President Donald Trump repeatedly talks tough about reining in the pharmaceutical industry, but his administration’s efforts to lower drug prices are shrouded in secrecy.

Senior administrative officials met Friday to discuss an executive order on the cost of pharmaceuticals, a roundtable informed by Trump’s “Drug Pricing and Innovation Working Group.” Kaiser Health News examined documents that shed light on the workings of this working group.

The documents reveal behind-the-scenes discussions that are influenced by the pharmaceutical industry. Joe Grogan, associate director of health programs for the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), has led the group. Until March, Grogan served as a lobbyist for Gilead Sciences, the pharmaceutical company that priced its hepatitis C drugs at $1,000 per pill.

To solve the crisis of high drug prices, the group discussed strengthening the monopoly rights of pharmaceuticals overseas, ending discounts for low-income hospitals and accelerating drug approvals by the Food and Drug Administration. The White House declined to comment on the working group.

The group initially met May 4 in the Eisenhower Executive Office Building and has since met every two weeks. In addition to OMB, the working group includes officials from the White House National Economic Council, the Domestic Policy Council, Health and Human Services, the FDA, the Federal Trade Commission, the Department of Commerce, the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative and the Department of Justice.

According to the documents – the latest of which is dated June 1– the working group focused on the following “principles” and “talking points”:

1. Extending the patent life of drugs in foreign markets to “provide for protection and enforcement of intellectual property rights.” This will ensure “that American consumers do not unfairly subsidize research and development for people throughout the globe.” Extending monopoly protections for drugs overseas has been one of the pharmaceutical industry’s top priorities since the Trans-Pacific Partnership was defeated last year. That policy would push up global drug prices, according to Médecins Sans Frontières.

2. Promoting competition in the U.S. drug market – both by “modernizing our regulatory and reimbursement systems” and limiting “barrier to entry, including the cost of research and development,” according to the documents. The working group also discussed two broad policy ideas that have been championed by the pharmaceutical industry, according to sources familiar with the process:

3. Value-based pricing, under which pharmaceutical companies keep the list prices of drugs unchanged but offer rebates if patients don’t improve, is one option. It’s unclear who would audit the effectiveness of the drugs, what criteria they would use to evaluate them, and who would receive the rebates. Grogan invited Robert Shapiro – an adviser for Gilead and former secretary of Commerce under President Bill Clinton – to brief the working group on value-based pricing on May 18. Shapiro is the chairman and cofounder of Sonecon, a Washington, D.C., firm that consulted with Gilead, Amgen, and PhRMA, according to his curriculum vitae.

4. Grogan and Shapiro also discussed issuing 10-year U.S. Treasury bonds to drug manufacturers to pay for expensive hepatitis C drugs like Sovaldi and Harvoni under Medicare and Medicaid, to avoid rationing drugs to the sickest patients. The 2015 Senate investigation, for example, found that, though Medicaid spent more than $1 billion on Sovaldi, just 2.4% of Medicaid patients with hepatitis C were treated.

After the working group’s first meeting on May 4, Grogan distributed detailed policy recommendations on options for expediting generic drug approvals, creating a new tax credit “of up to 50%” for investments in generic drug manufacturing, distribution, and research and development. The documents also propose scaling back the 340B program, which requires drug manufacturers to provide some medicines at a discount to hospitals that treat low-income patients.

Most of these policies would not ease patient costs, and at least one would increase prices, said experts who reviewed the documents at the request of Kaiser Health News.

“This six-page document contains the kinds of solutions to the cost-of-drugs problem that you would get if you gathered together all the executives of pharma and asked them ‘What sort of token gestures can we do?’ ” said Vinay Prasad, MD, a professor of medicine at Oregon Health and Sciences University who studies the costs of cancer drugs.

The pharma-friendly recommendations appear to clash with earlier press reports indicating that OMB Director Mick Mulvaney was considering requiring drug makers to pay rebates to Medicare patients, a measure the pharmaceutical lobby fiercely opposes.

Brand-name drug prices – which account for 72% of drug spending – go untouched in the handouts, said Fiona Scott Morton, PhD, a Yale economics professor and former attorney with the Justice Department’s antitrust division.

“The changes to generic markets to promote competition look helpful, but there need to be some more ideas to create more competition for branded drugs or consumers aren’t really going to notice this,” Scott Morton said.

Some of the text in the document is cribbed directly from policy papers published by the pharmaceutical industry’s powerful lobby – Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers Association (PhRMA).

Under the subtitle, “Encourage Use of 21st Century Tools for Drug Evaluation, Review, and Approval,” one handout proposes the FDA use less rigorous clinical trial standards to speed drug approvals.

The handout cites a PhRMA paper from March 2016 that includes an identical subtitle, “Encourage Use of 21st Century Tools for Drug Evaluation, Review, and Approval” and recommends the FDA implement less rigorous clinical trial standards.

These recommendations would not lower drug prices, experts say. Such measures “would be like a firefighter spraying gasoline on your burning garage,” Prasad said.

Another section – which recommends giving the FDA more discretion to evaluate generic copies of complex drugs – closely resembles a National Law Review article written by two lobbyists in the pharmaceutical division of Foley & Lardner, whose clients include generic drug makers.

The handouts further recommend allowing drug makers to supply data and off-label information to insurers and pharmacy benefit managers during the clinical trial period, before they secure FDA approval.

That’s a “terrible idea,” said Jerry Avorn, MD, a professor at Harvard Medical School and the chief of the Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics at Brigham and Women’s Hospital. “That’s why we have the whole approval process, to determine what’s actually true,” he said.

KHN’s coverage of prescription drug development, costs and pricing is supported in part by the Laura and John Arnold Foundation. Kaiser Health News is a national health policy news service that is part of the nonpartisan Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation.

President Donald Trump repeatedly talks tough about reining in the pharmaceutical industry, but his administration’s efforts to lower drug prices are shrouded in secrecy.

Senior administrative officials met Friday to discuss an executive order on the cost of pharmaceuticals, a roundtable informed by Trump’s “Drug Pricing and Innovation Working Group.” Kaiser Health News examined documents that shed light on the workings of this working group.

The documents reveal behind-the-scenes discussions that are influenced by the pharmaceutical industry. Joe Grogan, associate director of health programs for the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), has led the group. Until March, Grogan served as a lobbyist for Gilead Sciences, the pharmaceutical company that priced its hepatitis C drugs at $1,000 per pill.

To solve the crisis of high drug prices, the group discussed strengthening the monopoly rights of pharmaceuticals overseas, ending discounts for low-income hospitals and accelerating drug approvals by the Food and Drug Administration. The White House declined to comment on the working group.

The group initially met May 4 in the Eisenhower Executive Office Building and has since met every two weeks. In addition to OMB, the working group includes officials from the White House National Economic Council, the Domestic Policy Council, Health and Human Services, the FDA, the Federal Trade Commission, the Department of Commerce, the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative and the Department of Justice.

According to the documents – the latest of which is dated June 1– the working group focused on the following “principles” and “talking points”:

1. Extending the patent life of drugs in foreign markets to “provide for protection and enforcement of intellectual property rights.” This will ensure “that American consumers do not unfairly subsidize research and development for people throughout the globe.” Extending monopoly protections for drugs overseas has been one of the pharmaceutical industry’s top priorities since the Trans-Pacific Partnership was defeated last year. That policy would push up global drug prices, according to Médecins Sans Frontières.

2. Promoting competition in the U.S. drug market – both by “modernizing our regulatory and reimbursement systems” and limiting “barrier to entry, including the cost of research and development,” according to the documents. The working group also discussed two broad policy ideas that have been championed by the pharmaceutical industry, according to sources familiar with the process:

3. Value-based pricing, under which pharmaceutical companies keep the list prices of drugs unchanged but offer rebates if patients don’t improve, is one option. It’s unclear who would audit the effectiveness of the drugs, what criteria they would use to evaluate them, and who would receive the rebates. Grogan invited Robert Shapiro – an adviser for Gilead and former secretary of Commerce under President Bill Clinton – to brief the working group on value-based pricing on May 18. Shapiro is the chairman and cofounder of Sonecon, a Washington, D.C., firm that consulted with Gilead, Amgen, and PhRMA, according to his curriculum vitae.

4. Grogan and Shapiro also discussed issuing 10-year U.S. Treasury bonds to drug manufacturers to pay for expensive hepatitis C drugs like Sovaldi and Harvoni under Medicare and Medicaid, to avoid rationing drugs to the sickest patients. The 2015 Senate investigation, for example, found that, though Medicaid spent more than $1 billion on Sovaldi, just 2.4% of Medicaid patients with hepatitis C were treated.

After the working group’s first meeting on May 4, Grogan distributed detailed policy recommendations on options for expediting generic drug approvals, creating a new tax credit “of up to 50%” for investments in generic drug manufacturing, distribution, and research and development. The documents also propose scaling back the 340B program, which requires drug manufacturers to provide some medicines at a discount to hospitals that treat low-income patients.

Most of these policies would not ease patient costs, and at least one would increase prices, said experts who reviewed the documents at the request of Kaiser Health News.

“This six-page document contains the kinds of solutions to the cost-of-drugs problem that you would get if you gathered together all the executives of pharma and asked them ‘What sort of token gestures can we do?’ ” said Vinay Prasad, MD, a professor of medicine at Oregon Health and Sciences University who studies the costs of cancer drugs.

The pharma-friendly recommendations appear to clash with earlier press reports indicating that OMB Director Mick Mulvaney was considering requiring drug makers to pay rebates to Medicare patients, a measure the pharmaceutical lobby fiercely opposes.

Brand-name drug prices – which account for 72% of drug spending – go untouched in the handouts, said Fiona Scott Morton, PhD, a Yale economics professor and former attorney with the Justice Department’s antitrust division.

“The changes to generic markets to promote competition look helpful, but there need to be some more ideas to create more competition for branded drugs or consumers aren’t really going to notice this,” Scott Morton said.

Some of the text in the document is cribbed directly from policy papers published by the pharmaceutical industry’s powerful lobby – Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers Association (PhRMA).

Under the subtitle, “Encourage Use of 21st Century Tools for Drug Evaluation, Review, and Approval,” one handout proposes the FDA use less rigorous clinical trial standards to speed drug approvals.

The handout cites a PhRMA paper from March 2016 that includes an identical subtitle, “Encourage Use of 21st Century Tools for Drug Evaluation, Review, and Approval” and recommends the FDA implement less rigorous clinical trial standards.

These recommendations would not lower drug prices, experts say. Such measures “would be like a firefighter spraying gasoline on your burning garage,” Prasad said.

Another section – which recommends giving the FDA more discretion to evaluate generic copies of complex drugs – closely resembles a National Law Review article written by two lobbyists in the pharmaceutical division of Foley & Lardner, whose clients include generic drug makers.

The handouts further recommend allowing drug makers to supply data and off-label information to insurers and pharmacy benefit managers during the clinical trial period, before they secure FDA approval.

That’s a “terrible idea,” said Jerry Avorn, MD, a professor at Harvard Medical School and the chief of the Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics at Brigham and Women’s Hospital. “That’s why we have the whole approval process, to determine what’s actually true,” he said.

KHN’s coverage of prescription drug development, costs and pricing is supported in part by the Laura and John Arnold Foundation. Kaiser Health News is a national health policy news service that is part of the nonpartisan Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation.

President Donald Trump repeatedly talks tough about reining in the pharmaceutical industry, but his administration’s efforts to lower drug prices are shrouded in secrecy.

Senior administrative officials met Friday to discuss an executive order on the cost of pharmaceuticals, a roundtable informed by Trump’s “Drug Pricing and Innovation Working Group.” Kaiser Health News examined documents that shed light on the workings of this working group.

The documents reveal behind-the-scenes discussions that are influenced by the pharmaceutical industry. Joe Grogan, associate director of health programs for the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), has led the group. Until March, Grogan served as a lobbyist for Gilead Sciences, the pharmaceutical company that priced its hepatitis C drugs at $1,000 per pill.

To solve the crisis of high drug prices, the group discussed strengthening the monopoly rights of pharmaceuticals overseas, ending discounts for low-income hospitals and accelerating drug approvals by the Food and Drug Administration. The White House declined to comment on the working group.

The group initially met May 4 in the Eisenhower Executive Office Building and has since met every two weeks. In addition to OMB, the working group includes officials from the White House National Economic Council, the Domestic Policy Council, Health and Human Services, the FDA, the Federal Trade Commission, the Department of Commerce, the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative and the Department of Justice.

According to the documents – the latest of which is dated June 1– the working group focused on the following “principles” and “talking points”:

1. Extending the patent life of drugs in foreign markets to “provide for protection and enforcement of intellectual property rights.” This will ensure “that American consumers do not unfairly subsidize research and development for people throughout the globe.” Extending monopoly protections for drugs overseas has been one of the pharmaceutical industry’s top priorities since the Trans-Pacific Partnership was defeated last year. That policy would push up global drug prices, according to Médecins Sans Frontières.

2. Promoting competition in the U.S. drug market – both by “modernizing our regulatory and reimbursement systems” and limiting “barrier to entry, including the cost of research and development,” according to the documents. The working group also discussed two broad policy ideas that have been championed by the pharmaceutical industry, according to sources familiar with the process:

3. Value-based pricing, under which pharmaceutical companies keep the list prices of drugs unchanged but offer rebates if patients don’t improve, is one option. It’s unclear who would audit the effectiveness of the drugs, what criteria they would use to evaluate them, and who would receive the rebates. Grogan invited Robert Shapiro – an adviser for Gilead and former secretary of Commerce under President Bill Clinton – to brief the working group on value-based pricing on May 18. Shapiro is the chairman and cofounder of Sonecon, a Washington, D.C., firm that consulted with Gilead, Amgen, and PhRMA, according to his curriculum vitae.

4. Grogan and Shapiro also discussed issuing 10-year U.S. Treasury bonds to drug manufacturers to pay for expensive hepatitis C drugs like Sovaldi and Harvoni under Medicare and Medicaid, to avoid rationing drugs to the sickest patients. The 2015 Senate investigation, for example, found that, though Medicaid spent more than $1 billion on Sovaldi, just 2.4% of Medicaid patients with hepatitis C were treated.

After the working group’s first meeting on May 4, Grogan distributed detailed policy recommendations on options for expediting generic drug approvals, creating a new tax credit “of up to 50%” for investments in generic drug manufacturing, distribution, and research and development. The documents also propose scaling back the 340B program, which requires drug manufacturers to provide some medicines at a discount to hospitals that treat low-income patients.

Most of these policies would not ease patient costs, and at least one would increase prices, said experts who reviewed the documents at the request of Kaiser Health News.

“This six-page document contains the kinds of solutions to the cost-of-drugs problem that you would get if you gathered together all the executives of pharma and asked them ‘What sort of token gestures can we do?’ ” said Vinay Prasad, MD, a professor of medicine at Oregon Health and Sciences University who studies the costs of cancer drugs.

The pharma-friendly recommendations appear to clash with earlier press reports indicating that OMB Director Mick Mulvaney was considering requiring drug makers to pay rebates to Medicare patients, a measure the pharmaceutical lobby fiercely opposes.

Brand-name drug prices – which account for 72% of drug spending – go untouched in the handouts, said Fiona Scott Morton, PhD, a Yale economics professor and former attorney with the Justice Department’s antitrust division.

“The changes to generic markets to promote competition look helpful, but there need to be some more ideas to create more competition for branded drugs or consumers aren’t really going to notice this,” Scott Morton said.

Some of the text in the document is cribbed directly from policy papers published by the pharmaceutical industry’s powerful lobby – Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers Association (PhRMA).

Under the subtitle, “Encourage Use of 21st Century Tools for Drug Evaluation, Review, and Approval,” one handout proposes the FDA use less rigorous clinical trial standards to speed drug approvals.

The handout cites a PhRMA paper from March 2016 that includes an identical subtitle, “Encourage Use of 21st Century Tools for Drug Evaluation, Review, and Approval” and recommends the FDA implement less rigorous clinical trial standards.

These recommendations would not lower drug prices, experts say. Such measures “would be like a firefighter spraying gasoline on your burning garage,” Prasad said.

Another section – which recommends giving the FDA more discretion to evaluate generic copies of complex drugs – closely resembles a National Law Review article written by two lobbyists in the pharmaceutical division of Foley & Lardner, whose clients include generic drug makers.

The handouts further recommend allowing drug makers to supply data and off-label information to insurers and pharmacy benefit managers during the clinical trial period, before they secure FDA approval.

That’s a “terrible idea,” said Jerry Avorn, MD, a professor at Harvard Medical School and the chief of the Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics at Brigham and Women’s Hospital. “That’s why we have the whole approval process, to determine what’s actually true,” he said.

KHN’s coverage of prescription drug development, costs and pricing is supported in part by the Laura and John Arnold Foundation. Kaiser Health News is a national health policy news service that is part of the nonpartisan Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation.

Anyone following the debate over the “repeal and replace” of the Affordable Care Act knows that the 13 Republican senators writing the bill are meeting behind closed doors.

While Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) continues to push for a vote before the July 4 Senate recess, Washington’s favorite parlor game has become guessing what is, or will be, in the Senate bill.

Spoiler: No one knows what the final Senate bill will look like – not even those writing it.

“It’s an iterative process,” Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn (R-Texas) told Politico, adding that senators in the room are sending options to the Congressional Budget Office to try to figure out, in general, how much they would cost. Those conversations between senators and the CBO – common for lawmakers working on major, complex pieces of legislation – sometimes prompt members to press through and other times to change course.

Although specifics, to the extent there are any, have largely stayed secret, some of the policies under consideration have slipped out, and pressure points of the debate are fairly clear. Anything can happen, but here’s what we know so far:

1. Medicaid expansion

The Republicans are determined to roll back the expansion of Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act. The question is, How to do it? The ACA called for an expansion of the Medicaid program for those with low incomes to everyone who earns less than 133% of poverty (around $16,000 a year for an individual), with the federal government footing much of the bill. The Supreme Court ruled in 2012 that the expansion was optional for states, but 31 have done so, providing new coverage to an estimated 14 million people.

The Republican bill passed by the House on May 4 would phase out the federal funding for those made eligible by the ACA over 2 years, beginning in 2020. But, Republican moderates in the Senate want a much slower end to the additional federal aid. Several have suggested that they could accept a 7-year phaseout.

Keeping the federal expansion money flowing that long, however, would cut into the bill’s budget savings. That matters: In order to protect the Senate’s ability to pass the bill under budget rules that require only a simple majority rather than 60 votes, the bill’s savings must at least match those of the House version. Any extra money spent on Medicaid expansion would have to be cut elsewhere.

2. Medicaid caps

A related issue is whether and at what level to cap federal Medicaid spending. Medicaid currently covers more than 70 million low-income people. Medicaid covers half of all births and half of the nation’s bill for long-term care, including nursing home stays. Right now, the federal government matches whatever states spend at least 50-50 and provides more matching funds for less wealthy states.

The House bill would, for the first time, cap the amount the federal government provides to states for their Medicaid programs. The CBO estimated that the caps would put more of the financial burden for the program on states, which would respond by a combination of cutting payments to health care providers like doctors and hospitals, eliminating benefits for patients, and restricting eligibility.

The Medicaid cap may or may not be included in the Senate bill, depending on whom you ask. However, sources with direct knowledge of the negotiations say the real sticking point is not whether or not to impose a cap – they want to do that. The hurdles are how to be fair to states that get less federal money and how fast the caps should rise.

Again, if the Senate proposal is more generous than the House’s version, it will be harder to meet the bill’s required budget targets.

3. Restrictions on abortion coverage

The senators are actively considering two measures that would limit funding for abortions, though it is not clear if either would be allowed to remain in the bill according to the Senate’s rules. The Senate Parliamentarian, who must review the bill after the senators complete it but before it comes to the floor, will decide.

The House-passed bill would ban the use of federal tax credits to purchase private coverage that includes abortion as a benefit. This is a key demand for a large portion of the Republican base. However, the Senate version of the bill must abide by strict rules that limit its content to provisions that directly impact the federal budget. In the past, abortion language in budget bills has been ruled out of order.

4. Reading between the lines

A related issue is whether House language to temporarily bar Planned Parenthood from participating in the Medicaid program will be allowed in the Senate.

While the Parliamentarian allowed identical language defunding Planned Parenthood to remain in a similar budget bill in 2015, it was not clear at the time that Planned Parenthood would have been the only provider affected by the language. Planned Parenthood backers say they will argue to the Parliamentarian that the budget impact of the language is “merely incidental” to the policy aim and, therefore, should not be allowed in the Senate bill.

5. Insurance market reforms

Senators are also struggling with provisions of the House-passed bill that would allow states to waive certain insurance requirements in the Affordable Care Act, including those laying out “essential” benefits that policies must cover and those banning insurers from charging sicker people higher premiums. That language, as well as an amendment seeking to ensure more funding to help people with preexisting conditions, was instrumental in gaining enough votes for the bill to pass the House.

Eliminating insurance regulations imposed by the ACA is a top priority for conservatives. “Conservatives would like to clear the books of Obamacare’s most costly regulations and free the states to regulate their markets how they wish,” wrote Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah), who is one of the 13 senators negotiating the details of the bill, in an op-ed in May.

However, budget experts suggest that none of the insurance market provisions is likely to clear the Parliamentarian hurdle as being primarily budget-related.

Kaiser Health News is a national health policy news service that is part of the nonpartisan Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation.

Anyone following the debate over the “repeal and replace” of the Affordable Care Act knows that the 13 Republican senators writing the bill are meeting behind closed doors.

While Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) continues to push for a vote before the July 4 Senate recess, Washington’s favorite parlor game has become guessing what is, or will be, in the Senate bill.

Spoiler: No one knows what the final Senate bill will look like – not even those writing it.

“It’s an iterative process,” Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn (R-Texas) told Politico, adding that senators in the room are sending options to the Congressional Budget Office to try to figure out, in general, how much they would cost. Those conversations between senators and the CBO – common for lawmakers working on major, complex pieces of legislation – sometimes prompt members to press through and other times to change course.

Although specifics, to the extent there are any, have largely stayed secret, some of the policies under consideration have slipped out, and pressure points of the debate are fairly clear. Anything can happen, but here’s what we know so far:

1. Medicaid expansion

The Republicans are determined to roll back the expansion of Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act. The question is, How to do it? The ACA called for an expansion of the Medicaid program for those with low incomes to everyone who earns less than 133% of poverty (around $16,000 a year for an individual), with the federal government footing much of the bill. The Supreme Court ruled in 2012 that the expansion was optional for states, but 31 have done so, providing new coverage to an estimated 14 million people.

The Republican bill passed by the House on May 4 would phase out the federal funding for those made eligible by the ACA over 2 years, beginning in 2020. But, Republican moderates in the Senate want a much slower end to the additional federal aid. Several have suggested that they could accept a 7-year phaseout.

Keeping the federal expansion money flowing that long, however, would cut into the bill’s budget savings. That matters: In order to protect the Senate’s ability to pass the bill under budget rules that require only a simple majority rather than 60 votes, the bill’s savings must at least match those of the House version. Any extra money spent on Medicaid expansion would have to be cut elsewhere.

2. Medicaid caps

A related issue is whether and at what level to cap federal Medicaid spending. Medicaid currently covers more than 70 million low-income people. Medicaid covers half of all births and half of the nation’s bill for long-term care, including nursing home stays. Right now, the federal government matches whatever states spend at least 50-50 and provides more matching funds for less wealthy states.

The House bill would, for the first time, cap the amount the federal government provides to states for their Medicaid programs. The CBO estimated that the caps would put more of the financial burden for the program on states, which would respond by a combination of cutting payments to health care providers like doctors and hospitals, eliminating benefits for patients, and restricting eligibility.

The Medicaid cap may or may not be included in the Senate bill, depending on whom you ask. However, sources with direct knowledge of the negotiations say the real sticking point is not whether or not to impose a cap – they want to do that. The hurdles are how to be fair to states that get less federal money and how fast the caps should rise.

Again, if the Senate proposal is more generous than the House’s version, it will be harder to meet the bill’s required budget targets.

3. Restrictions on abortion coverage

The senators are actively considering two measures that would limit funding for abortions, though it is not clear if either would be allowed to remain in the bill according to the Senate’s rules. The Senate Parliamentarian, who must review the bill after the senators complete it but before it comes to the floor, will decide.

The House-passed bill would ban the use of federal tax credits to purchase private coverage that includes abortion as a benefit. This is a key demand for a large portion of the Republican base. However, the Senate version of the bill must abide by strict rules that limit its content to provisions that directly impact the federal budget. In the past, abortion language in budget bills has been ruled out of order.

4. Reading between the lines

A related issue is whether House language to temporarily bar Planned Parenthood from participating in the Medicaid program will be allowed in the Senate.

While the Parliamentarian allowed identical language defunding Planned Parenthood to remain in a similar budget bill in 2015, it was not clear at the time that Planned Parenthood would have been the only provider affected by the language. Planned Parenthood backers say they will argue to the Parliamentarian that the budget impact of the language is “merely incidental” to the policy aim and, therefore, should not be allowed in the Senate bill.

5. Insurance market reforms

Senators are also struggling with provisions of the House-passed bill that would allow states to waive certain insurance requirements in the Affordable Care Act, including those laying out “essential” benefits that policies must cover and those banning insurers from charging sicker people higher premiums. That language, as well as an amendment seeking to ensure more funding to help people with preexisting conditions, was instrumental in gaining enough votes for the bill to pass the House.

Eliminating insurance regulations imposed by the ACA is a top priority for conservatives. “Conservatives would like to clear the books of Obamacare’s most costly regulations and free the states to regulate their markets how they wish,” wrote Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah), who is one of the 13 senators negotiating the details of the bill, in an op-ed in May.

However, budget experts suggest that none of the insurance market provisions is likely to clear the Parliamentarian hurdle as being primarily budget-related.

Kaiser Health News is a national health policy news service that is part of the nonpartisan Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation.

Anyone following the debate over the “repeal and replace” of the Affordable Care Act knows that the 13 Republican senators writing the bill are meeting behind closed doors.

While Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) continues to push for a vote before the July 4 Senate recess, Washington’s favorite parlor game has become guessing what is, or will be, in the Senate bill.

Spoiler: No one knows what the final Senate bill will look like – not even those writing it.

“It’s an iterative process,” Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn (R-Texas) told Politico, adding that senators in the room are sending options to the Congressional Budget Office to try to figure out, in general, how much they would cost. Those conversations between senators and the CBO – common for lawmakers working on major, complex pieces of legislation – sometimes prompt members to press through and other times to change course.

Although specifics, to the extent there are any, have largely stayed secret, some of the policies under consideration have slipped out, and pressure points of the debate are fairly clear. Anything can happen, but here’s what we know so far:

1. Medicaid expansion

The Republicans are determined to roll back the expansion of Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act. The question is, How to do it? The ACA called for an expansion of the Medicaid program for those with low incomes to everyone who earns less than 133% of poverty (around $16,000 a year for an individual), with the federal government footing much of the bill. The Supreme Court ruled in 2012 that the expansion was optional for states, but 31 have done so, providing new coverage to an estimated 14 million people.

The Republican bill passed by the House on May 4 would phase out the federal funding for those made eligible by the ACA over 2 years, beginning in 2020. But, Republican moderates in the Senate want a much slower end to the additional federal aid. Several have suggested that they could accept a 7-year phaseout.

Keeping the federal expansion money flowing that long, however, would cut into the bill’s budget savings. That matters: In order to protect the Senate’s ability to pass the bill under budget rules that require only a simple majority rather than 60 votes, the bill’s savings must at least match those of the House version. Any extra money spent on Medicaid expansion would have to be cut elsewhere.

2. Medicaid caps

A related issue is whether and at what level to cap federal Medicaid spending. Medicaid currently covers more than 70 million low-income people. Medicaid covers half of all births and half of the nation’s bill for long-term care, including nursing home stays. Right now, the federal government matches whatever states spend at least 50-50 and provides more matching funds for less wealthy states.

The House bill would, for the first time, cap the amount the federal government provides to states for their Medicaid programs. The CBO estimated that the caps would put more of the financial burden for the program on states, which would respond by a combination of cutting payments to health care providers like doctors and hospitals, eliminating benefits for patients, and restricting eligibility.

The Medicaid cap may or may not be included in the Senate bill, depending on whom you ask. However, sources with direct knowledge of the negotiations say the real sticking point is not whether or not to impose a cap – they want to do that. The hurdles are how to be fair to states that get less federal money and how fast the caps should rise.

Again, if the Senate proposal is more generous than the House’s version, it will be harder to meet the bill’s required budget targets.

3. Restrictions on abortion coverage

The senators are actively considering two measures that would limit funding for abortions, though it is not clear if either would be allowed to remain in the bill according to the Senate’s rules. The Senate Parliamentarian, who must review the bill after the senators complete it but before it comes to the floor, will decide.

The House-passed bill would ban the use of federal tax credits to purchase private coverage that includes abortion as a benefit. This is a key demand for a large portion of the Republican base. However, the Senate version of the bill must abide by strict rules that limit its content to provisions that directly impact the federal budget. In the past, abortion language in budget bills has been ruled out of order.

4. Reading between the lines

A related issue is whether House language to temporarily bar Planned Parenthood from participating in the Medicaid program will be allowed in the Senate.

While the Parliamentarian allowed identical language defunding Planned Parenthood to remain in a similar budget bill in 2015, it was not clear at the time that Planned Parenthood would have been the only provider affected by the language. Planned Parenthood backers say they will argue to the Parliamentarian that the budget impact of the language is “merely incidental” to the policy aim and, therefore, should not be allowed in the Senate bill.

5. Insurance market reforms

Senators are also struggling with provisions of the House-passed bill that would allow states to waive certain insurance requirements in the Affordable Care Act, including those laying out “essential” benefits that policies must cover and those banning insurers from charging sicker people higher premiums. That language, as well as an amendment seeking to ensure more funding to help people with preexisting conditions, was instrumental in gaining enough votes for the bill to pass the House.

Eliminating insurance regulations imposed by the ACA is a top priority for conservatives. “Conservatives would like to clear the books of Obamacare’s most costly regulations and free the states to regulate their markets how they wish,” wrote Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah), who is one of the 13 senators negotiating the details of the bill, in an op-ed in May.

However, budget experts suggest that none of the insurance market provisions is likely to clear the Parliamentarian hurdle as being primarily budget-related.

Kaiser Health News is a national health policy news service that is part of the nonpartisan Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation.

MIAMI – Women distressed by a low desire for sex could have a novel pharmaceutical intervention soon.

Phase III results from the two Reconnect studies of 1,247 premenopausal women with hypoactive sexual desire disorder in stable relationships showed that bremelanotide was associated with statistically significant improvements in sexual desire and levels of distress about hyposexuality, compared with placebo. The phase III results confirm a phase IIb randomized, double-blind, multicenter trial showing that the drug boosts sexual arousal and desire in this population.

wmcknight@frontlinemedcom.com

On Twitter @whitneymcknight

* Clarification, 6/21/2017: An earlier version of this story misstated the name of the company marketing Addyi and one of Dr. Clayton’s disclosures. The name of that company is Valeant.

MIAMI – Women distressed by a low desire for sex could have a novel pharmaceutical intervention soon.

Phase III results from the two Reconnect studies of 1,247 premenopausal women with hypoactive sexual desire disorder in stable relationships showed that bremelanotide was associated with statistically significant improvements in sexual desire and levels of distress about hyposexuality, compared with placebo. The phase III results confirm a phase IIb randomized, double-blind, multicenter trial showing that the drug boosts sexual arousal and desire in this population.

wmcknight@frontlinemedcom.com

On Twitter @whitneymcknight

* Clarification, 6/21/2017: An earlier version of this story misstated the name of the company marketing Addyi and one of Dr. Clayton’s disclosures. The name of that company is Valeant.

MIAMI – Women distressed by a low desire for sex could have a novel pharmaceutical intervention soon.

Phase III results from the two Reconnect studies of 1,247 premenopausal women with hypoactive sexual desire disorder in stable relationships showed that bremelanotide was associated with statistically significant improvements in sexual desire and levels of distress about hyposexuality, compared with placebo. The phase III results confirm a phase IIb randomized, double-blind, multicenter trial showing that the drug boosts sexual arousal and desire in this population.

wmcknight@frontlinemedcom.com

On Twitter @whitneymcknight

* Clarification, 6/21/2017: An earlier version of this story misstated the name of the company marketing Addyi and one of Dr. Clayton’s disclosures. The name of that company is Valeant.

I had just done an ED&C, scraping the friable tumor gently from her tissue paper–thin skin. “Yes,” I replied more loudly than our close proximity would warrant. “This is probably another basal cell carcinoma. When I get the pathology back, I’ll call you.” As my medical assistant was putting on the Band-Aid, my patient exclaimed, “Oh, no! “Don’t call me! Just send me an email, honey.”

At the time of the biopsy, she was 84 years old. My 84-year-old patient just chastised me for not using her preferred method of communication. She didn’t want a follow-up visit or a phone call. She wanted an email.

Dr. Benabio is director of Healthcare Transformation and chief of dermatology at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. The opinions expressed in this column are his own and do not represent those of Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on Twitter. Write to him at dermnews@frontlinemedcom.com.

I had just done an ED&C, scraping the friable tumor gently from her tissue paper–thin skin. “Yes,” I replied more loudly than our close proximity would warrant. “This is probably another basal cell carcinoma. When I get the pathology back, I’ll call you.” As my medical assistant was putting on the Band-Aid, my patient exclaimed, “Oh, no! “Don’t call me! Just send me an email, honey.”

At the time of the biopsy, she was 84 years old. My 84-year-old patient just chastised me for not using her preferred method of communication. She didn’t want a follow-up visit or a phone call. She wanted an email.

Dr. Benabio is director of Healthcare Transformation and chief of dermatology at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. The opinions expressed in this column are his own and do not represent those of Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on Twitter. Write to him at dermnews@frontlinemedcom.com.

I had just done an ED&C, scraping the friable tumor gently from her tissue paper–thin skin. “Yes,” I replied more loudly than our close proximity would warrant. “This is probably another basal cell carcinoma. When I get the pathology back, I’ll call you.” As my medical assistant was putting on the Band-Aid, my patient exclaimed, “Oh, no! “Don’t call me! Just send me an email, honey.”

At the time of the biopsy, she was 84 years old. My 84-year-old patient just chastised me for not using her preferred method of communication. She didn’t want a follow-up visit or a phone call. She wanted an email.

Dr. Benabio is director of Healthcare Transformation and chief of dermatology at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. The opinions expressed in this column are his own and do not represent those of Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on Twitter. Write to him at dermnews@frontlinemedcom.com.

WASHINGTON – Bronchiectasis patients with three or more exacerbations per year had twice the mortality during 5-year follow-up as patients with no recent exacerbations, in a prospective registry of nearly 2,600 European bronchiectasis patients.

A multivariate analysis showed this statistically significant doubled death rate after adjustment for baseline demographic and clinical differences between patients with no exacerbations during the year before they entered the registry, James D. Chalmers, MD, said at an international conference of the American Thoracic Society.

mzoler@frontlinemedcom.com

On Twitter @mitchelzoler

WASHINGTON – Bronchiectasis patients with three or more exacerbations per year had twice the mortality during 5-year follow-up as patients with no recent exacerbations, in a prospective registry of nearly 2,600 European bronchiectasis patients.

A multivariate analysis showed this statistically significant doubled death rate after adjustment for baseline demographic and clinical differences between patients with no exacerbations during the year before they entered the registry, James D. Chalmers, MD, said at an international conference of the American Thoracic Society.

mzoler@frontlinemedcom.com

On Twitter @mitchelzoler

WASHINGTON – Bronchiectasis patients with three or more exacerbations per year had twice the mortality during 5-year follow-up as patients with no recent exacerbations, in a prospective registry of nearly 2,600 European bronchiectasis patients.

A multivariate analysis showed this statistically significant doubled death rate after adjustment for baseline demographic and clinical differences between patients with no exacerbations during the year before they entered the registry, James D. Chalmers, MD, said at an international conference of the American Thoracic Society.

mzoler@frontlinemedcom.com

On Twitter @mitchelzoler

NEW YORK – While bioprosthetic valves have become the predominant choice for cardiothoracic surgeons performing heart valve replacement, situations exist in which a mechanical valve may be a better choice. Young and middle-aged adults are the ideal candidates for mechanical valves, but achieving long-term success with mechanical valves also depends on a patient’s circumstances, according to an expert panel at the American Association for Thoracic Surgery Mitral Conclave 2017 here.

“I think we should put in more mechanical valves,” said panel chair Thoralf M. Sundt III, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston and former AATS president. “I think mechanical valves have gotten a bad rap. If patients have a supportive, stable social structure and they can manage their anticoagulation, I don’t think there’s anything wrong with a mechanical valve. I think the pendulum has swung too far.”

NEW YORK – While bioprosthetic valves have become the predominant choice for cardiothoracic surgeons performing heart valve replacement, situations exist in which a mechanical valve may be a better choice. Young and middle-aged adults are the ideal candidates for mechanical valves, but achieving long-term success with mechanical valves also depends on a patient’s circumstances, according to an expert panel at the American Association for Thoracic Surgery Mitral Conclave 2017 here.

“I think we should put in more mechanical valves,” said panel chair Thoralf M. Sundt III, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston and former AATS president. “I think mechanical valves have gotten a bad rap. If patients have a supportive, stable social structure and they can manage their anticoagulation, I don’t think there’s anything wrong with a mechanical valve. I think the pendulum has swung too far.”

NEW YORK – While bioprosthetic valves have become the predominant choice for cardiothoracic surgeons performing heart valve replacement, situations exist in which a mechanical valve may be a better choice. Young and middle-aged adults are the ideal candidates for mechanical valves, but achieving long-term success with mechanical valves also depends on a patient’s circumstances, according to an expert panel at the American Association for Thoracic Surgery Mitral Conclave 2017 here.

“I think we should put in more mechanical valves,” said panel chair Thoralf M. Sundt III, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston and former AATS president. “I think mechanical valves have gotten a bad rap. If patients have a supportive, stable social structure and they can manage their anticoagulation, I don’t think there’s anything wrong with a mechanical valve. I think the pendulum has swung too far.”

SAN DIEGO – When basal insulin alone does not achieve glucose targets in type 2 diabetes, a single fixed-dose injection of insulin degludec and liraglutide (IDegLira) is as effective as multiple insulin injections and has a significantly lower risk of hypoglycemia, according to a randomized, multicenter, open-label, industry-sponsored trial.

After 26 weeks of treatment, average hemoglobin A1c levels dropped similarly with once-daily IDegLira (1.48%) as with basal insulin glargine U100 plus mealtime injections of short-acting insulin aspart (1.46%; P less than .0001 for noninferiority), reported Liana K. Billings, MD, at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.

cenews@frontlinemedcom.com

SAN DIEGO – When basal insulin alone does not achieve glucose targets in type 2 diabetes, a single fixed-dose injection of insulin degludec and liraglutide (IDegLira) is as effective as multiple insulin injections and has a significantly lower risk of hypoglycemia, according to a randomized, multicenter, open-label, industry-sponsored trial.

After 26 weeks of treatment, average hemoglobin A1c levels dropped similarly with once-daily IDegLira (1.48%) as with basal insulin glargine U100 plus mealtime injections of short-acting insulin aspart (1.46%; P less than .0001 for noninferiority), reported Liana K. Billings, MD, at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.

cenews@frontlinemedcom.com

SAN DIEGO – When basal insulin alone does not achieve glucose targets in type 2 diabetes, a single fixed-dose injection of insulin degludec and liraglutide (IDegLira) is as effective as multiple insulin injections and has a significantly lower risk of hypoglycemia, according to a randomized, multicenter, open-label, industry-sponsored trial.

After 26 weeks of treatment, average hemoglobin A1c levels dropped similarly with once-daily IDegLira (1.48%) as with basal insulin glargine U100 plus mealtime injections of short-acting insulin aspart (1.46%; P less than .0001 for noninferiority), reported Liana K. Billings, MD, at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.

cenews@frontlinemedcom.com

BOSTON – Remote monitoring of continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) use with feedback messaging to patients improves adherence but only when patients opt to receive continual feedback on their usage, according to a study.

Dennis Hwang, MD, medical director of Kaiser Permanent Fontana Medical Center in California and his colleagues designed the four-arm Tele-OSA study to evaluate the impact of two automated telemedicine interventions: an obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) education program (provided by Emmi Solutions) and a CPAP remote monitoring system with automated patient feedback (U-Sleep, ResMed). Dr. Hwang, who is also cochair of sleep medicine at Southern California Permanente Medical Group, presented his findings at the annual meeting of the Associated Professional Sleep Societies.

Debra L. Beck/Frontline Medical News

BOSTON – Remote monitoring of continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) use with feedback messaging to patients improves adherence but only when patients opt to receive continual feedback on their usage, according to a study.

Dennis Hwang, MD, medical director of Kaiser Permanent Fontana Medical Center in California and his colleagues designed the four-arm Tele-OSA study to evaluate the impact of two automated telemedicine interventions: an obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) education program (provided by Emmi Solutions) and a CPAP remote monitoring system with automated patient feedback (U-Sleep, ResMed). Dr. Hwang, who is also cochair of sleep medicine at Southern California Permanente Medical Group, presented his findings at the annual meeting of the Associated Professional Sleep Societies.

Debra L. Beck/Frontline Medical News

BOSTON – Remote monitoring of continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) use with feedback messaging to patients improves adherence but only when patients opt to receive continual feedback on their usage, according to a study.

Dennis Hwang, MD, medical director of Kaiser Permanent Fontana Medical Center in California and his colleagues designed the four-arm Tele-OSA study to evaluate the impact of two automated telemedicine interventions: an obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) education program (provided by Emmi Solutions) and a CPAP remote monitoring system with automated patient feedback (U-Sleep, ResMed). Dr. Hwang, who is also cochair of sleep medicine at Southern California Permanente Medical Group, presented his findings at the annual meeting of the Associated Professional Sleep Societies.

Debra L. Beck/Frontline Medical News

Photo courtesy of Janssen

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved daratumumab (Darzalex®) in combination with pomalidomide (POM) and dexamethasone (dex) for the treatment of multiple myeloma (MM) in patients who have received at least 2 prior therapies, including lenalidomide and a proteasome inhibitor (PI).

The FDA previously approved daratumumab in combination with lenalidomide and dexamethasone, or bortezomib and dexamethasone, for the treatment of patients with MM who had at least 1 prior therapy.

Daratumumab is also approved by the FDA as monotherapy in MM patients who had at least 3 prior lines of therapy, including a PI and an immunomodulatory (IMiD) agent, or who are double refractory to a PI and an IMiD.

The latest indication is based on the results of the phase 1b MMY1001 EQUULEUS study, which demonstrated that daratumumab produced an overall response (OR) rate of 59% in combination with pomalidomide and dexamethasone, and a very good partial response (VGPR) in 28% of patients.

EQUULEUS study

The daratumumab-POM-Dex arm of the phase 1 open-label EQUULEUS study included 103 MM patients who had received prior treatment with a PI and an immunomodulatory agent.

Patients were a median age of 64 years, and 8% were older than 75.

They had received a median of 4 prior lines of therapy, and 74% had received prior autologous stem cell transplant.

Most (89%) were refractory to lenalidomide and 71% were refractory to bortezomib. Almost two thirds (64%) were refractory to bortezomib and lenalidomide.

Patients were treated with 16 mg/kg of daratumumab in combination with POM and Dex, and 6% achieved a complete response (CR) and 8% achieved a stringent CR.

The median time to response was 1 month (range, 0.9 to 2.8), and the median duration of response was 13.6 months (range, 0.9+ to 14.6+ months).

The most frequent adverse events (AEs) reported in more than 20% of patients were infusion reactions, fatigue, and upper respiratory tract infections (50% each), cough (43%), diarrhea (38%), dyspnea (33%), nausea (30%), muscle spasms (26%), pyrexia (25%), and vomiting (21%).

The overall incidence of serious adverse reactions was 49%.

Grade 3/4 serious AEs reported in 5% of patients or more included pneumonia (7%).

The most common treatment-emergent hematologic laboratory abnormalities included lymphopenia (94%), neutropenia (95%), thrombocytopenia (75%), and anemia (57%).

And the most common grade 3/4 treatment-emergent hematology laboratory abnormalities were neutropenia (82%), lymphopenia (71%), anemia (30%), and thrombocytopenia (20%).

Daratumumab is being developed by Janssen Biotech, Inc., under an exclusive worldwide license to develop, manufacture, and commercialize daratumumab from Genmab.

See the package insert for full prescribing information. 

Photo courtesy of Janssen

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved daratumumab (Darzalex®) in combination with pomalidomide (POM) and dexamethasone (dex) for the treatment of multiple myeloma (MM) in patients who have received at least 2 prior therapies, including lenalidomide and a proteasome inhibitor (PI).

The FDA previously approved daratumumab in combination with lenalidomide and dexamethasone, or bortezomib and dexamethasone, for the treatment of patients with MM who had at least 1 prior therapy.

Daratumumab is also approved by the FDA as monotherapy in MM patients who had at least 3 prior lines of therapy, including a PI and an immunomodulatory (IMiD) agent, or who are double refractory to a PI and an IMiD.

The latest indication is based on the results of the phase 1b MMY1001 EQUULEUS study, which demonstrated that daratumumab produced an overall response (OR) rate of 59% in combination with pomalidomide and dexamethasone, and a very good partial response (VGPR) in 28% of patients.

EQUULEUS study

The daratumumab-POM-Dex arm of the phase 1 open-label EQUULEUS study included 103 MM patients who had received prior treatment with a PI and an immunomodulatory agent.

Patients were a median age of 64 years, and 8% were older than 75.

They had received a median of 4 prior lines of therapy, and 74% had received prior autologous stem cell transplant.

Most (89%) were refractory to lenalidomide and 71% were refractory to bortezomib. Almost two thirds (64%) were refractory to bortezomib and lenalidomide.

Patients were treated with 16 mg/kg of daratumumab in combination with POM and Dex, and 6% achieved a complete response (CR) and 8% achieved a stringent CR.

The median time to response was 1 month (range, 0.9 to 2.8), and the median duration of response was 13.6 months (range, 0.9+ to 14.6+ months).

The most frequent adverse events (AEs) reported in more than 20% of patients were infusion reactions, fatigue, and upper respiratory tract infections (50% each), cough (43%), diarrhea (38%), dyspnea (33%), nausea (30%), muscle spasms (26%), pyrexia (25%), and vomiting (21%).

The overall incidence of serious adverse reactions was 49%.

Grade 3/4 serious AEs reported in 5% of patients or more included pneumonia (7%).

The most common treatment-emergent hematologic laboratory abnormalities included lymphopenia (94%), neutropenia (95%), thrombocytopenia (75%), and anemia (57%).

And the most common grade 3/4 treatment-emergent hematology laboratory abnormalities were neutropenia (82%), lymphopenia (71%), anemia (30%), and thrombocytopenia (20%).

Daratumumab is being developed by Janssen Biotech, Inc., under an exclusive worldwide license to develop, manufacture, and commercialize daratumumab from Genmab.

See the package insert for full prescribing information. 

Photo courtesy of Janssen

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved daratumumab (Darzalex®) in combination with pomalidomide (POM) and dexamethasone (dex) for the treatment of multiple myeloma (MM) in patients who have received at least 2 prior therapies, including lenalidomide and a proteasome inhibitor (PI).

The FDA previously approved daratumumab in combination with lenalidomide and dexamethasone, or bortezomib and dexamethasone, for the treatment of patients with MM who had at least 1 prior therapy.

Daratumumab is also approved by the FDA as monotherapy in MM patients who had at least 3 prior lines of therapy, including a PI and an immunomodulatory (IMiD) agent, or who are double refractory to a PI and an IMiD.

The latest indication is based on the results of the phase 1b MMY1001 EQUULEUS study, which demonstrated that daratumumab produced an overall response (OR) rate of 59% in combination with pomalidomide and dexamethasone, and a very good partial response (VGPR) in 28% of patients.

EQUULEUS study

The daratumumab-POM-Dex arm of the phase 1 open-label EQUULEUS study included 103 MM patients who had received prior treatment with a PI and an immunomodulatory agent.

Patients were a median age of 64 years, and 8% were older than 75.

They had received a median of 4 prior lines of therapy, and 74% had received prior autologous stem cell transplant.

Most (89%) were refractory to lenalidomide and 71% were refractory to bortezomib. Almost two thirds (64%) were refractory to bortezomib and lenalidomide.

Patients were treated with 16 mg/kg of daratumumab in combination with POM and Dex, and 6% achieved a complete response (CR) and 8% achieved a stringent CR.

The median time to response was 1 month (range, 0.9 to 2.8), and the median duration of response was 13.6 months (range, 0.9+ to 14.6+ months).

The most frequent adverse events (AEs) reported in more than 20% of patients were infusion reactions, fatigue, and upper respiratory tract infections (50% each), cough (43%), diarrhea (38%), dyspnea (33%), nausea (30%), muscle spasms (26%), pyrexia (25%), and vomiting (21%).

The overall incidence of serious adverse reactions was 49%.

Grade 3/4 serious AEs reported in 5% of patients or more included pneumonia (7%).

The most common treatment-emergent hematologic laboratory abnormalities included lymphopenia (94%), neutropenia (95%), thrombocytopenia (75%), and anemia (57%).

And the most common grade 3/4 treatment-emergent hematology laboratory abnormalities were neutropenia (82%), lymphopenia (71%), anemia (30%), and thrombocytopenia (20%).

Daratumumab is being developed by Janssen Biotech, Inc., under an exclusive worldwide license to develop, manufacture, and commercialize daratumumab from Genmab.

See the package insert for full prescribing information. 

Photo © ASCO/Scott Morgan 2017

CHICAGO—The largest international multiple myeloma (MM) trial ever conducted, according to the trial sponsor, met its primary endpoint, demonstrating that denosumab is non-inferior to zoledronic acid (ZA) in delaying the time to first on-study skeletal-related event (SRE) in patients with MM.

In addition to bone-specific benefits, denosumab-treated patients had significantly fewer renal adverse events and possible prolongation of progression-free survival.

Denosumab “may in fact be a new standard of care for multiple myeloma-related bone disease,” according to one of the investigators.

“The other important thing to note,” Noopur S. Raje, MD, said during her presentation at the ASCO 2017 Annual Meeting, “is denosumab can be administered despite renal function in patients with myeloma.” It does not need to be dose-adjusted, unlike bisphosphonates.

Dr Raje, of the Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center in Boston, Massachusetts, presented the study results as abstract 8005.

Study design

The international, phase 3, randomized, double-blind study is evaluating the safety of denosumab compared with ZA in newly diagnosed MM patients.

Investigators enrolled 1718 patients from 259 sites and 29 countries.

They randomized 859 patients to receive denosumab 120 mg subcutaneously every 4 weeks plus intravenous placebo every 4 weeks, and 859 patients to the standard ZA dose of 4 mg intravenously plus subcutaneous placebo every 4 weeks.

Patients were stratified by whether they were on novel-based anti-myeloma therapy, whether they planned to have an autologous peripheral blood stem cell (PBSC) transplant, disease stage, and previous SRE.

“We were looking for 676 on-study SREs, and if we saw a benefit, patients would be offered open-label denosumab for up to 2 years after this,” Dr Raje said.

“Patients had to have radiographic evidence of bone disease, and this is different from some of the other bone disease studies that you’ve seen in the recent past,” she added.

In addition to documented evidence of MM, patients had to be 18 years or older, be ECOG status of 2 or better, have adequate organ function, and plan to receive or be receiving primary frontline anti-myeloma therapy.

Patients were excluded if they had nonsecretory MM, more than 30 days of previous treatment with anti-myeloma therapy prior to screening, prior use of denosumab, use of oral bisphosphonates with a cumulative dose of more than 1 year, more than 1 previous dose of intravenous bisphosphonate, or prior history or current evidence of osteonecrosis/osteomyelitis of the jaw.

The primary endpoint was time to first on-study SRE, “and the idea here was to look for non-inferiority,” Dr Raje explained.

Secondary endpoints included time to the first on-study SRE (superiority), time to the first-and-subsequent on-study SRE (superiority), and overall survival.

Investigators also included the exploratory objective of progression-free survival (PFS).

Patient demographics

Patients were well balanced across the 2 arms, Dr Raje noted, and the breakdown of myeloma disease stage at diagnosis was comparable between the ZA and denosumab arms.

About 32% of patients were stage I, 37% stage II, and 29% stage III. Stage was not available for 49 patients.

A little more than half (54%) were male, mean age was 63 years, and 82% were white.

Two thirds had prior SRE history, and 54% of patients intended to undergo autologous PBSC transplant.

Enrollment began May 2012 and continued through the end of March 2016. The primary analysis cutoff was July 19, 2016.

Results

The primary endpoint for non-inferiority for time to first on-study SRE was met by denosumab (HR=0.98, 95%CI: 0.85, 1.14; P=0.01).

“When we looked at the secondary endpoints for superiority, we were not able to confirm superiority in this analysis, either for time to first SRE or time to first-and subsequent SRE on this study,” Dr Raje said.

The investigators also did not observe a survival difference between denosumab and ZA, with a hazard ratio (HR) (95% CI) of 0.90 (0.70, 1.16), P=0.41.

“Importantly, we had an exploratory endpoint where we looked at progression-free survival in this newly diagnosed patient population,” she added, “and we saw an interestingly increased or prolonged progression-free survival in patients getting denosumab.”

“And that survival difference was more than 10 months between denosumab and zoledronic acid, favoring the denosumab arm,” she affirmed. The HR was 0.82, 95% CI: 0.68, 0.99, P=0.036 (descriptive).

Safety

“[I]f you look at all treatment-emergent adverse events between denosumab and zoledronic acid, we really could not find a big difference in either of these 2 groups of patients,” Dr Raje said.

“We saw that in general both denosumab and zoledronic acid were extremely well tolerated between the 2 groups of patients.”

The investigators “drilled down” on certain toxicity issues of interest and examined events such as atypical stress fractures, hypersensitivity reactions, musculoskeletal pain, infections and infestations, new primary malignancies, and acute phase reactions.

They observed no atypical femur fractures on the study, nor did they see any big differences with respect to hypersensitivity or acute phase reactions.

The investigators examined closely any renal issues because dosing of ZA specifically is impacted by renal function.

The data showed that treatment-emergent adverse event (TEAE) renal toxicity was significantly higher in the ZA group compared to the denosumab group, 17% and 10%, respectively (P<0.001).

“When you look at patients who had a creatinine clearance less than 60 mL per minute,” Dr Raje emphasized, “we saw an almost doubling of renal toxicity in the zoledronic acid arm (26.4%) compared to the denosumab arm (12.9%).”

Patients with a creatinine level greater than 2 mg/dL had a significant increase in creatinine in the ZA arm (P=0.010), which was also significantly increased if their creatinine clearance was less than 60 mL/minute (P=0.054).

“There was a doubling of creatinine from baseline, more so in the zoledronic acid arm compared to the patients with denosumab,” Dr Raje said. “And this was again more pronounced if you had a creatinine clearance of less than 60.”

Hypocalcemia was “not surprisingly” more common in the denosumab arm than the ZA arm (P=0.009) for all patients, and osteonecrosis of the jaw was equal in both arms (P=0.147), although numerically slightly higher with denosumab treatment.

Dr Raje summarized that there was no difference in overall survival at the time of this analysis, “but I will say that the follow-up for a newly diagnosed patient population is fairly short right now.”

“Progression-free survival, which we saw [cut] off 10.7 months, was actually quite striking when denosumab was compared to zoledronic acid, and this was statistically highly significant.”

“The bone-specific benefits in combination with significantly fewer renal adverse events and possible prolongation of PFS with denosumab therapy we do think is very promising,” she said, “and may in fact be a new standard of care for multiple myeloma-related bone disease.”

The study was funded by Amgen Inc.

Denosumab (XGEVA^®) is indicated by the US Food and Drug Administration for the prevention of fractures and other SREs in patients with bone metastases from solid tumors. It is currently not indicated for the prevention of SREs in patients with MM. 

Photo © ASCO/Scott Morgan 2017

CHICAGO—The largest international multiple myeloma (MM) trial ever conducted, according to the trial sponsor, met its primary endpoint, demonstrating that denosumab is non-inferior to zoledronic acid (ZA) in delaying the time to first on-study skeletal-related event (SRE) in patients with MM.

In addition to bone-specific benefits, denosumab-treated patients had significantly fewer renal adverse events and possible prolongation of progression-free survival.

Denosumab “may in fact be a new standard of care for multiple myeloma-related bone disease,” according to one of the investigators.

“The other important thing to note,” Noopur S. Raje, MD, said during her presentation at the ASCO 2017 Annual Meeting, “is denosumab can be administered despite renal function in patients with myeloma.” It does not need to be dose-adjusted, unlike bisphosphonates.

Dr Raje, of the Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center in Boston, Massachusetts, presented the study results as abstract 8005.

Study design

The international, phase 3, randomized, double-blind study is evaluating the safety of denosumab compared with ZA in newly diagnosed MM patients.

Investigators enrolled 1718 patients from 259 sites and 29 countries.

They randomized 859 patients to receive denosumab 120 mg subcutaneously every 4 weeks plus intravenous placebo every 4 weeks, and 859 patients to the standard ZA dose of 4 mg intravenously plus subcutaneous placebo every 4 weeks.

Patients were stratified by whether they were on novel-based anti-myeloma therapy, whether they planned to have an autologous peripheral blood stem cell (PBSC) transplant, disease stage, and previous SRE.

“We were looking for 676 on-study SREs, and if we saw a benefit, patients would be offered open-label denosumab for up to 2 years after this,” Dr Raje said.

“Patients had to have radiographic evidence of bone disease, and this is different from some of the other bone disease studies that you’ve seen in the recent past,” she added.

In addition to documented evidence of MM, patients had to be 18 years or older, be ECOG status of 2 or better, have adequate organ function, and plan to receive or be receiving primary frontline anti-myeloma therapy.

Patients were excluded if they had nonsecretory MM, more than 30 days of previous treatment with anti-myeloma therapy prior to screening, prior use of denosumab, use of oral bisphosphonates with a cumulative dose of more than 1 year, more than 1 previous dose of intravenous bisphosphonate, or prior history or current evidence of osteonecrosis/osteomyelitis of the jaw.

The primary endpoint was time to first on-study SRE, “and the idea here was to look for non-inferiority,” Dr Raje explained.

Secondary endpoints included time to the first on-study SRE (superiority), time to the first-and-subsequent on-study SRE (superiority), and overall survival.

Investigators also included the exploratory objective of progression-free survival (PFS).

Patient demographics

Patients were well balanced across the 2 arms, Dr Raje noted, and the breakdown of myeloma disease stage at diagnosis was comparable between the ZA and denosumab arms.

About 32% of patients were stage I, 37% stage II, and 29% stage III. Stage was not available for 49 patients.

A little more than half (54%) were male, mean age was 63 years, and 82% were white.

Two thirds had prior SRE history, and 54% of patients intended to undergo autologous PBSC transplant.

Enrollment began May 2012 and continued through the end of March 2016. The primary analysis cutoff was July 19, 2016.

Results

The primary endpoint for non-inferiority for time to first on-study SRE was met by denosumab (HR=0.98, 95%CI: 0.85, 1.14; P=0.01).

“When we looked at the secondary endpoints for superiority, we were not able to confirm superiority in this analysis, either for time to first SRE or time to first-and subsequent SRE on this study,” Dr Raje said.

The investigators also did not observe a survival difference between denosumab and ZA, with a hazard ratio (HR) (95% CI) of 0.90 (0.70, 1.16), P=0.41.

“Importantly, we had an exploratory endpoint where we looked at progression-free survival in this newly diagnosed patient population,” she added, “and we saw an interestingly increased or prolonged progression-free survival in patients getting denosumab.”

“And that survival difference was more than 10 months between denosumab and zoledronic acid, favoring the denosumab arm,” she affirmed. The HR was 0.82, 95% CI: 0.68, 0.99, P=0.036 (descriptive).

Safety

“[I]f you look at all treatment-emergent adverse events between denosumab and zoledronic acid, we really could not find a big difference in either of these 2 groups of patients,” Dr Raje said.

“We saw that in general both denosumab and zoledronic acid were extremely well tolerated between the 2 groups of patients.”

The investigators “drilled down” on certain toxicity issues of interest and examined events such as atypical stress fractures, hypersensitivity reactions, musculoskeletal pain, infections and infestations, new primary malignancies, and acute phase reactions.

They observed no atypical femur fractures on the study, nor did they see any big differences with respect to hypersensitivity or acute phase reactions.

The investigators examined closely any renal issues because dosing of ZA specifically is impacted by renal function.

The data showed that treatment-emergent adverse event (TEAE) renal toxicity was significantly higher in the ZA group compared to the denosumab group, 17% and 10%, respectively (P<0.001).

“When you look at patients who had a creatinine clearance less than 60 mL per minute,” Dr Raje emphasized, “we saw an almost doubling of renal toxicity in the zoledronic acid arm (26.4%) compared to the denosumab arm (12.9%).”

Patients with a creatinine level greater than 2 mg/dL had a significant increase in creatinine in the ZA arm (P=0.010), which was also significantly increased if their creatinine clearance was less than 60 mL/minute (P=0.054).

“There was a doubling of creatinine from baseline, more so in the zoledronic acid arm compared to the patients with denosumab,” Dr Raje said. “And this was again more pronounced if you had a creatinine clearance of less than 60.”

Hypocalcemia was “not surprisingly” more common in the denosumab arm than the ZA arm (P=0.009) for all patients, and osteonecrosis of the jaw was equal in both arms (P=0.147), although numerically slightly higher with denosumab treatment.

Dr Raje summarized that there was no difference in overall survival at the time of this analysis, “but I will say that the follow-up for a newly diagnosed patient population is fairly short right now.”

“Progression-free survival, which we saw [cut] off 10.7 months, was actually quite striking when denosumab was compared to zoledronic acid, and this was statistically highly significant.”

“The bone-specific benefits in combination with significantly fewer renal adverse events and possible prolongation of PFS with denosumab therapy we do think is very promising,” she said, “and may in fact be a new standard of care for multiple myeloma-related bone disease.”

The study was funded by Amgen Inc.

Denosumab (XGEVA^®) is indicated by the US Food and Drug Administration for the prevention of fractures and other SREs in patients with bone metastases from solid tumors. It is currently not indicated for the prevention of SREs in patients with MM. 

Photo © ASCO/Scott Morgan 2017

CHICAGO—The largest international multiple myeloma (MM) trial ever conducted, according to the trial sponsor, met its primary endpoint, demonstrating that denosumab is non-inferior to zoledronic acid (ZA) in delaying the time to first on-study skeletal-related event (SRE) in patients with MM.

In addition to bone-specific benefits, denosumab-treated patients had significantly fewer renal adverse events and possible prolongation of progression-free survival.

Denosumab “may in fact be a new standard of care for multiple myeloma-related bone disease,” according to one of the investigators.

“The other important thing to note,” Noopur S. Raje, MD, said during her presentation at the ASCO 2017 Annual Meeting, “is denosumab can be administered despite renal function in patients with myeloma.” It does not need to be dose-adjusted, unlike bisphosphonates.

Dr Raje, of the Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center in Boston, Massachusetts, presented the study results as abstract 8005.

Study design

The international, phase 3, randomized, double-blind study is evaluating the safety of denosumab compared with ZA in newly diagnosed MM patients.

Investigators enrolled 1718 patients from 259 sites and 29 countries.

They randomized 859 patients to receive denosumab 120 mg subcutaneously every 4 weeks plus intravenous placebo every 4 weeks, and 859 patients to the standard ZA dose of 4 mg intravenously plus subcutaneous placebo every 4 weeks.

Patients were stratified by whether they were on novel-based anti-myeloma therapy, whether they planned to have an autologous peripheral blood stem cell (PBSC) transplant, disease stage, and previous SRE.

“We were looking for 676 on-study SREs, and if we saw a benefit, patients would be offered open-label denosumab for up to 2 years after this,” Dr Raje said.

“Patients had to have radiographic evidence of bone disease, and this is different from some of the other bone disease studies that you’ve seen in the recent past,” she added.

In addition to documented evidence of MM, patients had to be 18 years or older, be ECOG status of 2 or better, have adequate organ function, and plan to receive or be receiving primary frontline anti-myeloma therapy.

Patients were excluded if they had nonsecretory MM, more than 30 days of previous treatment with anti-myeloma therapy prior to screening, prior use of denosumab, use of oral bisphosphonates with a cumulative dose of more than 1 year, more than 1 previous dose of intravenous bisphosphonate, or prior history or current evidence of osteonecrosis/osteomyelitis of the jaw.

The primary endpoint was time to first on-study SRE, “and the idea here was to look for non-inferiority,” Dr Raje explained.

Secondary endpoints included time to the first on-study SRE (superiority), time to the first-and-subsequent on-study SRE (superiority), and overall survival.

Investigators also included the exploratory objective of progression-free survival (PFS).

Patient demographics

Patients were well balanced across the 2 arms, Dr Raje noted, and the breakdown of myeloma disease stage at diagnosis was comparable between the ZA and denosumab arms.

About 32% of patients were stage I, 37% stage II, and 29% stage III. Stage was not available for 49 patients.

A little more than half (54%) were male, mean age was 63 years, and 82% were white.

Two thirds had prior SRE history, and 54% of patients intended to undergo autologous PBSC transplant.

Enrollment began May 2012 and continued through the end of March 2016. The primary analysis cutoff was July 19, 2016.

Results

The primary endpoint for non-inferiority for time to first on-study SRE was met by denosumab (HR=0.98, 95%CI: 0.85, 1.14; P=0.01).

“When we looked at the secondary endpoints for superiority, we were not able to confirm superiority in this analysis, either for time to first SRE or time to first-and subsequent SRE on this study,” Dr Raje said.

The investigators also did not observe a survival difference between denosumab and ZA, with a hazard ratio (HR) (95% CI) of 0.90 (0.70, 1.16), P=0.41.

“Importantly, we had an exploratory endpoint where we looked at progression-free survival in this newly diagnosed patient population,” she added, “and we saw an interestingly increased or prolonged progression-free survival in patients getting denosumab.”

“And that survival difference was more than 10 months between denosumab and zoledronic acid, favoring the denosumab arm,” she affirmed. The HR was 0.82, 95% CI: 0.68, 0.99, P=0.036 (descriptive).

Safety

“[I]f you look at all treatment-emergent adverse events between denosumab and zoledronic acid, we really could not find a big difference in either of these 2 groups of patients,” Dr Raje said.

“We saw that in general both denosumab and zoledronic acid were extremely well tolerated between the 2 groups of patients.”

The investigators “drilled down” on certain toxicity issues of interest and examined events such as atypical stress fractures, hypersensitivity reactions, musculoskeletal pain, infections and infestations, new primary malignancies, and acute phase reactions.

They observed no atypical femur fractures on the study, nor did they see any big differences with respect to hypersensitivity or acute phase reactions.

The investigators examined closely any renal issues because dosing of ZA specifically is impacted by renal function.

The data showed that treatment-emergent adverse event (TEAE) renal toxicity was significantly higher in the ZA group compared to the denosumab group, 17% and 10%, respectively (P<0.001).

“When you look at patients who had a creatinine clearance less than 60 mL per minute,” Dr Raje emphasized, “we saw an almost doubling of renal toxicity in the zoledronic acid arm (26.4%) compared to the denosumab arm (12.9%).”

Patients with a creatinine level greater than 2 mg/dL had a significant increase in creatinine in the ZA arm (P=0.010), which was also significantly increased if their creatinine clearance was less than 60 mL/minute (P=0.054).

“There was a doubling of creatinine from baseline, more so in the zoledronic acid arm compared to the patients with denosumab,” Dr Raje said. “And this was again more pronounced if you had a creatinine clearance of less than 60.”

Hypocalcemia was “not surprisingly” more common in the denosumab arm than the ZA arm (P=0.009) for all patients, and osteonecrosis of the jaw was equal in both arms (P=0.147), although numerically slightly higher with denosumab treatment.

Dr Raje summarized that there was no difference in overall survival at the time of this analysis, “but I will say that the follow-up for a newly diagnosed patient population is fairly short right now.”

“Progression-free survival, which we saw [cut] off 10.7 months, was actually quite striking when denosumab was compared to zoledronic acid, and this was statistically highly significant.”

“The bone-specific benefits in combination with significantly fewer renal adverse events and possible prolongation of PFS with denosumab therapy we do think is very promising,” she said, “and may in fact be a new standard of care for multiple myeloma-related bone disease.”

The study was funded by Amgen Inc.

Denosumab (XGEVA^®) is indicated by the US Food and Drug Administration for the prevention of fractures and other SREs in patients with bone metastases from solid tumors. It is currently not indicated for the prevention of SREs in patients with MM.