than [the minor secondary endpoints].” He also highlighted the lower injection burden associated with ustekinumab, which is given every 8 weeks, compared with every 2 weeks for adalimumab.

Ultimately, however, it’s unlikely that treatment sequencing will depend on these finer points, Dr. Axelrad suggested, and will instead come down to finances, especially with adalimumab biosimilars on the horizon, which may be the most cost-effective.

“A lot of the decision-making of where to position [ustekinumab in Crohn’s disease] is going to come down to the payer,” Dr. Axelrad said. “If there was a clear signal, providers such as myself would have a better leg to stand on, like we saw with VARSITY, where vedolizumab was clearly superior to adalimumab on multiple endpoints. We didn’t see that sort of robust signal here.”

The SEAVUE trial was supported by Janssen Scientific Affairs. Dr. Sands disclosed relationships with Janssen, AbbVie, Takeda, and others. Dr. Axelrad disclosed previous consulting fees from Janssen and research support from BioFire.

For biologic-naive adults with moderate to severe Crohn’s disease, treatment with adalimumab or ustekinumab leads to similar outcomes, according to results of the head-to-head SEAVUE trial.

When lead author Bruce E. Sands, MD, of Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, compared treatment arms, patients had similar rates of clinical remission at one year. All major secondary endpoints, such as endoscopic remission, were comparable, as were safety profiles, Dr. Sands reported at the annual Digestive Disease Week^® (DDW).

“From my perspective, this is an important study,” Dr. Sands wrote in a virtual chat following his presentation. “We need more head-to-head studies!”

Results from the SEAVUE trial come almost 2 years after Dr. Sands reported findings of another head-to-head IBD trial: VARSITY, which demonstrated the superiority of vedolizumab over adalimumab among patients with moderate to severe ulcerative colitis.

The multicenter, double-blinded SEAVUE trial involved 386 patients with biologic-naive Crohn’s disease who had failed corticosteroids or immunomodulators. All patients had Crohn’s Disease Activity Index (CDAI) scores ranging from 220 to 450 and had at least one ulcer detected at baseline ileocolonoscopy.

Participants were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive monotherapy with either subcutaneous adalimumab (citrate-free; 160 mg at baseline, 70 mg at week 2, then 40 mg every 2 weeks) or ustekinumab, which was given first intravenously at a dose of 6 mg/kg then subcutaneously at 90 mg every 8 weeks.

The primary endpoint was clinical remission at week 52, defined by a CDAI score less than 150. Major secondary endpoints included clinical response, corticosteroid-free remission, endoscopic remission, remission in patient-reported CDAI components, and clinical remission at week 16.

Results were statistically similar across all endpoints, with clinical remission at 1 year occurring in 64.9% and 61.0% of patients receiving ustekinumab and adalimumab, respectively (P = .417).

“Both treatments demonstrated rapid onset of action and robust endoscopy results,” Dr. Sands noted during his presentation; he reported comparable rates of endoscopic remission, at 28.5% and 30.7% for ustekinumab and adalimumab, respectively (P = .631).

Among secondary endpoints, ustekinumab demonstrated some superiority, with greater maintenance of clinical response at week 52 among patients with response at week 16 (88.6% vs. 78.0%; P = .016), greater reduction in liquid/soft stools in prior 7 days from baseline to week 52 (–19.9 vs. –16.2; P = .004), and greater reduction in sum number of liquid/soft stools and abdominal pain scores in prior 7 days from baseline to week 52 (–29.6 vs. –25.1; P = .013).

Safety metrics were similar between groups, and consistent with previous experience. Although the adalimumab group had a higher rate of discontinuation due to adverse events, this trend was not statistically significant (11.3% vs. 6.3%; P value not provided).
 

Don’t ignore discontinuation rates

Jordan E. Axelrad, MD, assistant professor of medicine at NYU and a clinician at the Inflammatory Bowel Disease Center at NYU Langone Health, New York, commended the SEAVUE trial for its head-to-head design, which is a first for biologics in Crohn’s disease.

“With newer drugs, there’s a critical need for head-to-head studies for us to understand where to position a lot of these agents,” he said in an interview. “[T]his was a good undifferentiated group to understand what’s the first biologic you should use in a patient with moderate-to-severe Crohn’s disease. The primary, major take-home is that [ustekinumab and adalimumab] are similarly effective.”

When asked about the slight superiority in minor secondary endpoints associated with ustekinumab, Dr. Axelrad suggested that rates of discontinuation deserve more attention.

“For me, maybe the major focus would be on the number of patients who stopped treatment,” Dr. Axelrad said, noting a higher rate of discontinuation in the adalimumab group. “Although that was just numerical, that to me is actually more important than [the minor secondary endpoints].” He also highlighted the lower injection burden associated with ustekinumab, which is given every 8 weeks, compared with every 2 weeks for adalimumab.

Ultimately, however, it’s unlikely that treatment sequencing will depend on these finer points, Dr. Axelrad suggested, and will instead come down to finances, especially with adalimumab biosimilars on the horizon, which may be the most cost-effective.

“A lot of the decision-making of where to position [ustekinumab in Crohn’s disease] is going to come down to the payer,” Dr. Axelrad said. “If there was a clear signal, providers such as myself would have a better leg to stand on, like we saw with VARSITY, where vedolizumab was clearly superior to adalimumab on multiple endpoints. We didn’t see that sort of robust signal here.”

The SEAVUE trial was supported by Janssen Scientific Affairs. Dr. Sands disclosed relationships with Janssen, AbbVie, Takeda, and others. Dr. Axelrad disclosed previous consulting fees from Janssen and research support from BioFire.

SER-109, an oral microbiome therapeutic, safely protects against Clostridioides difficile recurrence for up to 24 weeks, according to a recent phase 3 trial. Three days of treatment with purified Firmicutes spores reduced risk of recurrence by 54%, suggesting a sustained, clinically meaningful response, according to a multicenter study presented at this year’s Digestive Disease Week^® (DDW).

“Antibiotics targeted against C. difficile bacteria are necessary but insufficient to achieve a durable clinical response because they have no effect on C. difficile spores that germinate within a disrupted microbiome,” the investigators reported at the meeting.

“The manufacturing processes for SER-109 are designed to inactivate potential pathogens, while enriching for beneficial Firmicutes spores, which play a central role in inhibiting the cycle of C. difficile,” said Louis Y. Korman, MD, a gastroenterologist in Washington, who was lead author.
 

Extended data from ECOSPOR-III

The ECOSPOR-III trial involved 182 patients with at least three episodes of C. difficile infection in the previous 12 months. Patients underwent 10-21 days of antibiotic therapy with fidaxomicin or vancomycin to resolve symptoms before they were then randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive either SER-109 (four capsules daily for 3 days) or placebo, with stratification by specific antibiotic and patient age (threshold of 65 years).

The primary objectives were safety and efficacy at 8 weeks. These results, which were previously reported at ACG 2020, showed a 68% relative risk reduction in the SER-109 group, and favorable safety data. The findings presented at DDW added to those earlier ones by providing safety and efficacy data extending to week 24. At this time point, patients treated with SER-109 had a 54% relative risk reduction in C. difficile recurrence. Recurrence rates were 21.3% and 47.3% for the treatment and placebo groups, respectively (P less than .001).

Patients 65 years and older benefited the most from SER-109 therapy, based on a relative risk reduction of 56% (P less than .001), versus a 49% relative risk reduction (lacking statistical significance) for patients younger than 65 years (P = .093). The specific antibiotic therapy patients received also appeared to impact outcomes. Patients treated with fidaxomicin had a 73% relative risk reduction (P = .009), compared with 48% for vancomycin (P = .006). Safety profiles were similar between study arms.

“By enriching for Firmicutes spores, SER-109 achieves high efficacy, while mitigating risk of transmitting infectious agents and represents a major paradigm shift in the clinical management of patients with recurrent C. difficile infection,” the investigators concluded, noting that “an open-label study for patients with recurrent C. difficile infection is currently enrolling.”
 

Microbiome restoration therapies

According to Sahil Khanna, MBBS, professor of medicine at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., these findings “advance the field” because they show a sustained response. “We know that microbiome restoration therapies help restore colonization resistance,” Dr. Khanna said in an interview, noting that they offer benefits comparable to fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) without the downsides.

SER-109, an oral microbiome therapeutic, safely protects against Clostridioides difficile recurrence for up to 24 weeks, according to a recent phase 3 trial. Three days of treatment with purified Firmicutes spores reduced risk of recurrence by 54%, suggesting a sustained, clinically meaningful response, according to a multicenter study presented at this year’s Digestive Disease Week^® (DDW).

“Antibiotics targeted against C. difficile bacteria are necessary but insufficient to achieve a durable clinical response because they have no effect on C. difficile spores that germinate within a disrupted microbiome,” the investigators reported at the meeting.

“The manufacturing processes for SER-109 are designed to inactivate potential pathogens, while enriching for beneficial Firmicutes spores, which play a central role in inhibiting the cycle of C. difficile,” said Louis Y. Korman, MD, a gastroenterologist in Washington, who was lead author.
 

Extended data from ECOSPOR-III

The ECOSPOR-III trial involved 182 patients with at least three episodes of C. difficile infection in the previous 12 months. Patients underwent 10-21 days of antibiotic therapy with fidaxomicin or vancomycin to resolve symptoms before they were then randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive either SER-109 (four capsules daily for 3 days) or placebo, with stratification by specific antibiotic and patient age (threshold of 65 years).

The primary objectives were safety and efficacy at 8 weeks. These results, which were previously reported at ACG 2020, showed a 68% relative risk reduction in the SER-109 group, and favorable safety data. The findings presented at DDW added to those earlier ones by providing safety and efficacy data extending to week 24. At this time point, patients treated with SER-109 had a 54% relative risk reduction in C. difficile recurrence. Recurrence rates were 21.3% and 47.3% for the treatment and placebo groups, respectively (P less than .001).

Patients 65 years and older benefited the most from SER-109 therapy, based on a relative risk reduction of 56% (P less than .001), versus a 49% relative risk reduction (lacking statistical significance) for patients younger than 65 years (P = .093). The specific antibiotic therapy patients received also appeared to impact outcomes. Patients treated with fidaxomicin had a 73% relative risk reduction (P = .009), compared with 48% for vancomycin (P = .006). Safety profiles were similar between study arms.

“By enriching for Firmicutes spores, SER-109 achieves high efficacy, while mitigating risk of transmitting infectious agents and represents a major paradigm shift in the clinical management of patients with recurrent C. difficile infection,” the investigators concluded, noting that “an open-label study for patients with recurrent C. difficile infection is currently enrolling.”
 

Microbiome restoration therapies

According to Sahil Khanna, MBBS, professor of medicine at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., these findings “advance the field” because they show a sustained response. “We know that microbiome restoration therapies help restore colonization resistance,” Dr. Khanna said in an interview, noting that they offer benefits comparable to fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) without the downsides.

SER-109, an oral microbiome therapeutic, safely protects against Clostridioides difficile recurrence for up to 24 weeks, according to a recent phase 3 trial. Three days of treatment with purified Firmicutes spores reduced risk of recurrence by 54%, suggesting a sustained, clinically meaningful response, according to a multicenter study presented at this year’s Digestive Disease Week^® (DDW).

“Antibiotics targeted against C. difficile bacteria are necessary but insufficient to achieve a durable clinical response because they have no effect on C. difficile spores that germinate within a disrupted microbiome,” the investigators reported at the meeting.

“The manufacturing processes for SER-109 are designed to inactivate potential pathogens, while enriching for beneficial Firmicutes spores, which play a central role in inhibiting the cycle of C. difficile,” said Louis Y. Korman, MD, a gastroenterologist in Washington, who was lead author.
 

Extended data from ECOSPOR-III

The ECOSPOR-III trial involved 182 patients with at least three episodes of C. difficile infection in the previous 12 months. Patients underwent 10-21 days of antibiotic therapy with fidaxomicin or vancomycin to resolve symptoms before they were then randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive either SER-109 (four capsules daily for 3 days) or placebo, with stratification by specific antibiotic and patient age (threshold of 65 years).

The primary objectives were safety and efficacy at 8 weeks. These results, which were previously reported at ACG 2020, showed a 68% relative risk reduction in the SER-109 group, and favorable safety data. The findings presented at DDW added to those earlier ones by providing safety and efficacy data extending to week 24. At this time point, patients treated with SER-109 had a 54% relative risk reduction in C. difficile recurrence. Recurrence rates were 21.3% and 47.3% for the treatment and placebo groups, respectively (P less than .001).

Patients 65 years and older benefited the most from SER-109 therapy, based on a relative risk reduction of 56% (P less than .001), versus a 49% relative risk reduction (lacking statistical significance) for patients younger than 65 years (P = .093). The specific antibiotic therapy patients received also appeared to impact outcomes. Patients treated with fidaxomicin had a 73% relative risk reduction (P = .009), compared with 48% for vancomycin (P = .006). Safety profiles were similar between study arms.

“By enriching for Firmicutes spores, SER-109 achieves high efficacy, while mitigating risk of transmitting infectious agents and represents a major paradigm shift in the clinical management of patients with recurrent C. difficile infection,” the investigators concluded, noting that “an open-label study for patients with recurrent C. difficile infection is currently enrolling.”
 

Microbiome restoration therapies

According to Sahil Khanna, MBBS, professor of medicine at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., these findings “advance the field” because they show a sustained response. “We know that microbiome restoration therapies help restore colonization resistance,” Dr. Khanna said in an interview, noting that they offer benefits comparable to fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) without the downsides.

A Food and Drug Administration advisory panel has voted narrowly to recommend approval of the monoclonal antibody teplizumab (Tzield, Provention Bio) for the delay of type 1 diabetes in at-risk individuals.

The 10-7 vote of the FDA’s endocrinologic and metabolic drugs advisory committee on May 27 reflected a difficult decision-making process on the part of many members to weigh the benefits of a potential 2-year delay in the onset of type 1 diabetes against both observed and theoretical risks, as well as what most considered to be insufficient data.

Regardless of their vote, nearly all panel members advised the FDA that the company should be required to conduct at least one additional larger long-term efficacy and safety trial to satisfy what they felt were major gaps in the data. Some advised that use of the drug be restricted to a very narrow group of recipients until efficacy and safety can be better established.

If approved, teplizumab, which interferes with T cell–mediated autoimmune destruction of pancreatic beta cells, would be the first disease-modifying therapy for impeding progression of type 1 diabetes. The proposed indication is for individuals who have two or more type 1 diabetes-associated autoantibodies and subclinical dysglycemia.

That “stage 2” or “at-risk” condition is associated with a nearly 100% lifetime risk of progression to clinical (“stage 3”) type 1 diabetes and a 75% risk of developing the disease within 5 years. As of now, most such individuals are first-degree relatives of people with type 1 diabetes identified through TrialNet.
 

What’s the evidence to support approval so far?

In 2019, a pivotal phase 2 randomized, placebo-controlled TN-10 trial involving 76 at-risk children and adults ages 8 years and older showed that a single 14-day treatment of daily intravenous infusions of teplizumab in 44 patients resulted in a significant median 2-year delay to onset of clinical type 1 diabetes, compared with 32 who received placebo. Further follow-up data continue to show that fewer patients who received teplizumab have progressed to clinical type 1 diabetes.

While most advisory panelists agreed that the TN-10 study demonstrated efficacy, several also said that the sample size was insufficient and at least one additional randomized trial should be conducted to replicate the findings.

Although the FDA typically requires companies to demonstrate a drug’s effectiveness with at least two separate clinical trials, the agency allows companies to substitute other forms of data for a second randomized clinical trial, such as study results for the drug in a closely related condition, mechanistic data, or knowledge of other drugs from the same class.

In this case, Provention’s submission included as “confirmatory” evidence a meta-analysis of data from five earlier randomized trials (three placebo controlled, two open label) of a total 942 individuals with newly diagnosed type 1 diabetes (“stage 3”) who received either one or two 14-day teplizumab courses (n = 729) or placebo. These showed consistent preservation of C-peptide, a surrogate marker of beta-cell function, along with lower mean insulin use.

Several panel members expressed dissatisfaction with those confirmatory data, noting the patient population was different from those for which the company is currently seeking the indication, and that C-peptide is an inadequate endpoint for demonstrating efficacy.
 

Safety: Adverse events mostly transient, but unanswered questions

Adverse events reported in at least 10% of teplizumab recipients included lymphopenia (76.8% vs. 9.4% placebo; relative risk, 8.2), leukopenia (82.1% vs. 24.1%; RR, 3.4), and rash (44.5% vs. 9.0%; RR, 4.9).

“Most adverse events related to teplizumab were mechanism-based, predictable, transient, and manageable,” Chief Medical Officer of Provention Bio, Eleanor Ramos, MD, said.

Among other safety issues that concerned the panel, diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) was seen in 2.3% of 773 teplizumab recipients with new-onset type 1 diabetes versus just 1% among the 245 controls, a significant, nearly sixfold increase. No DKA occurred in the TN-10 trial. No clear explanation was offered for the imbalance in the meta-analysis.

Cytokine release syndrome occurred in 0.6% of patients who received teplizumab versus no controls, and infections in 3.4% versus 2.0%, respectively.

Approximately 10% of patients were not able to complete the treatment course because of protocol-directed withdrawal criteria, which included elevations in bilirubin or liver enzymes, or drops in platelet count, neutrophils, or hemoglobin, FDA reviewer Lauren Wood Heickman, MD, noted.

There was only one malignancy, a melanoma in a patient with a preexisting lesion, but malignancy is a theoretical concern with long-term immunosuppression, Dr. Heickman said.

Despite the concerns about the data, panel members expressed unanimous appreciation for the 18 people who spoke during public comments attesting to the lifelong burdens involved in living with type 1 diabetes who urged the FDA to approve teplizumab.

Many of them noted that even a 2-year reprieve from the burden of constant attention to managing blood glucose can make a major difference in the life of a young person. The speakers included physicians, parents of children with type 1 diabetes, adults who have the condition themselves and who worry about their children getting it, and researchers in the field.
 

Panel members describe ‘struggle’ with vote decision

Panel member Michael Blaha, MD, of Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, voted in favor of teplizumab approval. However, he said, “I was very conflicted on this one and my ‘yes’ is very qualified. In my opinion the risk-benefit is very narrow, and I would only approve this drug for the exact indication of the trial. ... Patients who don’t fit the criteria could hopefully be enrolled in a second confirmatory trial.”

He also advised an extensive Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategies program to look for both short- and long-term adverse effects.

“My overall take on this is that I do think it’s a promising paradigm-shifting therapy that really needs to move forward, at least scientifically. I’m excited about it, but I have a lot of skepticism about the entire body of data to make any more than the most narrow of approval,” Dr. Blaha said.  

Susan S. Ellenberg, PhD, professor of biostatistics, medical ethics, and health policy at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, voted yes but also with difficulty.

“I really struggled with it. ... I was pushed by the very encouraging results of what is admittedly a very small study and something I can’t feel is completely definitive. But I would not like to deny the kind of people that we heard from today the opportunity to weigh their own risks and benefits to try this. And I would certainly agree that a very, very rigorous postmarketing program, preferably including another controlled trial, should be carried out.”

But David M. Nathan, MD, director of the Diabetes Center and Clinical Research Center, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, voted no.

“I struggled with this vote, tremendously, having listened carefully to the patients with type 1 diabetes ... but that said, having done clinical research for 40 years in type 1 diabetes, I think we need more data, both in terms of efficacy and of safety. I would hate a number of years down the road to figure out that we actually caused more harm than good, especially keeping in mind that the treatment of type 1 diabetes is evolving rapidly.”

A different perspective came from Mara L. Becker, MD, vice chair of the department of pediatric rheumatology at Duke University, Durham, N.C. She voted yes, pointing out that she’s accustomed to prescribing biologics for chronic conditions in children.

“I was unconflicted in my vote, which was yes. I thought the data ... were convincing and the need is great. I would support a label for children [aged 8 years] and older with at least stage 2 disease ... and I would require postmarketing safety surveillance to understand what the long-term side effects could be, but I would still be in favor of it.”

FDA advisory panel committee members are vetted for conflicts of interest and waivers granted for participation if necessary; none were granted for this meeting.

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

A Food and Drug Administration advisory panel has voted narrowly to recommend approval of the monoclonal antibody teplizumab (Tzield, Provention Bio) for the delay of type 1 diabetes in at-risk individuals.

The 10-7 vote of the FDA’s endocrinologic and metabolic drugs advisory committee on May 27 reflected a difficult decision-making process on the part of many members to weigh the benefits of a potential 2-year delay in the onset of type 1 diabetes against both observed and theoretical risks, as well as what most considered to be insufficient data.

Regardless of their vote, nearly all panel members advised the FDA that the company should be required to conduct at least one additional larger long-term efficacy and safety trial to satisfy what they felt were major gaps in the data. Some advised that use of the drug be restricted to a very narrow group of recipients until efficacy and safety can be better established.

If approved, teplizumab, which interferes with T cell–mediated autoimmune destruction of pancreatic beta cells, would be the first disease-modifying therapy for impeding progression of type 1 diabetes. The proposed indication is for individuals who have two or more type 1 diabetes-associated autoantibodies and subclinical dysglycemia.

That “stage 2” or “at-risk” condition is associated with a nearly 100% lifetime risk of progression to clinical (“stage 3”) type 1 diabetes and a 75% risk of developing the disease within 5 years. As of now, most such individuals are first-degree relatives of people with type 1 diabetes identified through TrialNet.
 

What’s the evidence to support approval so far?

In 2019, a pivotal phase 2 randomized, placebo-controlled TN-10 trial involving 76 at-risk children and adults ages 8 years and older showed that a single 14-day treatment of daily intravenous infusions of teplizumab in 44 patients resulted in a significant median 2-year delay to onset of clinical type 1 diabetes, compared with 32 who received placebo. Further follow-up data continue to show that fewer patients who received teplizumab have progressed to clinical type 1 diabetes.

While most advisory panelists agreed that the TN-10 study demonstrated efficacy, several also said that the sample size was insufficient and at least one additional randomized trial should be conducted to replicate the findings.

Although the FDA typically requires companies to demonstrate a drug’s effectiveness with at least two separate clinical trials, the agency allows companies to substitute other forms of data for a second randomized clinical trial, such as study results for the drug in a closely related condition, mechanistic data, or knowledge of other drugs from the same class.

In this case, Provention’s submission included as “confirmatory” evidence a meta-analysis of data from five earlier randomized trials (three placebo controlled, two open label) of a total 942 individuals with newly diagnosed type 1 diabetes (“stage 3”) who received either one or two 14-day teplizumab courses (n = 729) or placebo. These showed consistent preservation of C-peptide, a surrogate marker of beta-cell function, along with lower mean insulin use.

Several panel members expressed dissatisfaction with those confirmatory data, noting the patient population was different from those for which the company is currently seeking the indication, and that C-peptide is an inadequate endpoint for demonstrating efficacy.
 

Safety: Adverse events mostly transient, but unanswered questions

Adverse events reported in at least 10% of teplizumab recipients included lymphopenia (76.8% vs. 9.4% placebo; relative risk, 8.2), leukopenia (82.1% vs. 24.1%; RR, 3.4), and rash (44.5% vs. 9.0%; RR, 4.9).

“Most adverse events related to teplizumab were mechanism-based, predictable, transient, and manageable,” Chief Medical Officer of Provention Bio, Eleanor Ramos, MD, said.

Among other safety issues that concerned the panel, diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) was seen in 2.3% of 773 teplizumab recipients with new-onset type 1 diabetes versus just 1% among the 245 controls, a significant, nearly sixfold increase. No DKA occurred in the TN-10 trial. No clear explanation was offered for the imbalance in the meta-analysis.

Cytokine release syndrome occurred in 0.6% of patients who received teplizumab versus no controls, and infections in 3.4% versus 2.0%, respectively.

Approximately 10% of patients were not able to complete the treatment course because of protocol-directed withdrawal criteria, which included elevations in bilirubin or liver enzymes, or drops in platelet count, neutrophils, or hemoglobin, FDA reviewer Lauren Wood Heickman, MD, noted.

There was only one malignancy, a melanoma in a patient with a preexisting lesion, but malignancy is a theoretical concern with long-term immunosuppression, Dr. Heickman said.

Despite the concerns about the data, panel members expressed unanimous appreciation for the 18 people who spoke during public comments attesting to the lifelong burdens involved in living with type 1 diabetes who urged the FDA to approve teplizumab.

Many of them noted that even a 2-year reprieve from the burden of constant attention to managing blood glucose can make a major difference in the life of a young person. The speakers included physicians, parents of children with type 1 diabetes, adults who have the condition themselves and who worry about their children getting it, and researchers in the field.
 

Panel members describe ‘struggle’ with vote decision

Panel member Michael Blaha, MD, of Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, voted in favor of teplizumab approval. However, he said, “I was very conflicted on this one and my ‘yes’ is very qualified. In my opinion the risk-benefit is very narrow, and I would only approve this drug for the exact indication of the trial. ... Patients who don’t fit the criteria could hopefully be enrolled in a second confirmatory trial.”

He also advised an extensive Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategies program to look for both short- and long-term adverse effects.

“My overall take on this is that I do think it’s a promising paradigm-shifting therapy that really needs to move forward, at least scientifically. I’m excited about it, but I have a lot of skepticism about the entire body of data to make any more than the most narrow of approval,” Dr. Blaha said.  

Susan S. Ellenberg, PhD, professor of biostatistics, medical ethics, and health policy at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, voted yes but also with difficulty.

“I really struggled with it. ... I was pushed by the very encouraging results of what is admittedly a very small study and something I can’t feel is completely definitive. But I would not like to deny the kind of people that we heard from today the opportunity to weigh their own risks and benefits to try this. And I would certainly agree that a very, very rigorous postmarketing program, preferably including another controlled trial, should be carried out.”

But David M. Nathan, MD, director of the Diabetes Center and Clinical Research Center, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, voted no.

“I struggled with this vote, tremendously, having listened carefully to the patients with type 1 diabetes ... but that said, having done clinical research for 40 years in type 1 diabetes, I think we need more data, both in terms of efficacy and of safety. I would hate a number of years down the road to figure out that we actually caused more harm than good, especially keeping in mind that the treatment of type 1 diabetes is evolving rapidly.”

A different perspective came from Mara L. Becker, MD, vice chair of the department of pediatric rheumatology at Duke University, Durham, N.C. She voted yes, pointing out that she’s accustomed to prescribing biologics for chronic conditions in children.

“I was unconflicted in my vote, which was yes. I thought the data ... were convincing and the need is great. I would support a label for children [aged 8 years] and older with at least stage 2 disease ... and I would require postmarketing safety surveillance to understand what the long-term side effects could be, but I would still be in favor of it.”

FDA advisory panel committee members are vetted for conflicts of interest and waivers granted for participation if necessary; none were granted for this meeting.

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

A Food and Drug Administration advisory panel has voted narrowly to recommend approval of the monoclonal antibody teplizumab (Tzield, Provention Bio) for the delay of type 1 diabetes in at-risk individuals.

The 10-7 vote of the FDA’s endocrinologic and metabolic drugs advisory committee on May 27 reflected a difficult decision-making process on the part of many members to weigh the benefits of a potential 2-year delay in the onset of type 1 diabetes against both observed and theoretical risks, as well as what most considered to be insufficient data.

Regardless of their vote, nearly all panel members advised the FDA that the company should be required to conduct at least one additional larger long-term efficacy and safety trial to satisfy what they felt were major gaps in the data. Some advised that use of the drug be restricted to a very narrow group of recipients until efficacy and safety can be better established.

If approved, teplizumab, which interferes with T cell–mediated autoimmune destruction of pancreatic beta cells, would be the first disease-modifying therapy for impeding progression of type 1 diabetes. The proposed indication is for individuals who have two or more type 1 diabetes-associated autoantibodies and subclinical dysglycemia.

That “stage 2” or “at-risk” condition is associated with a nearly 100% lifetime risk of progression to clinical (“stage 3”) type 1 diabetes and a 75% risk of developing the disease within 5 years. As of now, most such individuals are first-degree relatives of people with type 1 diabetes identified through TrialNet.
 

What’s the evidence to support approval so far?

In 2019, a pivotal phase 2 randomized, placebo-controlled TN-10 trial involving 76 at-risk children and adults ages 8 years and older showed that a single 14-day treatment of daily intravenous infusions of teplizumab in 44 patients resulted in a significant median 2-year delay to onset of clinical type 1 diabetes, compared with 32 who received placebo. Further follow-up data continue to show that fewer patients who received teplizumab have progressed to clinical type 1 diabetes.

While most advisory panelists agreed that the TN-10 study demonstrated efficacy, several also said that the sample size was insufficient and at least one additional randomized trial should be conducted to replicate the findings.

Although the FDA typically requires companies to demonstrate a drug’s effectiveness with at least two separate clinical trials, the agency allows companies to substitute other forms of data for a second randomized clinical trial, such as study results for the drug in a closely related condition, mechanistic data, or knowledge of other drugs from the same class.

In this case, Provention’s submission included as “confirmatory” evidence a meta-analysis of data from five earlier randomized trials (three placebo controlled, two open label) of a total 942 individuals with newly diagnosed type 1 diabetes (“stage 3”) who received either one or two 14-day teplizumab courses (n = 729) or placebo. These showed consistent preservation of C-peptide, a surrogate marker of beta-cell function, along with lower mean insulin use.

Several panel members expressed dissatisfaction with those confirmatory data, noting the patient population was different from those for which the company is currently seeking the indication, and that C-peptide is an inadequate endpoint for demonstrating efficacy.
 

Safety: Adverse events mostly transient, but unanswered questions

Adverse events reported in at least 10% of teplizumab recipients included lymphopenia (76.8% vs. 9.4% placebo; relative risk, 8.2), leukopenia (82.1% vs. 24.1%; RR, 3.4), and rash (44.5% vs. 9.0%; RR, 4.9).

“Most adverse events related to teplizumab were mechanism-based, predictable, transient, and manageable,” Chief Medical Officer of Provention Bio, Eleanor Ramos, MD, said.

Among other safety issues that concerned the panel, diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) was seen in 2.3% of 773 teplizumab recipients with new-onset type 1 diabetes versus just 1% among the 245 controls, a significant, nearly sixfold increase. No DKA occurred in the TN-10 trial. No clear explanation was offered for the imbalance in the meta-analysis.

Cytokine release syndrome occurred in 0.6% of patients who received teplizumab versus no controls, and infections in 3.4% versus 2.0%, respectively.

Approximately 10% of patients were not able to complete the treatment course because of protocol-directed withdrawal criteria, which included elevations in bilirubin or liver enzymes, or drops in platelet count, neutrophils, or hemoglobin, FDA reviewer Lauren Wood Heickman, MD, noted.

There was only one malignancy, a melanoma in a patient with a preexisting lesion, but malignancy is a theoretical concern with long-term immunosuppression, Dr. Heickman said.

Despite the concerns about the data, panel members expressed unanimous appreciation for the 18 people who spoke during public comments attesting to the lifelong burdens involved in living with type 1 diabetes who urged the FDA to approve teplizumab.

Many of them noted that even a 2-year reprieve from the burden of constant attention to managing blood glucose can make a major difference in the life of a young person. The speakers included physicians, parents of children with type 1 diabetes, adults who have the condition themselves and who worry about their children getting it, and researchers in the field.
 

Panel members describe ‘struggle’ with vote decision

Panel member Michael Blaha, MD, of Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, voted in favor of teplizumab approval. However, he said, “I was very conflicted on this one and my ‘yes’ is very qualified. In my opinion the risk-benefit is very narrow, and I would only approve this drug for the exact indication of the trial. ... Patients who don’t fit the criteria could hopefully be enrolled in a second confirmatory trial.”

He also advised an extensive Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategies program to look for both short- and long-term adverse effects.

“My overall take on this is that I do think it’s a promising paradigm-shifting therapy that really needs to move forward, at least scientifically. I’m excited about it, but I have a lot of skepticism about the entire body of data to make any more than the most narrow of approval,” Dr. Blaha said.  

Susan S. Ellenberg, PhD, professor of biostatistics, medical ethics, and health policy at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, voted yes but also with difficulty.

“I really struggled with it. ... I was pushed by the very encouraging results of what is admittedly a very small study and something I can’t feel is completely definitive. But I would not like to deny the kind of people that we heard from today the opportunity to weigh their own risks and benefits to try this. And I would certainly agree that a very, very rigorous postmarketing program, preferably including another controlled trial, should be carried out.”

But David M. Nathan, MD, director of the Diabetes Center and Clinical Research Center, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, voted no.

“I struggled with this vote, tremendously, having listened carefully to the patients with type 1 diabetes ... but that said, having done clinical research for 40 years in type 1 diabetes, I think we need more data, both in terms of efficacy and of safety. I would hate a number of years down the road to figure out that we actually caused more harm than good, especially keeping in mind that the treatment of type 1 diabetes is evolving rapidly.”

A different perspective came from Mara L. Becker, MD, vice chair of the department of pediatric rheumatology at Duke University, Durham, N.C. She voted yes, pointing out that she’s accustomed to prescribing biologics for chronic conditions in children.

“I was unconflicted in my vote, which was yes. I thought the data ... were convincing and the need is great. I would support a label for children [aged 8 years] and older with at least stage 2 disease ... and I would require postmarketing safety surveillance to understand what the long-term side effects could be, but I would still be in favor of it.”

FDA advisory panel committee members are vetted for conflicts of interest and waivers granted for participation if necessary; none were granted for this meeting.

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