User login
Black Women Have a Higher Risk for Death in BC Subtypes
TOPLINE:
The greatest disparity in BC-specific survival was observed in those with hormone receptor-positive (HR+), human epidermal growth factor 2–negative (HER2−) tumors, with Black women having a 50% higher risk for death.
METHODOLOGY:
- US Black women have a 40% higher risk for death from BC than White women, and many cancer specialists believe that disparities are worse among more treatable subtypes, such as HR+ tumors.
- Researchers conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of 18 US studies published during 2009-2022 that included 228,885 women (34,262 Black women; 182,466 White women) and examined racial differences in BC survival by subtype.
- The analysis included hormone receptor and HER2/neu status to define subtypes: HR+ HER2+, HR+ HER2−, HR− HER2+, and HR− HER2−.
- Random-effects models were used to generate pooled relative risks and 95% CI for BC-specific survival and overall survival.
- The primary outcome was BC-specific survival, with overall survival as a secondary analysis.
TAKEAWAY:
- Black women had a higher risk for BC death across all tumor subtypes than White women, with the greatest disparity observed in HR+ HER2− tumors (hazard ratio [HR], 1.50; 95% CI, 1.30-1.72).
- The risk for BC death was also higher for Black women with HR+ HER2+ tumors (HR, 1.34; 95% CI, 1.10-1.64); HR− HER2+ tumors (HR, 1.20; 95% CI, 1.00-1.43); and HR− HER2− tumors (HR, 1.17; 95% CI, 1.10-1.25).
- Overall survival was poorer for Black women across all subtypes, although estimates for HR− HER2+ tumors did not reach statistical significance.
- In analysis of two subtypes with significant heterogeneity among studies, adjustments for socioeconomic status and number of Black participants explained about half and all the variance for HR+ HER2− and HR− HER2+ tumors, respectively.
IN PRACTICE:
“These results suggest there are both subtype-specific and subtype-independent mechanisms that contribute to disparities in breast cancer survival between Black and White women, which require multilevel interventions to address and achieve health equity,” wrote the authors.
SOURCE:
The study was led by Juliana M. Torres, Dana-Farber/Harvard Cancer Center, CURE Program, Boston. It was published online in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.
LIMITATIONS:
The study’s limitations included potential heterogeneity between studies as indicated by significant heterogeneity in some analyses. The use of different subtype definitions and potential overlap in data sets may have also affected the results. Many included studies did not capture the extent to which treatments were completed or detection and treatment of recurrences. Additionally, the study’s findings may not fully capture socioeconomic inequality and other unmeasured factors contributing to disparities. The racial and ethnic disparities analysis focused only on Black and White women.
DISCLOSURES:
Individual authors disclosed financial relationships with Pfizer, Healthix, Merck, AstraZeneca, LabCorp, and Takeda. Additional disclosures are noted in the original article.
This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
The greatest disparity in BC-specific survival was observed in those with hormone receptor-positive (HR+), human epidermal growth factor 2–negative (HER2−) tumors, with Black women having a 50% higher risk for death.
METHODOLOGY:
- US Black women have a 40% higher risk for death from BC than White women, and many cancer specialists believe that disparities are worse among more treatable subtypes, such as HR+ tumors.
- Researchers conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of 18 US studies published during 2009-2022 that included 228,885 women (34,262 Black women; 182,466 White women) and examined racial differences in BC survival by subtype.
- The analysis included hormone receptor and HER2/neu status to define subtypes: HR+ HER2+, HR+ HER2−, HR− HER2+, and HR− HER2−.
- Random-effects models were used to generate pooled relative risks and 95% CI for BC-specific survival and overall survival.
- The primary outcome was BC-specific survival, with overall survival as a secondary analysis.
TAKEAWAY:
- Black women had a higher risk for BC death across all tumor subtypes than White women, with the greatest disparity observed in HR+ HER2− tumors (hazard ratio [HR], 1.50; 95% CI, 1.30-1.72).
- The risk for BC death was also higher for Black women with HR+ HER2+ tumors (HR, 1.34; 95% CI, 1.10-1.64); HR− HER2+ tumors (HR, 1.20; 95% CI, 1.00-1.43); and HR− HER2− tumors (HR, 1.17; 95% CI, 1.10-1.25).
- Overall survival was poorer for Black women across all subtypes, although estimates for HR− HER2+ tumors did not reach statistical significance.
- In analysis of two subtypes with significant heterogeneity among studies, adjustments for socioeconomic status and number of Black participants explained about half and all the variance for HR+ HER2− and HR− HER2+ tumors, respectively.
IN PRACTICE:
“These results suggest there are both subtype-specific and subtype-independent mechanisms that contribute to disparities in breast cancer survival between Black and White women, which require multilevel interventions to address and achieve health equity,” wrote the authors.
SOURCE:
The study was led by Juliana M. Torres, Dana-Farber/Harvard Cancer Center, CURE Program, Boston. It was published online in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.
LIMITATIONS:
The study’s limitations included potential heterogeneity between studies as indicated by significant heterogeneity in some analyses. The use of different subtype definitions and potential overlap in data sets may have also affected the results. Many included studies did not capture the extent to which treatments were completed or detection and treatment of recurrences. Additionally, the study’s findings may not fully capture socioeconomic inequality and other unmeasured factors contributing to disparities. The racial and ethnic disparities analysis focused only on Black and White women.
DISCLOSURES:
Individual authors disclosed financial relationships with Pfizer, Healthix, Merck, AstraZeneca, LabCorp, and Takeda. Additional disclosures are noted in the original article.
This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
The greatest disparity in BC-specific survival was observed in those with hormone receptor-positive (HR+), human epidermal growth factor 2–negative (HER2−) tumors, with Black women having a 50% higher risk for death.
METHODOLOGY:
- US Black women have a 40% higher risk for death from BC than White women, and many cancer specialists believe that disparities are worse among more treatable subtypes, such as HR+ tumors.
- Researchers conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of 18 US studies published during 2009-2022 that included 228,885 women (34,262 Black women; 182,466 White women) and examined racial differences in BC survival by subtype.
- The analysis included hormone receptor and HER2/neu status to define subtypes: HR+ HER2+, HR+ HER2−, HR− HER2+, and HR− HER2−.
- Random-effects models were used to generate pooled relative risks and 95% CI for BC-specific survival and overall survival.
- The primary outcome was BC-specific survival, with overall survival as a secondary analysis.
TAKEAWAY:
- Black women had a higher risk for BC death across all tumor subtypes than White women, with the greatest disparity observed in HR+ HER2− tumors (hazard ratio [HR], 1.50; 95% CI, 1.30-1.72).
- The risk for BC death was also higher for Black women with HR+ HER2+ tumors (HR, 1.34; 95% CI, 1.10-1.64); HR− HER2+ tumors (HR, 1.20; 95% CI, 1.00-1.43); and HR− HER2− tumors (HR, 1.17; 95% CI, 1.10-1.25).
- Overall survival was poorer for Black women across all subtypes, although estimates for HR− HER2+ tumors did not reach statistical significance.
- In analysis of two subtypes with significant heterogeneity among studies, adjustments for socioeconomic status and number of Black participants explained about half and all the variance for HR+ HER2− and HR− HER2+ tumors, respectively.
IN PRACTICE:
“These results suggest there are both subtype-specific and subtype-independent mechanisms that contribute to disparities in breast cancer survival between Black and White women, which require multilevel interventions to address and achieve health equity,” wrote the authors.
SOURCE:
The study was led by Juliana M. Torres, Dana-Farber/Harvard Cancer Center, CURE Program, Boston. It was published online in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.
LIMITATIONS:
The study’s limitations included potential heterogeneity between studies as indicated by significant heterogeneity in some analyses. The use of different subtype definitions and potential overlap in data sets may have also affected the results. Many included studies did not capture the extent to which treatments were completed or detection and treatment of recurrences. Additionally, the study’s findings may not fully capture socioeconomic inequality and other unmeasured factors contributing to disparities. The racial and ethnic disparities analysis focused only on Black and White women.
DISCLOSURES:
Individual authors disclosed financial relationships with Pfizer, Healthix, Merck, AstraZeneca, LabCorp, and Takeda. Additional disclosures are noted in the original article.
This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Trial Looks at Early Use of Mycophenolate to Reduce Flares, Nephritis
Early use of mycophenolate mofetil (MMF), a drug used to dampen the immune system in organ transplant recipients, may reduce the risk for severe flares in patients with newly diagnosed systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), according to results from a randomized, open-label, observer-blinded clinical trial.
In interviews, two SLE specialists who were not involved with the study said the research is preliminary but promising. However, another specialist criticized the paper’s reliance on unusual doses of prednisone and MMF, saying it “puts people on a treatment regimen that nobody ever uses.”
The Lupus Foundation of America estimates that about 16,000 people in the United States are diagnosed with lupus each year. “Our current treatment paradigm is to go pretty slowly and start treatment for new-onset, mild SLE with glucocorticoids, if necessary, and hydroxychloroquine,” said Karen H. Costenbader, MD, MPH, of Harvard Medical School and Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts.
Stronger immunosuppressive agents may be added as patients progress, she said.
Off-label use of MMF, which is approved by the Food and Drug Administration only for patients with certain organ transplants, may be appropriate in some cases, she said. “There is a big push to start immunosuppressives earlier, but we currently would reserve mycophenolate for those with severe manifestations — lupus nephritis; vasculitis; or lung, brain, or heart inflammation.”
In the trial, adult patients who received oral prednisone (starting at 0.5 mg/kg per day) and hydroxychloroquine sulfate (5 mg/kg per day) plus MMF (500 mg twice daily) for 96 weeks were less likely to develop severe flares than those who took the regimen without MMF (relative risk [RR], 0.39; 95% CI, 0.17-0.87; P = .01). Severe flares occurred in 10.8% of the MMF group (7 of 65 patients) and in 27.7% of the control group (18 of 65), Yijun You, MD, of Ruijin Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China, and colleagues reported in JAMA Network Open.
Patients in the MMF group also had 89% lower risk for lupus nephritis than those in the control group (RR, 0.11; 95% CI, 0.01-0.85; P = .008), with kidney involvement occurring in 1.5% (1 of 65) vs 13.8% (9 of 65).
During 2018-2021, researchers recruited 130 patients in China aged 18-65 years with newly diagnosed SLE, a high titer of anti–double-stranded DNA (dsDNA) antibodies, and no major organ involvement (mean age, 34.5 years; 86.2% women). Patients’ initial 0.5–mg/kg per day prednisone dose was maintained for 4 weeks, then tapered by 5.0 mg every 2 weeks, and when the dose had been reduced to 20.0 mg/day, it was tapered by 5 mg every month and then gradually to 0.1-0.2 mg/kg per day. If patients had severe flares, they stopped taking MMF. (The study authors did not respond to requests for comment on the study.)
‘A Treatment Regimen That Nobody Ever Uses’
While Dr. Costenbader called the study “very interesting” and said “every person diagnosing or taking care of patients with lupus should be familiar” with it, she noted that the prednisone doses were high. “I am wondering why they used quite so much glucocorticoid for everyone. This may have masked some of the MMF effect and biased toward the null. They also used a low dose of MMF and did not ramp it up as we would normally to a full dose. That being said, it is remarkable that it was well-tolerated and resulted in better outcomes over the period of the trial.”
Daniel J. Wallace, MD, of Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, California, and the University of California, Los Angeles, also highlighted the high doses of prednisone and low doses of MMF. “It’s a useless paper that puts people on a treatment regimen that nobody ever uses,” he said.
The rates of mild to moderate flares were similar between the control and intervention groups (38.5% vs 36.9%, respectively; RR, 0.96; P = .90). This finding is surprising, said Judith A. James, MD, PhD, executive vice president, chief medical officer, and head of the rheumatology clinic and Arthritis and Clinical Immunology Research Program at the Oklahoma Medical Research Foundation in Oklahoma City and also the Associate Vice Provost of Clinical & Translational Science, professor of medicine, and George Lynn Cross Research Professor at the University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center in Oklahoma City. “It may be that mild flares have a different mechanism or are caused by noninflammatory endotypes that don’t respond to MMF.”
Dr. Costenbader noted that a risk-benefit analysis will need to be done to take the risks of MMF into account. “However, every time that a person flares or is not in lupus low-disease activity state, potentially permanent organ damage is done and the patient suffers,” she said. “Preventing lupus nephritis de novo was also seen — nine cases potentially prevented — and that is also really interesting. It would be amazing if we could completely avoid that life-threatening complication.”
MMF can cause miscarriage and boost the risk for birth defects, and the manufacturer says it can lower the effectiveness of birth control pills. It can also boost the risk for some cancers such as lymphoma and increase the risk for infections.
Surprisingly, the number of adverse events in the control and intervention groups were similar (35.4% vs 46.2%, respectively; RR, 1.30; 95% CI, 0.86-1.99; P = .20). They included infection (30.8% vs 33.8%, respectively; P = .70) and gastrointestinal tract events (16.9% for both; P > .99).
“There were overall pretty similar rates of side effects, but maybe this was because MMF dose was pretty low in the treated group, or the glucocorticoid dose was not so low in both groups,” Dr. Costenbader said. She also noted that “the risk of malignancy with MMF is longer term than this study. It may not show up for 5-10 or even more years, but we know it exists. Infections are also increased with MMF — some of which can be avoided with vaccines for COVID, pneumonia, influenza, shingles, etc. MMF also causes gastrointestinal intolerance, and people often are not able to take it because of nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, and elevated liver function tests.”
Dr. James said the infection rates “may be due to the higher doses of steroids patients in both groups are on for several months at the beginning of the study.”
A total of 12 patients in the MMF group discontinued the intervention for various reasons, and 6 were lost to follow-up. In the control group, 20 discontinued the intervention and two were lost to follow-up. However, all 130 patients in the trial were included in the primary and secondary outcome analyses.
Should clinicians consider prescribing MMF to patients with new-onset SLE? “We usually wait until later when there are indications of more severe disease, but here they started it from the time of diagnosis if the patient was anti-dsDNA positive. Given insurance restrictions in this country, we would be unlikely to be able to do that for many patients,” Dr. Costenbader said. “They likely also overtreated a lot of patients who didn’t need it. Due to our lack of more specific biomarkers and precision medicine for lupus, we do currently undertreat a lot of patients, as this study highlights, as well as overtreat others.”
How Much Might Cost Factor Into Treatment Decisions?
The study did not examine cost. Prednisone and hydroxychloroquine sulfate are inexpensive, but Dr. James said MMF can cost about $450 a month at the study dosage. However, “the average hospitalization without an ICU [intensive care unit] visit for an SLE patient is about $15,000-$20,000. If you can avoid one hospitalization, you can pay for nearly 4 years of MMF. More importantly, from a financial perspective, if you can convert a severe lupus patient to a mild/moderate lupus patient, then the annual costs of lupus decrease nearly by half, from about $52,000 per year to $25,000 per year.”
The study authors noted various limitations such as the small number of subjects, the need for a longer trial “to determine the advantages and disadvantages of early application of MMF,” and the fact that all subjects were Asian. The authors also called for confirmation via a double-blind, placebo-controlled study.
The study was funded by grants to the authors by the National Natural Science Foundation of China, Shanghai Rising-Star Program, Natural Science Foundation of Shanghai, Five-Year National Key R&D Program, and Ruijin–Zhongmei Huadong Lupus Funding. The authors had no disclosures. Dr. Costenbader disclosed consulting/research collaboration relationships with AstraZeneca, Amgen, Biogen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, GSK, Merck, Gilead, and Cabaletta. Dr. James and Dr. Wallace had no disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Early use of mycophenolate mofetil (MMF), a drug used to dampen the immune system in organ transplant recipients, may reduce the risk for severe flares in patients with newly diagnosed systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), according to results from a randomized, open-label, observer-blinded clinical trial.
In interviews, two SLE specialists who were not involved with the study said the research is preliminary but promising. However, another specialist criticized the paper’s reliance on unusual doses of prednisone and MMF, saying it “puts people on a treatment regimen that nobody ever uses.”
The Lupus Foundation of America estimates that about 16,000 people in the United States are diagnosed with lupus each year. “Our current treatment paradigm is to go pretty slowly and start treatment for new-onset, mild SLE with glucocorticoids, if necessary, and hydroxychloroquine,” said Karen H. Costenbader, MD, MPH, of Harvard Medical School and Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts.
Stronger immunosuppressive agents may be added as patients progress, she said.
Off-label use of MMF, which is approved by the Food and Drug Administration only for patients with certain organ transplants, may be appropriate in some cases, she said. “There is a big push to start immunosuppressives earlier, but we currently would reserve mycophenolate for those with severe manifestations — lupus nephritis; vasculitis; or lung, brain, or heart inflammation.”
In the trial, adult patients who received oral prednisone (starting at 0.5 mg/kg per day) and hydroxychloroquine sulfate (5 mg/kg per day) plus MMF (500 mg twice daily) for 96 weeks were less likely to develop severe flares than those who took the regimen without MMF (relative risk [RR], 0.39; 95% CI, 0.17-0.87; P = .01). Severe flares occurred in 10.8% of the MMF group (7 of 65 patients) and in 27.7% of the control group (18 of 65), Yijun You, MD, of Ruijin Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China, and colleagues reported in JAMA Network Open.
Patients in the MMF group also had 89% lower risk for lupus nephritis than those in the control group (RR, 0.11; 95% CI, 0.01-0.85; P = .008), with kidney involvement occurring in 1.5% (1 of 65) vs 13.8% (9 of 65).
During 2018-2021, researchers recruited 130 patients in China aged 18-65 years with newly diagnosed SLE, a high titer of anti–double-stranded DNA (dsDNA) antibodies, and no major organ involvement (mean age, 34.5 years; 86.2% women). Patients’ initial 0.5–mg/kg per day prednisone dose was maintained for 4 weeks, then tapered by 5.0 mg every 2 weeks, and when the dose had been reduced to 20.0 mg/day, it was tapered by 5 mg every month and then gradually to 0.1-0.2 mg/kg per day. If patients had severe flares, they stopped taking MMF. (The study authors did not respond to requests for comment on the study.)
‘A Treatment Regimen That Nobody Ever Uses’
While Dr. Costenbader called the study “very interesting” and said “every person diagnosing or taking care of patients with lupus should be familiar” with it, she noted that the prednisone doses were high. “I am wondering why they used quite so much glucocorticoid for everyone. This may have masked some of the MMF effect and biased toward the null. They also used a low dose of MMF and did not ramp it up as we would normally to a full dose. That being said, it is remarkable that it was well-tolerated and resulted in better outcomes over the period of the trial.”
Daniel J. Wallace, MD, of Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, California, and the University of California, Los Angeles, also highlighted the high doses of prednisone and low doses of MMF. “It’s a useless paper that puts people on a treatment regimen that nobody ever uses,” he said.
The rates of mild to moderate flares were similar between the control and intervention groups (38.5% vs 36.9%, respectively; RR, 0.96; P = .90). This finding is surprising, said Judith A. James, MD, PhD, executive vice president, chief medical officer, and head of the rheumatology clinic and Arthritis and Clinical Immunology Research Program at the Oklahoma Medical Research Foundation in Oklahoma City and also the Associate Vice Provost of Clinical & Translational Science, professor of medicine, and George Lynn Cross Research Professor at the University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center in Oklahoma City. “It may be that mild flares have a different mechanism or are caused by noninflammatory endotypes that don’t respond to MMF.”
Dr. Costenbader noted that a risk-benefit analysis will need to be done to take the risks of MMF into account. “However, every time that a person flares or is not in lupus low-disease activity state, potentially permanent organ damage is done and the patient suffers,” she said. “Preventing lupus nephritis de novo was also seen — nine cases potentially prevented — and that is also really interesting. It would be amazing if we could completely avoid that life-threatening complication.”
MMF can cause miscarriage and boost the risk for birth defects, and the manufacturer says it can lower the effectiveness of birth control pills. It can also boost the risk for some cancers such as lymphoma and increase the risk for infections.
Surprisingly, the number of adverse events in the control and intervention groups were similar (35.4% vs 46.2%, respectively; RR, 1.30; 95% CI, 0.86-1.99; P = .20). They included infection (30.8% vs 33.8%, respectively; P = .70) and gastrointestinal tract events (16.9% for both; P > .99).
“There were overall pretty similar rates of side effects, but maybe this was because MMF dose was pretty low in the treated group, or the glucocorticoid dose was not so low in both groups,” Dr. Costenbader said. She also noted that “the risk of malignancy with MMF is longer term than this study. It may not show up for 5-10 or even more years, but we know it exists. Infections are also increased with MMF — some of which can be avoided with vaccines for COVID, pneumonia, influenza, shingles, etc. MMF also causes gastrointestinal intolerance, and people often are not able to take it because of nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, and elevated liver function tests.”
Dr. James said the infection rates “may be due to the higher doses of steroids patients in both groups are on for several months at the beginning of the study.”
A total of 12 patients in the MMF group discontinued the intervention for various reasons, and 6 were lost to follow-up. In the control group, 20 discontinued the intervention and two were lost to follow-up. However, all 130 patients in the trial were included in the primary and secondary outcome analyses.
Should clinicians consider prescribing MMF to patients with new-onset SLE? “We usually wait until later when there are indications of more severe disease, but here they started it from the time of diagnosis if the patient was anti-dsDNA positive. Given insurance restrictions in this country, we would be unlikely to be able to do that for many patients,” Dr. Costenbader said. “They likely also overtreated a lot of patients who didn’t need it. Due to our lack of more specific biomarkers and precision medicine for lupus, we do currently undertreat a lot of patients, as this study highlights, as well as overtreat others.”
How Much Might Cost Factor Into Treatment Decisions?
The study did not examine cost. Prednisone and hydroxychloroquine sulfate are inexpensive, but Dr. James said MMF can cost about $450 a month at the study dosage. However, “the average hospitalization without an ICU [intensive care unit] visit for an SLE patient is about $15,000-$20,000. If you can avoid one hospitalization, you can pay for nearly 4 years of MMF. More importantly, from a financial perspective, if you can convert a severe lupus patient to a mild/moderate lupus patient, then the annual costs of lupus decrease nearly by half, from about $52,000 per year to $25,000 per year.”
The study authors noted various limitations such as the small number of subjects, the need for a longer trial “to determine the advantages and disadvantages of early application of MMF,” and the fact that all subjects were Asian. The authors also called for confirmation via a double-blind, placebo-controlled study.
The study was funded by grants to the authors by the National Natural Science Foundation of China, Shanghai Rising-Star Program, Natural Science Foundation of Shanghai, Five-Year National Key R&D Program, and Ruijin–Zhongmei Huadong Lupus Funding. The authors had no disclosures. Dr. Costenbader disclosed consulting/research collaboration relationships with AstraZeneca, Amgen, Biogen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, GSK, Merck, Gilead, and Cabaletta. Dr. James and Dr. Wallace had no disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Early use of mycophenolate mofetil (MMF), a drug used to dampen the immune system in organ transplant recipients, may reduce the risk for severe flares in patients with newly diagnosed systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), according to results from a randomized, open-label, observer-blinded clinical trial.
In interviews, two SLE specialists who were not involved with the study said the research is preliminary but promising. However, another specialist criticized the paper’s reliance on unusual doses of prednisone and MMF, saying it “puts people on a treatment regimen that nobody ever uses.”
The Lupus Foundation of America estimates that about 16,000 people in the United States are diagnosed with lupus each year. “Our current treatment paradigm is to go pretty slowly and start treatment for new-onset, mild SLE with glucocorticoids, if necessary, and hydroxychloroquine,” said Karen H. Costenbader, MD, MPH, of Harvard Medical School and Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts.
Stronger immunosuppressive agents may be added as patients progress, she said.
Off-label use of MMF, which is approved by the Food and Drug Administration only for patients with certain organ transplants, may be appropriate in some cases, she said. “There is a big push to start immunosuppressives earlier, but we currently would reserve mycophenolate for those with severe manifestations — lupus nephritis; vasculitis; or lung, brain, or heart inflammation.”
In the trial, adult patients who received oral prednisone (starting at 0.5 mg/kg per day) and hydroxychloroquine sulfate (5 mg/kg per day) plus MMF (500 mg twice daily) for 96 weeks were less likely to develop severe flares than those who took the regimen without MMF (relative risk [RR], 0.39; 95% CI, 0.17-0.87; P = .01). Severe flares occurred in 10.8% of the MMF group (7 of 65 patients) and in 27.7% of the control group (18 of 65), Yijun You, MD, of Ruijin Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China, and colleagues reported in JAMA Network Open.
Patients in the MMF group also had 89% lower risk for lupus nephritis than those in the control group (RR, 0.11; 95% CI, 0.01-0.85; P = .008), with kidney involvement occurring in 1.5% (1 of 65) vs 13.8% (9 of 65).
During 2018-2021, researchers recruited 130 patients in China aged 18-65 years with newly diagnosed SLE, a high titer of anti–double-stranded DNA (dsDNA) antibodies, and no major organ involvement (mean age, 34.5 years; 86.2% women). Patients’ initial 0.5–mg/kg per day prednisone dose was maintained for 4 weeks, then tapered by 5.0 mg every 2 weeks, and when the dose had been reduced to 20.0 mg/day, it was tapered by 5 mg every month and then gradually to 0.1-0.2 mg/kg per day. If patients had severe flares, they stopped taking MMF. (The study authors did not respond to requests for comment on the study.)
‘A Treatment Regimen That Nobody Ever Uses’
While Dr. Costenbader called the study “very interesting” and said “every person diagnosing or taking care of patients with lupus should be familiar” with it, she noted that the prednisone doses were high. “I am wondering why they used quite so much glucocorticoid for everyone. This may have masked some of the MMF effect and biased toward the null. They also used a low dose of MMF and did not ramp it up as we would normally to a full dose. That being said, it is remarkable that it was well-tolerated and resulted in better outcomes over the period of the trial.”
Daniel J. Wallace, MD, of Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, California, and the University of California, Los Angeles, also highlighted the high doses of prednisone and low doses of MMF. “It’s a useless paper that puts people on a treatment regimen that nobody ever uses,” he said.
The rates of mild to moderate flares were similar between the control and intervention groups (38.5% vs 36.9%, respectively; RR, 0.96; P = .90). This finding is surprising, said Judith A. James, MD, PhD, executive vice president, chief medical officer, and head of the rheumatology clinic and Arthritis and Clinical Immunology Research Program at the Oklahoma Medical Research Foundation in Oklahoma City and also the Associate Vice Provost of Clinical & Translational Science, professor of medicine, and George Lynn Cross Research Professor at the University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center in Oklahoma City. “It may be that mild flares have a different mechanism or are caused by noninflammatory endotypes that don’t respond to MMF.”
Dr. Costenbader noted that a risk-benefit analysis will need to be done to take the risks of MMF into account. “However, every time that a person flares or is not in lupus low-disease activity state, potentially permanent organ damage is done and the patient suffers,” she said. “Preventing lupus nephritis de novo was also seen — nine cases potentially prevented — and that is also really interesting. It would be amazing if we could completely avoid that life-threatening complication.”
MMF can cause miscarriage and boost the risk for birth defects, and the manufacturer says it can lower the effectiveness of birth control pills. It can also boost the risk for some cancers such as lymphoma and increase the risk for infections.
Surprisingly, the number of adverse events in the control and intervention groups were similar (35.4% vs 46.2%, respectively; RR, 1.30; 95% CI, 0.86-1.99; P = .20). They included infection (30.8% vs 33.8%, respectively; P = .70) and gastrointestinal tract events (16.9% for both; P > .99).
“There were overall pretty similar rates of side effects, but maybe this was because MMF dose was pretty low in the treated group, or the glucocorticoid dose was not so low in both groups,” Dr. Costenbader said. She also noted that “the risk of malignancy with MMF is longer term than this study. It may not show up for 5-10 or even more years, but we know it exists. Infections are also increased with MMF — some of which can be avoided with vaccines for COVID, pneumonia, influenza, shingles, etc. MMF also causes gastrointestinal intolerance, and people often are not able to take it because of nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, and elevated liver function tests.”
Dr. James said the infection rates “may be due to the higher doses of steroids patients in both groups are on for several months at the beginning of the study.”
A total of 12 patients in the MMF group discontinued the intervention for various reasons, and 6 were lost to follow-up. In the control group, 20 discontinued the intervention and two were lost to follow-up. However, all 130 patients in the trial were included in the primary and secondary outcome analyses.
Should clinicians consider prescribing MMF to patients with new-onset SLE? “We usually wait until later when there are indications of more severe disease, but here they started it from the time of diagnosis if the patient was anti-dsDNA positive. Given insurance restrictions in this country, we would be unlikely to be able to do that for many patients,” Dr. Costenbader said. “They likely also overtreated a lot of patients who didn’t need it. Due to our lack of more specific biomarkers and precision medicine for lupus, we do currently undertreat a lot of patients, as this study highlights, as well as overtreat others.”
How Much Might Cost Factor Into Treatment Decisions?
The study did not examine cost. Prednisone and hydroxychloroquine sulfate are inexpensive, but Dr. James said MMF can cost about $450 a month at the study dosage. However, “the average hospitalization without an ICU [intensive care unit] visit for an SLE patient is about $15,000-$20,000. If you can avoid one hospitalization, you can pay for nearly 4 years of MMF. More importantly, from a financial perspective, if you can convert a severe lupus patient to a mild/moderate lupus patient, then the annual costs of lupus decrease nearly by half, from about $52,000 per year to $25,000 per year.”
The study authors noted various limitations such as the small number of subjects, the need for a longer trial “to determine the advantages and disadvantages of early application of MMF,” and the fact that all subjects were Asian. The authors also called for confirmation via a double-blind, placebo-controlled study.
The study was funded by grants to the authors by the National Natural Science Foundation of China, Shanghai Rising-Star Program, Natural Science Foundation of Shanghai, Five-Year National Key R&D Program, and Ruijin–Zhongmei Huadong Lupus Funding. The authors had no disclosures. Dr. Costenbader disclosed consulting/research collaboration relationships with AstraZeneca, Amgen, Biogen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, GSK, Merck, Gilead, and Cabaletta. Dr. James and Dr. Wallace had no disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM JAMA NETWORK OPEN
Inspection of Deep Tumor Margins for Accurate Cutaneous Squamous Cell Carcinoma Staging
To the Editor:
Histopathologic analysis of debulk specimens in Mohs micrographic surgery (MMS) may augment identification of high-risk factors in cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (cSCC), which may warrant tumor upstaging.1 Intratumor location has not been studied when looking at these high-risk factors. Herein, we report 4 cSCCs initially categorized as well differentiated that were reclassified as moderate to poorly differentiated on analysis of debulk specimens obtained via shave removal.
An 80-year-old man (patient 1) presented with a tender 2-cm erythematous plaque with dried hemorrhagic crusting on the frontal scalp. He had a history of nonmelanoma skin cancers. A biopsy revealed a well-differentiated cSCC, which was upgraded from a T2a tumor to T2b during MMS due to galea involvement. Debulk analysis revealed moderate to poorly differentiated cSCC, with the least-differentiated cells at the deep margin (Figure 1A). Given T2b staging, baseline imaging and radiation therapy were recommended.
A 75-year-old man (patient 2) presented with a 2-cm erythematous plaque on the left vertex scalp with hemorrhagic crusting, yellow scale, and purulent drainage. He had a history of cSCCs. A biopsy revealed well-differentiated invasive cSCC, which was upgraded from a T2a tumor to T2b during MMS due to tumor extension beyond the subcutaneous fat. Examination of the second Mohs stage revealed moderately differentiated cSCC, with the least-differentiated cells at the deep margin, infiltration beyond the subcutaneous fat, and perineural invasion (Figure 1B). Given T2b staging, baseline imaging and radiation therapy were recommended.
An 86-year-old woman (patient 3) presented with a tender 2.4-cm plum-colored nodule on the right lower leg. She had a history of basal cell carcinoma. A biopsy revealed a well-differentiated invasive cSCC staged at T2a. Debulk analysis revealed moderately differentiated cSCC, with the least-differentiated cells at the deep margin, though the staging remained the same (Figure 1C).
An 82-year-old man (patient 4) presented with a 2.7-cm ulcerated nodule with adjacent scaling on the vertex scalp. He had no history of skin cancer. A biopsy revealed a well-differentiated cSCC (Figure 2) that was upgraded from a T2a tumor to T2b during MMS due to tumor extension beyond the subcutaneous fat. Debulk analysis revealed moderate to poorly differentiated cSCC, with the least-differentiated cells with single-cell extension at the deep margin in the galea (Figure 1D). Given T2b staging, baseline imaging and radiation therapy were recommended.
Tumor differentiation is a factor included in the Brigham and Women’s Hospital staging system, and intratumor variability can be clinically relevant for tumor staging.1 Specifically, cSCCs may exhibit intratumor heterogeneity in which predominantly well-differentiated tumors contain focal areas of poorer differentiation.2 This intratumor heterogeneity complicates estimation of tumor risk, as a well-differentiated tumor on biopsy may exhibit poor differentiation at a deeper margin. Our cases highlight that the cells at the deeper margin indeed can show poorer differentiation or other higher-risk tumor features. Thus, the most clinically relevant cells for tumor staging and prognostication may not be visible on initial biopsy, underscoring the utility of close examination of the deep layer of the debulk specimen and Mohs layer for comprehensive staging.
Genetic studies have attempted to identify gene expression patterns in cSCCs that predispose to invasion.3 Three of the top 6 genes in this “invasion signature gene set” were matrix metalloproteases; additionally, IL-24 messenger RNA was upregulated in both the cSCC invasion front and in situ cSCCs. IL-24 has been shown to upregulate the expression of matrix metalloprotease 7 in vitro, suggesting that it may influence tumor progression.3 Although gene expression was not included in this series, the identification of genetic variability in the most poorly differentiated cells residing in the deep margins is of great interest and may reveal mutations contributing to irregular cell morphology and cSCC invasiveness.
Prior studies have indicated that a proportion of cSCCs are histopathologically upgraded from the initial biopsy during MMS due to evidence of perineural invasion, bony invasion, or lesser differentiation noted during MMS stages or debulk analysis.1,4 However, the majority of Mohs surgeons report immediately discarding debulk specimens without further evaluation.5 Herein, we highlight 4 cSCC cases in which the deep margins of the debulk specimen contained the most dedifferentiated cells. Our findings emphasize the importance of thoroughly examining deep tumor margins for complete staging yet also highlight that identifying cells at these margins may not change patient management when high-risk criteria are already met.
- McIlwee BE, Abidi NY, Ravi M, et al. Utility of debulk specimens during Mohs micrographic surgery for cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma. Dermatol Surg. 2021;47:599-604.
- Ramón y Cajal S, Sesé M, Capdevila C, et al. Clinical implications of intratumor heterogeneity: challenges and opportunities. J Mol Med. 2020;98:161-177.
- Mitsui H, Suárez-Fariñas M, Gulati N, et al. Gene expression profiling of the leading edge of cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma: IL-24-driven MMP-7. J Invest Dermatol. 2014;134:1418-1427.
- Chung E, Hoang S, McEvoy AM, et al. Histopathologic upgrading of cutaneous squamous cell carcinomas during Mohs micrographic surgery: a retrospective cohort study. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2021;85:923-930.
- Alniemi DT, Swanson AM, Lasarev M, et al. Tumor debulking trends for keratinocyte carcinomas among Mohs surgeons. Dermatol Surg. 2021;47:1660-1661.
To the Editor:
Histopathologic analysis of debulk specimens in Mohs micrographic surgery (MMS) may augment identification of high-risk factors in cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (cSCC), which may warrant tumor upstaging.1 Intratumor location has not been studied when looking at these high-risk factors. Herein, we report 4 cSCCs initially categorized as well differentiated that were reclassified as moderate to poorly differentiated on analysis of debulk specimens obtained via shave removal.
An 80-year-old man (patient 1) presented with a tender 2-cm erythematous plaque with dried hemorrhagic crusting on the frontal scalp. He had a history of nonmelanoma skin cancers. A biopsy revealed a well-differentiated cSCC, which was upgraded from a T2a tumor to T2b during MMS due to galea involvement. Debulk analysis revealed moderate to poorly differentiated cSCC, with the least-differentiated cells at the deep margin (Figure 1A). Given T2b staging, baseline imaging and radiation therapy were recommended.
A 75-year-old man (patient 2) presented with a 2-cm erythematous plaque on the left vertex scalp with hemorrhagic crusting, yellow scale, and purulent drainage. He had a history of cSCCs. A biopsy revealed well-differentiated invasive cSCC, which was upgraded from a T2a tumor to T2b during MMS due to tumor extension beyond the subcutaneous fat. Examination of the second Mohs stage revealed moderately differentiated cSCC, with the least-differentiated cells at the deep margin, infiltration beyond the subcutaneous fat, and perineural invasion (Figure 1B). Given T2b staging, baseline imaging and radiation therapy were recommended.
An 86-year-old woman (patient 3) presented with a tender 2.4-cm plum-colored nodule on the right lower leg. She had a history of basal cell carcinoma. A biopsy revealed a well-differentiated invasive cSCC staged at T2a. Debulk analysis revealed moderately differentiated cSCC, with the least-differentiated cells at the deep margin, though the staging remained the same (Figure 1C).
An 82-year-old man (patient 4) presented with a 2.7-cm ulcerated nodule with adjacent scaling on the vertex scalp. He had no history of skin cancer. A biopsy revealed a well-differentiated cSCC (Figure 2) that was upgraded from a T2a tumor to T2b during MMS due to tumor extension beyond the subcutaneous fat. Debulk analysis revealed moderate to poorly differentiated cSCC, with the least-differentiated cells with single-cell extension at the deep margin in the galea (Figure 1D). Given T2b staging, baseline imaging and radiation therapy were recommended.
Tumor differentiation is a factor included in the Brigham and Women’s Hospital staging system, and intratumor variability can be clinically relevant for tumor staging.1 Specifically, cSCCs may exhibit intratumor heterogeneity in which predominantly well-differentiated tumors contain focal areas of poorer differentiation.2 This intratumor heterogeneity complicates estimation of tumor risk, as a well-differentiated tumor on biopsy may exhibit poor differentiation at a deeper margin. Our cases highlight that the cells at the deeper margin indeed can show poorer differentiation or other higher-risk tumor features. Thus, the most clinically relevant cells for tumor staging and prognostication may not be visible on initial biopsy, underscoring the utility of close examination of the deep layer of the debulk specimen and Mohs layer for comprehensive staging.
Genetic studies have attempted to identify gene expression patterns in cSCCs that predispose to invasion.3 Three of the top 6 genes in this “invasion signature gene set” were matrix metalloproteases; additionally, IL-24 messenger RNA was upregulated in both the cSCC invasion front and in situ cSCCs. IL-24 has been shown to upregulate the expression of matrix metalloprotease 7 in vitro, suggesting that it may influence tumor progression.3 Although gene expression was not included in this series, the identification of genetic variability in the most poorly differentiated cells residing in the deep margins is of great interest and may reveal mutations contributing to irregular cell morphology and cSCC invasiveness.
Prior studies have indicated that a proportion of cSCCs are histopathologically upgraded from the initial biopsy during MMS due to evidence of perineural invasion, bony invasion, or lesser differentiation noted during MMS stages or debulk analysis.1,4 However, the majority of Mohs surgeons report immediately discarding debulk specimens without further evaluation.5 Herein, we highlight 4 cSCC cases in which the deep margins of the debulk specimen contained the most dedifferentiated cells. Our findings emphasize the importance of thoroughly examining deep tumor margins for complete staging yet also highlight that identifying cells at these margins may not change patient management when high-risk criteria are already met.
To the Editor:
Histopathologic analysis of debulk specimens in Mohs micrographic surgery (MMS) may augment identification of high-risk factors in cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (cSCC), which may warrant tumor upstaging.1 Intratumor location has not been studied when looking at these high-risk factors. Herein, we report 4 cSCCs initially categorized as well differentiated that were reclassified as moderate to poorly differentiated on analysis of debulk specimens obtained via shave removal.
An 80-year-old man (patient 1) presented with a tender 2-cm erythematous plaque with dried hemorrhagic crusting on the frontal scalp. He had a history of nonmelanoma skin cancers. A biopsy revealed a well-differentiated cSCC, which was upgraded from a T2a tumor to T2b during MMS due to galea involvement. Debulk analysis revealed moderate to poorly differentiated cSCC, with the least-differentiated cells at the deep margin (Figure 1A). Given T2b staging, baseline imaging and radiation therapy were recommended.
A 75-year-old man (patient 2) presented with a 2-cm erythematous plaque on the left vertex scalp with hemorrhagic crusting, yellow scale, and purulent drainage. He had a history of cSCCs. A biopsy revealed well-differentiated invasive cSCC, which was upgraded from a T2a tumor to T2b during MMS due to tumor extension beyond the subcutaneous fat. Examination of the second Mohs stage revealed moderately differentiated cSCC, with the least-differentiated cells at the deep margin, infiltration beyond the subcutaneous fat, and perineural invasion (Figure 1B). Given T2b staging, baseline imaging and radiation therapy were recommended.
An 86-year-old woman (patient 3) presented with a tender 2.4-cm plum-colored nodule on the right lower leg. She had a history of basal cell carcinoma. A biopsy revealed a well-differentiated invasive cSCC staged at T2a. Debulk analysis revealed moderately differentiated cSCC, with the least-differentiated cells at the deep margin, though the staging remained the same (Figure 1C).
An 82-year-old man (patient 4) presented with a 2.7-cm ulcerated nodule with adjacent scaling on the vertex scalp. He had no history of skin cancer. A biopsy revealed a well-differentiated cSCC (Figure 2) that was upgraded from a T2a tumor to T2b during MMS due to tumor extension beyond the subcutaneous fat. Debulk analysis revealed moderate to poorly differentiated cSCC, with the least-differentiated cells with single-cell extension at the deep margin in the galea (Figure 1D). Given T2b staging, baseline imaging and radiation therapy were recommended.
Tumor differentiation is a factor included in the Brigham and Women’s Hospital staging system, and intratumor variability can be clinically relevant for tumor staging.1 Specifically, cSCCs may exhibit intratumor heterogeneity in which predominantly well-differentiated tumors contain focal areas of poorer differentiation.2 This intratumor heterogeneity complicates estimation of tumor risk, as a well-differentiated tumor on biopsy may exhibit poor differentiation at a deeper margin. Our cases highlight that the cells at the deeper margin indeed can show poorer differentiation or other higher-risk tumor features. Thus, the most clinically relevant cells for tumor staging and prognostication may not be visible on initial biopsy, underscoring the utility of close examination of the deep layer of the debulk specimen and Mohs layer for comprehensive staging.
Genetic studies have attempted to identify gene expression patterns in cSCCs that predispose to invasion.3 Three of the top 6 genes in this “invasion signature gene set” were matrix metalloproteases; additionally, IL-24 messenger RNA was upregulated in both the cSCC invasion front and in situ cSCCs. IL-24 has been shown to upregulate the expression of matrix metalloprotease 7 in vitro, suggesting that it may influence tumor progression.3 Although gene expression was not included in this series, the identification of genetic variability in the most poorly differentiated cells residing in the deep margins is of great interest and may reveal mutations contributing to irregular cell morphology and cSCC invasiveness.
Prior studies have indicated that a proportion of cSCCs are histopathologically upgraded from the initial biopsy during MMS due to evidence of perineural invasion, bony invasion, or lesser differentiation noted during MMS stages or debulk analysis.1,4 However, the majority of Mohs surgeons report immediately discarding debulk specimens without further evaluation.5 Herein, we highlight 4 cSCC cases in which the deep margins of the debulk specimen contained the most dedifferentiated cells. Our findings emphasize the importance of thoroughly examining deep tumor margins for complete staging yet also highlight that identifying cells at these margins may not change patient management when high-risk criteria are already met.
- McIlwee BE, Abidi NY, Ravi M, et al. Utility of debulk specimens during Mohs micrographic surgery for cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma. Dermatol Surg. 2021;47:599-604.
- Ramón y Cajal S, Sesé M, Capdevila C, et al. Clinical implications of intratumor heterogeneity: challenges and opportunities. J Mol Med. 2020;98:161-177.
- Mitsui H, Suárez-Fariñas M, Gulati N, et al. Gene expression profiling of the leading edge of cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma: IL-24-driven MMP-7. J Invest Dermatol. 2014;134:1418-1427.
- Chung E, Hoang S, McEvoy AM, et al. Histopathologic upgrading of cutaneous squamous cell carcinomas during Mohs micrographic surgery: a retrospective cohort study. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2021;85:923-930.
- Alniemi DT, Swanson AM, Lasarev M, et al. Tumor debulking trends for keratinocyte carcinomas among Mohs surgeons. Dermatol Surg. 2021;47:1660-1661.
- McIlwee BE, Abidi NY, Ravi M, et al. Utility of debulk specimens during Mohs micrographic surgery for cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma. Dermatol Surg. 2021;47:599-604.
- Ramón y Cajal S, Sesé M, Capdevila C, et al. Clinical implications of intratumor heterogeneity: challenges and opportunities. J Mol Med. 2020;98:161-177.
- Mitsui H, Suárez-Fariñas M, Gulati N, et al. Gene expression profiling of the leading edge of cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma: IL-24-driven MMP-7. J Invest Dermatol. 2014;134:1418-1427.
- Chung E, Hoang S, McEvoy AM, et al. Histopathologic upgrading of cutaneous squamous cell carcinomas during Mohs micrographic surgery: a retrospective cohort study. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2021;85:923-930.
- Alniemi DT, Swanson AM, Lasarev M, et al. Tumor debulking trends for keratinocyte carcinomas among Mohs surgeons. Dermatol Surg. 2021;47:1660-1661.
Practice Points
- A proportion of cutaneous squamous cell carcinomas are upgraded from the initial biopsy during Mohs micrographic surgery due to evidence of perineural invasion, bony invasion, or lesser differentiation noted on Mohs stages or debulk analysis.
- Thorough inspection of the deep tumor margins may be required for accurate tumor staging and evaluation of metastatic risk. Cells at the deep margin of the tumor may demonstrate poorer differentiation and/or other higher-risk tumor features than those closer to the surface.
- Tumor staging may be incomplete until the deep margins are assessed to find the most dysplastic and likely clinically relevant cells, which may be missed without evaluation of the debulked tumor.
No Signal of Benefit for Simvastatin in Progressive MS
COPENHAGEN — There were high hopes that simvastatin, a well-tolerated lipid-lowering therapy, would reduce disability progression in patients with nonflaring secondary progressive multiple sclerosis (SPMS), but a definitive multicenter double-blind randomized trial found no benefit at all.
“There was no effect on the primary outcome of confirmed progression or on any of the secondary outcomes,” reported Jeremy Chataway, MD, PhD, consultant neurologist, National Hospital for Neurology and Neurosurgery, University College of London, England.
For the primary outcome of progression on the Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS), the nonsignificant hazard ratio (HR) was, in fact, in favor of placebo (HR, 1.13; P = .26) over 45 months of follow-up and 365 progression events.
No Meaningful Difference Between Study Arms
“There were wide confidence intervals [95% CI, 0.91-1.39], so, really, there were no differences between the two arms,” reported Dr. Chataway, who presented the simvastatin trial, called MS-STAT2, during the late-breaker session of the 2024 ECTRIMS annual meeting.
Over a period of more than 20 years, a series of experimental and clinical studies have indicated that simvastatin and other CoA reductase inhibitors have anti-inflammatory and neuroprotective effects. These studies were the basis for the first MED-STAT study, which was a placebo-controlled randomized trial published in 2014.
Although this study did not have a clinical endpoint, it associated simvastatin with a 43% reduction (P = .003) in the annualized rate of brain atrophy, which has been widely accepted as a surrogate measure of MS progression.
In MS-STAT2, 964 patients were available for the intention-to-treat analysis. An established diagnosis of SPMS, an age of 25-65, and an EDSS score of 4.0-6.5 were among the inclusion criteria. Patients were required to be relapse-free for at least 3 months prior to study entry.
Importantly, patients were excluded if they were taking statin-lowering therapies or were candidates for these therapies due to the presence of cardiovascular disease. They were also excluded from entering the trial if taking immunosuppressants, such as methotrexate or azathioprine, or had exposure to monoclonal antibodies employed in the treatment of MS, such as natalizumab and alemtuzumab, in the prior 12 months.
Randomized to 80 mg of simvastatin (40 mg in the first month followed by rapid upward titration) or placebo in a 1:1 fashion, patients remained on their assigned therapy for 3 years in the absence of progression. At the end of this time, patients who remained progression-free could continue for up to 45 months while still blinded to treatment assignment.
Even though a large proportion of patients who were eligible to remain in the study for the full 45 months did so, the retention did not reflect clinical improvement.
Indeed, the secondary endpoints also produced no signal of benefit. On a composite secondary endpoint of EDSS, ambulation in the form of the 25-foot walk, and upper extremity function in the form of the 9-hole peg test (9-HPT), the numerical odds ratio (OR) went in the wrong direction for simvastatin although the difference was not significant (OR, 1.17; P = .26).
Annualized Relapse Rate Numerically Higher on Simvastatin
The annualized relapse rate, another secondary endpoint, was low in both arms of the study at 0.05 relapses/year for placebo and 0.7 relapses/year for simvastatin. Again, this result, although numerically unfavorable for simvastatin did not reach statistical significance (OR, 1.43; P = .04).
Simvastatin had a placebo-like safety profile. The single case of rhabdomyolysis in the simvastatin arm, which occurred early after randomization, resolved. Otherwise, simvastatin was well tolerated.
Conducted before and through the period of the COVID-19 pandemic, the number of progression events tripled in the year after the COVID-19 pandemic started relative to the prior year. At the end of the pandemic, progression events returned to a level similar to that before its onset. However, although Dr. Chataway noted this was an interesting example of comorbidities exacerbating MS, he emphasized that this increase was similar in the simvastatin and placebo arms.
There are more analyses to come, including patient-reported outcomes, biomarker analyses, and further comparisons of change in MRIs, but Dr. Chataway acknowledged that the study provided no support for the underlying hypothesis.
Several experts commenting after the study was presented, including Ludwig Kappos, MD, PhD, Chair of Neurology at the University Hospital, Basel, Switzerland, agreed.
“Unfortunately, these results are quite disappointing,” he said. When asked if there is any rationale for further pursuing studies of simvastatin for the treatment of SPMS, he said no.
“These data are quite convincing that there is no benefit. I do not see where you could go from here,” Dr. Kappos said in an interview.
Dr. Chataway, asked the same question, reiterated that there are a number of preplanned analyses that will be completed, but he does not foresee further studies with simvastatin for the indication studied in MS-STAT-2 trial.
However, he also emphasized strongly that simvastatin or any other lipid-lowering therapy should not be withheld from MS patients that need these drugs for a cardiovascular indication.
“We saw no benefit seen from simvastatin for patients with stable SPMS, but these drugs were well tolerated and they can be life-saving therapies for patients with increased cardiovascular risk,” Dr. Chataway said.
Dr, Chataway reported financial relationships with Biogen, Genzyme, Ionis, Lucid, Merck NerveGen, Novartis, Roche, and Sanofi. Dr. Kappos reports financial relationships with more than 20 pharmaceutical companies. The MS-STAT2 trial received no funding from industry.
COPENHAGEN — There were high hopes that simvastatin, a well-tolerated lipid-lowering therapy, would reduce disability progression in patients with nonflaring secondary progressive multiple sclerosis (SPMS), but a definitive multicenter double-blind randomized trial found no benefit at all.
“There was no effect on the primary outcome of confirmed progression or on any of the secondary outcomes,” reported Jeremy Chataway, MD, PhD, consultant neurologist, National Hospital for Neurology and Neurosurgery, University College of London, England.
For the primary outcome of progression on the Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS), the nonsignificant hazard ratio (HR) was, in fact, in favor of placebo (HR, 1.13; P = .26) over 45 months of follow-up and 365 progression events.
No Meaningful Difference Between Study Arms
“There were wide confidence intervals [95% CI, 0.91-1.39], so, really, there were no differences between the two arms,” reported Dr. Chataway, who presented the simvastatin trial, called MS-STAT2, during the late-breaker session of the 2024 ECTRIMS annual meeting.
Over a period of more than 20 years, a series of experimental and clinical studies have indicated that simvastatin and other CoA reductase inhibitors have anti-inflammatory and neuroprotective effects. These studies were the basis for the first MED-STAT study, which was a placebo-controlled randomized trial published in 2014.
Although this study did not have a clinical endpoint, it associated simvastatin with a 43% reduction (P = .003) in the annualized rate of brain atrophy, which has been widely accepted as a surrogate measure of MS progression.
In MS-STAT2, 964 patients were available for the intention-to-treat analysis. An established diagnosis of SPMS, an age of 25-65, and an EDSS score of 4.0-6.5 were among the inclusion criteria. Patients were required to be relapse-free for at least 3 months prior to study entry.
Importantly, patients were excluded if they were taking statin-lowering therapies or were candidates for these therapies due to the presence of cardiovascular disease. They were also excluded from entering the trial if taking immunosuppressants, such as methotrexate or azathioprine, or had exposure to monoclonal antibodies employed in the treatment of MS, such as natalizumab and alemtuzumab, in the prior 12 months.
Randomized to 80 mg of simvastatin (40 mg in the first month followed by rapid upward titration) or placebo in a 1:1 fashion, patients remained on their assigned therapy for 3 years in the absence of progression. At the end of this time, patients who remained progression-free could continue for up to 45 months while still blinded to treatment assignment.
Even though a large proportion of patients who were eligible to remain in the study for the full 45 months did so, the retention did not reflect clinical improvement.
Indeed, the secondary endpoints also produced no signal of benefit. On a composite secondary endpoint of EDSS, ambulation in the form of the 25-foot walk, and upper extremity function in the form of the 9-hole peg test (9-HPT), the numerical odds ratio (OR) went in the wrong direction for simvastatin although the difference was not significant (OR, 1.17; P = .26).
Annualized Relapse Rate Numerically Higher on Simvastatin
The annualized relapse rate, another secondary endpoint, was low in both arms of the study at 0.05 relapses/year for placebo and 0.7 relapses/year for simvastatin. Again, this result, although numerically unfavorable for simvastatin did not reach statistical significance (OR, 1.43; P = .04).
Simvastatin had a placebo-like safety profile. The single case of rhabdomyolysis in the simvastatin arm, which occurred early after randomization, resolved. Otherwise, simvastatin was well tolerated.
Conducted before and through the period of the COVID-19 pandemic, the number of progression events tripled in the year after the COVID-19 pandemic started relative to the prior year. At the end of the pandemic, progression events returned to a level similar to that before its onset. However, although Dr. Chataway noted this was an interesting example of comorbidities exacerbating MS, he emphasized that this increase was similar in the simvastatin and placebo arms.
There are more analyses to come, including patient-reported outcomes, biomarker analyses, and further comparisons of change in MRIs, but Dr. Chataway acknowledged that the study provided no support for the underlying hypothesis.
Several experts commenting after the study was presented, including Ludwig Kappos, MD, PhD, Chair of Neurology at the University Hospital, Basel, Switzerland, agreed.
“Unfortunately, these results are quite disappointing,” he said. When asked if there is any rationale for further pursuing studies of simvastatin for the treatment of SPMS, he said no.
“These data are quite convincing that there is no benefit. I do not see where you could go from here,” Dr. Kappos said in an interview.
Dr. Chataway, asked the same question, reiterated that there are a number of preplanned analyses that will be completed, but he does not foresee further studies with simvastatin for the indication studied in MS-STAT-2 trial.
However, he also emphasized strongly that simvastatin or any other lipid-lowering therapy should not be withheld from MS patients that need these drugs for a cardiovascular indication.
“We saw no benefit seen from simvastatin for patients with stable SPMS, but these drugs were well tolerated and they can be life-saving therapies for patients with increased cardiovascular risk,” Dr. Chataway said.
Dr, Chataway reported financial relationships with Biogen, Genzyme, Ionis, Lucid, Merck NerveGen, Novartis, Roche, and Sanofi. Dr. Kappos reports financial relationships with more than 20 pharmaceutical companies. The MS-STAT2 trial received no funding from industry.
COPENHAGEN — There were high hopes that simvastatin, a well-tolerated lipid-lowering therapy, would reduce disability progression in patients with nonflaring secondary progressive multiple sclerosis (SPMS), but a definitive multicenter double-blind randomized trial found no benefit at all.
“There was no effect on the primary outcome of confirmed progression or on any of the secondary outcomes,” reported Jeremy Chataway, MD, PhD, consultant neurologist, National Hospital for Neurology and Neurosurgery, University College of London, England.
For the primary outcome of progression on the Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS), the nonsignificant hazard ratio (HR) was, in fact, in favor of placebo (HR, 1.13; P = .26) over 45 months of follow-up and 365 progression events.
No Meaningful Difference Between Study Arms
“There were wide confidence intervals [95% CI, 0.91-1.39], so, really, there were no differences between the two arms,” reported Dr. Chataway, who presented the simvastatin trial, called MS-STAT2, during the late-breaker session of the 2024 ECTRIMS annual meeting.
Over a period of more than 20 years, a series of experimental and clinical studies have indicated that simvastatin and other CoA reductase inhibitors have anti-inflammatory and neuroprotective effects. These studies were the basis for the first MED-STAT study, which was a placebo-controlled randomized trial published in 2014.
Although this study did not have a clinical endpoint, it associated simvastatin with a 43% reduction (P = .003) in the annualized rate of brain atrophy, which has been widely accepted as a surrogate measure of MS progression.
In MS-STAT2, 964 patients were available for the intention-to-treat analysis. An established diagnosis of SPMS, an age of 25-65, and an EDSS score of 4.0-6.5 were among the inclusion criteria. Patients were required to be relapse-free for at least 3 months prior to study entry.
Importantly, patients were excluded if they were taking statin-lowering therapies or were candidates for these therapies due to the presence of cardiovascular disease. They were also excluded from entering the trial if taking immunosuppressants, such as methotrexate or azathioprine, or had exposure to monoclonal antibodies employed in the treatment of MS, such as natalizumab and alemtuzumab, in the prior 12 months.
Randomized to 80 mg of simvastatin (40 mg in the first month followed by rapid upward titration) or placebo in a 1:1 fashion, patients remained on their assigned therapy for 3 years in the absence of progression. At the end of this time, patients who remained progression-free could continue for up to 45 months while still blinded to treatment assignment.
Even though a large proportion of patients who were eligible to remain in the study for the full 45 months did so, the retention did not reflect clinical improvement.
Indeed, the secondary endpoints also produced no signal of benefit. On a composite secondary endpoint of EDSS, ambulation in the form of the 25-foot walk, and upper extremity function in the form of the 9-hole peg test (9-HPT), the numerical odds ratio (OR) went in the wrong direction for simvastatin although the difference was not significant (OR, 1.17; P = .26).
Annualized Relapse Rate Numerically Higher on Simvastatin
The annualized relapse rate, another secondary endpoint, was low in both arms of the study at 0.05 relapses/year for placebo and 0.7 relapses/year for simvastatin. Again, this result, although numerically unfavorable for simvastatin did not reach statistical significance (OR, 1.43; P = .04).
Simvastatin had a placebo-like safety profile. The single case of rhabdomyolysis in the simvastatin arm, which occurred early after randomization, resolved. Otherwise, simvastatin was well tolerated.
Conducted before and through the period of the COVID-19 pandemic, the number of progression events tripled in the year after the COVID-19 pandemic started relative to the prior year. At the end of the pandemic, progression events returned to a level similar to that before its onset. However, although Dr. Chataway noted this was an interesting example of comorbidities exacerbating MS, he emphasized that this increase was similar in the simvastatin and placebo arms.
There are more analyses to come, including patient-reported outcomes, biomarker analyses, and further comparisons of change in MRIs, but Dr. Chataway acknowledged that the study provided no support for the underlying hypothesis.
Several experts commenting after the study was presented, including Ludwig Kappos, MD, PhD, Chair of Neurology at the University Hospital, Basel, Switzerland, agreed.
“Unfortunately, these results are quite disappointing,” he said. When asked if there is any rationale for further pursuing studies of simvastatin for the treatment of SPMS, he said no.
“These data are quite convincing that there is no benefit. I do not see where you could go from here,” Dr. Kappos said in an interview.
Dr. Chataway, asked the same question, reiterated that there are a number of preplanned analyses that will be completed, but he does not foresee further studies with simvastatin for the indication studied in MS-STAT-2 trial.
However, he also emphasized strongly that simvastatin or any other lipid-lowering therapy should not be withheld from MS patients that need these drugs for a cardiovascular indication.
“We saw no benefit seen from simvastatin for patients with stable SPMS, but these drugs were well tolerated and they can be life-saving therapies for patients with increased cardiovascular risk,” Dr. Chataway said.
Dr, Chataway reported financial relationships with Biogen, Genzyme, Ionis, Lucid, Merck NerveGen, Novartis, Roche, and Sanofi. Dr. Kappos reports financial relationships with more than 20 pharmaceutical companies. The MS-STAT2 trial received no funding from industry.
FROM ECTRIMS 2024
FDA OKs Adjuvant Ribociclib in Earlier Stage Breast Cancer
FDA also approved ribociclib and the aromatase inhibitor letrozole packaged together (Kisqali Femara Co-Pack, Novartis) for the same indication.
A rival cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 (CDK4/6) inhibitor abemaciclib (Verzenio, Eli Lilly) carries a similar adjuvant indication, but use of this agent requires patients to be lymph node–positive.
There’s no such restriction for the new ribociclib indication, which “allows us to offer treatment with a CDK4/6 inhibitor to a significantly broader group of people,” lead investigator Dennis J. Slamon, MD, breast oncologist at the University of California Los Angeless, said in a Novartis press release.
The new indication joins ribociclib’s previous approval for advanced or metastatic HR-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer in combination with an aromatase inhibitor or fulvestrant.
The current approval was based on data from the NATALEE trial. NATALEE randomized 5101 patients with early-stage HR-positive, HER2-negative disease to either 400 mg ribociclib with an aromatase inhibitor or to an aromatase inhibitor alone following surgery.
Invasive disease-free survival at 36 months was 90.7% in the ribociclib arm vs 87.6% with aromatase inhibitor monotherapy (hazard ratio [HR], 0.749; P = .0006). The trial included patients with and without lymph node involvement.
At 4 years (well beyond NATALEE’s 3-year treatment window), the ribociclib group continued to do better, with an invasive disease-free survival rate of 88.5% vs 83.6% in the control arm.
Overall survival data remain immature but with a trend towards improved survival in the ribociclib arm (HR, 0.715; P < .0001), according to a recent report from the 2024 European Society for Medical Oncology Congress.
There were no new safety signals in the trial. Adverse events in the ribociclib group included neutropenia (62.5% overall; 44.3% grade 3/4), liver-related events (26.4% overall; 8.6% grade 3/4), QT prolongation (5.3% overall; 1.0% grade 3/4), and interstitial lung disease/pneumonitis (1.5% overall; 0.0% grade 3/4), according to Novartis.
Ribociclib dosing for the adjuvant indication is lower than for metastatic disease, but patients are on the same schedule — two 200 mg tablets once daily for 21 days followed by 7 days off in 28-day cycles. Treatment continues for 3 years.
Forty-two 200 mg tablets cost about $15,000, according to drugs.com. A patient assistance program is available through Novartis.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
FDA also approved ribociclib and the aromatase inhibitor letrozole packaged together (Kisqali Femara Co-Pack, Novartis) for the same indication.
A rival cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 (CDK4/6) inhibitor abemaciclib (Verzenio, Eli Lilly) carries a similar adjuvant indication, but use of this agent requires patients to be lymph node–positive.
There’s no such restriction for the new ribociclib indication, which “allows us to offer treatment with a CDK4/6 inhibitor to a significantly broader group of people,” lead investigator Dennis J. Slamon, MD, breast oncologist at the University of California Los Angeless, said in a Novartis press release.
The new indication joins ribociclib’s previous approval for advanced or metastatic HR-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer in combination with an aromatase inhibitor or fulvestrant.
The current approval was based on data from the NATALEE trial. NATALEE randomized 5101 patients with early-stage HR-positive, HER2-negative disease to either 400 mg ribociclib with an aromatase inhibitor or to an aromatase inhibitor alone following surgery.
Invasive disease-free survival at 36 months was 90.7% in the ribociclib arm vs 87.6% with aromatase inhibitor monotherapy (hazard ratio [HR], 0.749; P = .0006). The trial included patients with and without lymph node involvement.
At 4 years (well beyond NATALEE’s 3-year treatment window), the ribociclib group continued to do better, with an invasive disease-free survival rate of 88.5% vs 83.6% in the control arm.
Overall survival data remain immature but with a trend towards improved survival in the ribociclib arm (HR, 0.715; P < .0001), according to a recent report from the 2024 European Society for Medical Oncology Congress.
There were no new safety signals in the trial. Adverse events in the ribociclib group included neutropenia (62.5% overall; 44.3% grade 3/4), liver-related events (26.4% overall; 8.6% grade 3/4), QT prolongation (5.3% overall; 1.0% grade 3/4), and interstitial lung disease/pneumonitis (1.5% overall; 0.0% grade 3/4), according to Novartis.
Ribociclib dosing for the adjuvant indication is lower than for metastatic disease, but patients are on the same schedule — two 200 mg tablets once daily for 21 days followed by 7 days off in 28-day cycles. Treatment continues for 3 years.
Forty-two 200 mg tablets cost about $15,000, according to drugs.com. A patient assistance program is available through Novartis.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
FDA also approved ribociclib and the aromatase inhibitor letrozole packaged together (Kisqali Femara Co-Pack, Novartis) for the same indication.
A rival cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 (CDK4/6) inhibitor abemaciclib (Verzenio, Eli Lilly) carries a similar adjuvant indication, but use of this agent requires patients to be lymph node–positive.
There’s no such restriction for the new ribociclib indication, which “allows us to offer treatment with a CDK4/6 inhibitor to a significantly broader group of people,” lead investigator Dennis J. Slamon, MD, breast oncologist at the University of California Los Angeless, said in a Novartis press release.
The new indication joins ribociclib’s previous approval for advanced or metastatic HR-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer in combination with an aromatase inhibitor or fulvestrant.
The current approval was based on data from the NATALEE trial. NATALEE randomized 5101 patients with early-stage HR-positive, HER2-negative disease to either 400 mg ribociclib with an aromatase inhibitor or to an aromatase inhibitor alone following surgery.
Invasive disease-free survival at 36 months was 90.7% in the ribociclib arm vs 87.6% with aromatase inhibitor monotherapy (hazard ratio [HR], 0.749; P = .0006). The trial included patients with and without lymph node involvement.
At 4 years (well beyond NATALEE’s 3-year treatment window), the ribociclib group continued to do better, with an invasive disease-free survival rate of 88.5% vs 83.6% in the control arm.
Overall survival data remain immature but with a trend towards improved survival in the ribociclib arm (HR, 0.715; P < .0001), according to a recent report from the 2024 European Society for Medical Oncology Congress.
There were no new safety signals in the trial. Adverse events in the ribociclib group included neutropenia (62.5% overall; 44.3% grade 3/4), liver-related events (26.4% overall; 8.6% grade 3/4), QT prolongation (5.3% overall; 1.0% grade 3/4), and interstitial lung disease/pneumonitis (1.5% overall; 0.0% grade 3/4), according to Novartis.
Ribociclib dosing for the adjuvant indication is lower than for metastatic disease, but patients are on the same schedule — two 200 mg tablets once daily for 21 days followed by 7 days off in 28-day cycles. Treatment continues for 3 years.
Forty-two 200 mg tablets cost about $15,000, according to drugs.com. A patient assistance program is available through Novartis.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Epilepsy Drug May Reduce Symptoms of OSA
An epilepsy drug sold in Europe as Ospolot and also known as sulthiame showed promise in reducing sleep disordered breathing and other symptoms of obstructive sleep apnea (OSA), based on data from nearly 300 individuals presented in a late-breaking study at the annual congress of the European Respiratory Society.
“Current therapies are mechanical and based on the notion of an airway splint,” presenting author Jan Hedner, MD, professor of respiratory medicine at Sahlgrenska University Hospital and the University of Gothenburg, both in Sweden, said in an interview. “In other words, applying an airflow at elevated pressure [continuous positive airway pressure] or advancing the jaw with a dental device. Adherence to this type of therapy is limited. In the case of continuous positive airway pressure [CPAP], it is < 50% after 3-4 years of therapy.” Therefore, there is a need for a better-tolerated therapy, such as a drug, and possibly a combination of mechanical and pharmaceutical therapies.
The use of medication has emerged as a viable option for OSA, with a high rate of compliance and acceptable safety profile, Dr. Hedner said in his presentation.
“Modified carbonic anhydrase activity may be a pathophysiological mechanism in OSA,” said Dr. Hedner. Sulthiame, a carbonic anhydrase inhibitor, showed safety and effectiveness for improving OSA in a previous phase 2b trial.
In the current study, the researchers sought to determine the most effective dose of sulthiame for patients with OSA. They randomized 298 adults with OSA who could not accept or tolerate oral splints or CPAP to 100 mg, 200 mg, or 300 mg of sulthiame daily (74, 74, and 75 patients, respectively) or placebo (75 patients).
The mean age of the patients was 56 years, 26.2% were women, and the average apnea-hypopnea index (AHI3a) at baseline was 29 n/h. Patients were treated at centers in Spain, France, Belgium, Germany, and the Czech Republic. Baseline demographics and clinical characteristics were similar among the treatment groups.
The primary endpoint was the change in AHI3a from baseline to 15 weeks, and significant changes occurred in patients who received the 100-mg, 200-mg, and 300-mg doses, with decreases of 17.8%, 34.8%, and 39.9%, respectively.
Dr. Hedner said in his presentation.
Notably, in a post hoc analysis, apnea improved by 47.1% at a 300-mg dose when the AHI4 measure (apnea/hypopnea with ≥ 4% O2 desaturation) was used in a placebo-adjusted dose-dependent reduction, the researchers wrote. The changes in AHI4 from baseline in this analysis also were significant for 200 mg and 100 mg doses (36.8% and 26.2%, respectively).
Patients underwent polysomnography at baseline and at weeks 4 and 12.
Mean overnight oxygen saturation also improved significantly from baseline with doses of 200 mg and 300 mg, compared with placebo (P < .0001 for both).
In addition, scores on the Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS) improved from baseline to week 15 in all dosage groups, and the subgroup of patients with ESS scores of ≥ 11 at baseline showed even greater improvement in ESS, Dr. Hedner said in his presentation.
Total arousal index and sleep quality also improved from baseline compared with placebo, and no clinically relevant reduction in REM sleep was noted, Dr. Hedner added.
Treatment-emergent adverse events were in line with the known safety profile of sulthiame and included paresthesia, headache, fatigue, and nausea; these were mainly moderate and dose-dependent, with no evidence of cardiovascular safety issues, he said.
Although the study results were not surprising given previous research, the investigators were pleased with the potency of the therapy. “We are also happy about potential added values such as a blood pressure lowering effect, which is beneficial in this group of patients; however, we need to further study these mechanisms in detail,” Dr. Hedner noted.
The study findings were limited by the relatively small scale, and larger studies on long-term efficacy and tolerability are also needed, he said.
“The current study was a dose-finding study, and we now have useful information on most suitable dose,” he said.
However, the results support sulthiame as an effective, well-tolerated, and promising novel candidate for drug therapy in patients with OSA, worthy of phase 3 studies, Dr. Hedner said.
Oral Option Could Be Game-Changer, But Not Yet
The gold standard of treatment for OSA is a CPAP machine, but the effectiveness is limited by patient tolerance, Q. Afifa Shamim-Uzzaman, MD, an associate professor and a sleep medicine specialist at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, said in an interview.
“Presently, there are no effective pharmacological treatments for OSA — having a pill that treats OSA would be a total game changer and huge advance for the treatment of OSA and the field of sleep medicine,” said Dr. Shamim-Uzzaman, who was not involved in the study. “More patients may be able to obtain treatment for OSA and thereby reduce the potential complications of untreated OSA.
“Carbonic anhydrase inhibitors such as acetazolamide and sulthiame have been studied with limited success for the treatment of other forms of sleep disordered breathing such as central sleep apnea [CSA] but have shown less efficacy for OSA and are presently not recommended in the treatment of OSA by the American Academy of Sleep Medicine,” Dr. Shamim-Uzzaman said.
Recently, emerging evidence about different phenotypes of OSA suggests that nonanatomic features (such as high loop gain) may play a role in patients with OSA, not only in those with CSA, she said. Whether carbonic anhydrase inhibitors could play a greater role in treating sleep apnea in patients with predominantly nonanatomic pathophysiologic traits remains to be seen.
The sulthiame data are promising, but more research is needed, Dr. Shamim-Uzzaman said. Although patients in the highest dose group showed a reduction in AHI of nearly 40%, they still would have moderate OSA, and the OSA did not appear to decrease to a normal range in any of the treatment groups.
“More research is needed to identify which types of patients would be responders to this form of therapy, to understand if these effects are maintained long term (beyond 15 weeks), to evaluate patient-centered outcomes, especially in different sleep apnea subgroups (such as phenotypes with high loop gain vs those without), and to assess interactions with other therapies,” she said.
The study was supported by manufacturer Desitin. Dr. Hedner disclosed serving as a consultant to AstraZeneca, Bayer, CereusScience, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, MSD, Weinmann, Desitin, SomnoMed, and Itamar Medical; serving on the speakers’ bureau for Almirall, AstraZeneca, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, ResMed, Philips Respironics, and Weinmann; and receiving grants or research support from Bayer, ResMed, Philips Respironics, and SomnoMed. He also disclosed shared ownership of intellectual property related to sleep apnea therapy. Dr. Shamim-Uzzaman had no financial conflicts to disclose.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
An epilepsy drug sold in Europe as Ospolot and also known as sulthiame showed promise in reducing sleep disordered breathing and other symptoms of obstructive sleep apnea (OSA), based on data from nearly 300 individuals presented in a late-breaking study at the annual congress of the European Respiratory Society.
“Current therapies are mechanical and based on the notion of an airway splint,” presenting author Jan Hedner, MD, professor of respiratory medicine at Sahlgrenska University Hospital and the University of Gothenburg, both in Sweden, said in an interview. “In other words, applying an airflow at elevated pressure [continuous positive airway pressure] or advancing the jaw with a dental device. Adherence to this type of therapy is limited. In the case of continuous positive airway pressure [CPAP], it is < 50% after 3-4 years of therapy.” Therefore, there is a need for a better-tolerated therapy, such as a drug, and possibly a combination of mechanical and pharmaceutical therapies.
The use of medication has emerged as a viable option for OSA, with a high rate of compliance and acceptable safety profile, Dr. Hedner said in his presentation.
“Modified carbonic anhydrase activity may be a pathophysiological mechanism in OSA,” said Dr. Hedner. Sulthiame, a carbonic anhydrase inhibitor, showed safety and effectiveness for improving OSA in a previous phase 2b trial.
In the current study, the researchers sought to determine the most effective dose of sulthiame for patients with OSA. They randomized 298 adults with OSA who could not accept or tolerate oral splints or CPAP to 100 mg, 200 mg, or 300 mg of sulthiame daily (74, 74, and 75 patients, respectively) or placebo (75 patients).
The mean age of the patients was 56 years, 26.2% were women, and the average apnea-hypopnea index (AHI3a) at baseline was 29 n/h. Patients were treated at centers in Spain, France, Belgium, Germany, and the Czech Republic. Baseline demographics and clinical characteristics were similar among the treatment groups.
The primary endpoint was the change in AHI3a from baseline to 15 weeks, and significant changes occurred in patients who received the 100-mg, 200-mg, and 300-mg doses, with decreases of 17.8%, 34.8%, and 39.9%, respectively.
Dr. Hedner said in his presentation.
Notably, in a post hoc analysis, apnea improved by 47.1% at a 300-mg dose when the AHI4 measure (apnea/hypopnea with ≥ 4% O2 desaturation) was used in a placebo-adjusted dose-dependent reduction, the researchers wrote. The changes in AHI4 from baseline in this analysis also were significant for 200 mg and 100 mg doses (36.8% and 26.2%, respectively).
Patients underwent polysomnography at baseline and at weeks 4 and 12.
Mean overnight oxygen saturation also improved significantly from baseline with doses of 200 mg and 300 mg, compared with placebo (P < .0001 for both).
In addition, scores on the Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS) improved from baseline to week 15 in all dosage groups, and the subgroup of patients with ESS scores of ≥ 11 at baseline showed even greater improvement in ESS, Dr. Hedner said in his presentation.
Total arousal index and sleep quality also improved from baseline compared with placebo, and no clinically relevant reduction in REM sleep was noted, Dr. Hedner added.
Treatment-emergent adverse events were in line with the known safety profile of sulthiame and included paresthesia, headache, fatigue, and nausea; these were mainly moderate and dose-dependent, with no evidence of cardiovascular safety issues, he said.
Although the study results were not surprising given previous research, the investigators were pleased with the potency of the therapy. “We are also happy about potential added values such as a blood pressure lowering effect, which is beneficial in this group of patients; however, we need to further study these mechanisms in detail,” Dr. Hedner noted.
The study findings were limited by the relatively small scale, and larger studies on long-term efficacy and tolerability are also needed, he said.
“The current study was a dose-finding study, and we now have useful information on most suitable dose,” he said.
However, the results support sulthiame as an effective, well-tolerated, and promising novel candidate for drug therapy in patients with OSA, worthy of phase 3 studies, Dr. Hedner said.
Oral Option Could Be Game-Changer, But Not Yet
The gold standard of treatment for OSA is a CPAP machine, but the effectiveness is limited by patient tolerance, Q. Afifa Shamim-Uzzaman, MD, an associate professor and a sleep medicine specialist at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, said in an interview.
“Presently, there are no effective pharmacological treatments for OSA — having a pill that treats OSA would be a total game changer and huge advance for the treatment of OSA and the field of sleep medicine,” said Dr. Shamim-Uzzaman, who was not involved in the study. “More patients may be able to obtain treatment for OSA and thereby reduce the potential complications of untreated OSA.
“Carbonic anhydrase inhibitors such as acetazolamide and sulthiame have been studied with limited success for the treatment of other forms of sleep disordered breathing such as central sleep apnea [CSA] but have shown less efficacy for OSA and are presently not recommended in the treatment of OSA by the American Academy of Sleep Medicine,” Dr. Shamim-Uzzaman said.
Recently, emerging evidence about different phenotypes of OSA suggests that nonanatomic features (such as high loop gain) may play a role in patients with OSA, not only in those with CSA, she said. Whether carbonic anhydrase inhibitors could play a greater role in treating sleep apnea in patients with predominantly nonanatomic pathophysiologic traits remains to be seen.
The sulthiame data are promising, but more research is needed, Dr. Shamim-Uzzaman said. Although patients in the highest dose group showed a reduction in AHI of nearly 40%, they still would have moderate OSA, and the OSA did not appear to decrease to a normal range in any of the treatment groups.
“More research is needed to identify which types of patients would be responders to this form of therapy, to understand if these effects are maintained long term (beyond 15 weeks), to evaluate patient-centered outcomes, especially in different sleep apnea subgroups (such as phenotypes with high loop gain vs those without), and to assess interactions with other therapies,” she said.
The study was supported by manufacturer Desitin. Dr. Hedner disclosed serving as a consultant to AstraZeneca, Bayer, CereusScience, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, MSD, Weinmann, Desitin, SomnoMed, and Itamar Medical; serving on the speakers’ bureau for Almirall, AstraZeneca, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, ResMed, Philips Respironics, and Weinmann; and receiving grants or research support from Bayer, ResMed, Philips Respironics, and SomnoMed. He also disclosed shared ownership of intellectual property related to sleep apnea therapy. Dr. Shamim-Uzzaman had no financial conflicts to disclose.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
An epilepsy drug sold in Europe as Ospolot and also known as sulthiame showed promise in reducing sleep disordered breathing and other symptoms of obstructive sleep apnea (OSA), based on data from nearly 300 individuals presented in a late-breaking study at the annual congress of the European Respiratory Society.
“Current therapies are mechanical and based on the notion of an airway splint,” presenting author Jan Hedner, MD, professor of respiratory medicine at Sahlgrenska University Hospital and the University of Gothenburg, both in Sweden, said in an interview. “In other words, applying an airflow at elevated pressure [continuous positive airway pressure] or advancing the jaw with a dental device. Adherence to this type of therapy is limited. In the case of continuous positive airway pressure [CPAP], it is < 50% after 3-4 years of therapy.” Therefore, there is a need for a better-tolerated therapy, such as a drug, and possibly a combination of mechanical and pharmaceutical therapies.
The use of medication has emerged as a viable option for OSA, with a high rate of compliance and acceptable safety profile, Dr. Hedner said in his presentation.
“Modified carbonic anhydrase activity may be a pathophysiological mechanism in OSA,” said Dr. Hedner. Sulthiame, a carbonic anhydrase inhibitor, showed safety and effectiveness for improving OSA in a previous phase 2b trial.
In the current study, the researchers sought to determine the most effective dose of sulthiame for patients with OSA. They randomized 298 adults with OSA who could not accept or tolerate oral splints or CPAP to 100 mg, 200 mg, or 300 mg of sulthiame daily (74, 74, and 75 patients, respectively) or placebo (75 patients).
The mean age of the patients was 56 years, 26.2% were women, and the average apnea-hypopnea index (AHI3a) at baseline was 29 n/h. Patients were treated at centers in Spain, France, Belgium, Germany, and the Czech Republic. Baseline demographics and clinical characteristics were similar among the treatment groups.
The primary endpoint was the change in AHI3a from baseline to 15 weeks, and significant changes occurred in patients who received the 100-mg, 200-mg, and 300-mg doses, with decreases of 17.8%, 34.8%, and 39.9%, respectively.
Dr. Hedner said in his presentation.
Notably, in a post hoc analysis, apnea improved by 47.1% at a 300-mg dose when the AHI4 measure (apnea/hypopnea with ≥ 4% O2 desaturation) was used in a placebo-adjusted dose-dependent reduction, the researchers wrote. The changes in AHI4 from baseline in this analysis also were significant for 200 mg and 100 mg doses (36.8% and 26.2%, respectively).
Patients underwent polysomnography at baseline and at weeks 4 and 12.
Mean overnight oxygen saturation also improved significantly from baseline with doses of 200 mg and 300 mg, compared with placebo (P < .0001 for both).
In addition, scores on the Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS) improved from baseline to week 15 in all dosage groups, and the subgroup of patients with ESS scores of ≥ 11 at baseline showed even greater improvement in ESS, Dr. Hedner said in his presentation.
Total arousal index and sleep quality also improved from baseline compared with placebo, and no clinically relevant reduction in REM sleep was noted, Dr. Hedner added.
Treatment-emergent adverse events were in line with the known safety profile of sulthiame and included paresthesia, headache, fatigue, and nausea; these were mainly moderate and dose-dependent, with no evidence of cardiovascular safety issues, he said.
Although the study results were not surprising given previous research, the investigators were pleased with the potency of the therapy. “We are also happy about potential added values such as a blood pressure lowering effect, which is beneficial in this group of patients; however, we need to further study these mechanisms in detail,” Dr. Hedner noted.
The study findings were limited by the relatively small scale, and larger studies on long-term efficacy and tolerability are also needed, he said.
“The current study was a dose-finding study, and we now have useful information on most suitable dose,” he said.
However, the results support sulthiame as an effective, well-tolerated, and promising novel candidate for drug therapy in patients with OSA, worthy of phase 3 studies, Dr. Hedner said.
Oral Option Could Be Game-Changer, But Not Yet
The gold standard of treatment for OSA is a CPAP machine, but the effectiveness is limited by patient tolerance, Q. Afifa Shamim-Uzzaman, MD, an associate professor and a sleep medicine specialist at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, said in an interview.
“Presently, there are no effective pharmacological treatments for OSA — having a pill that treats OSA would be a total game changer and huge advance for the treatment of OSA and the field of sleep medicine,” said Dr. Shamim-Uzzaman, who was not involved in the study. “More patients may be able to obtain treatment for OSA and thereby reduce the potential complications of untreated OSA.
“Carbonic anhydrase inhibitors such as acetazolamide and sulthiame have been studied with limited success for the treatment of other forms of sleep disordered breathing such as central sleep apnea [CSA] but have shown less efficacy for OSA and are presently not recommended in the treatment of OSA by the American Academy of Sleep Medicine,” Dr. Shamim-Uzzaman said.
Recently, emerging evidence about different phenotypes of OSA suggests that nonanatomic features (such as high loop gain) may play a role in patients with OSA, not only in those with CSA, she said. Whether carbonic anhydrase inhibitors could play a greater role in treating sleep apnea in patients with predominantly nonanatomic pathophysiologic traits remains to be seen.
The sulthiame data are promising, but more research is needed, Dr. Shamim-Uzzaman said. Although patients in the highest dose group showed a reduction in AHI of nearly 40%, they still would have moderate OSA, and the OSA did not appear to decrease to a normal range in any of the treatment groups.
“More research is needed to identify which types of patients would be responders to this form of therapy, to understand if these effects are maintained long term (beyond 15 weeks), to evaluate patient-centered outcomes, especially in different sleep apnea subgroups (such as phenotypes with high loop gain vs those without), and to assess interactions with other therapies,” she said.
The study was supported by manufacturer Desitin. Dr. Hedner disclosed serving as a consultant to AstraZeneca, Bayer, CereusScience, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, MSD, Weinmann, Desitin, SomnoMed, and Itamar Medical; serving on the speakers’ bureau for Almirall, AstraZeneca, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, ResMed, Philips Respironics, and Weinmann; and receiving grants or research support from Bayer, ResMed, Philips Respironics, and SomnoMed. He also disclosed shared ownership of intellectual property related to sleep apnea therapy. Dr. Shamim-Uzzaman had no financial conflicts to disclose.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM ERS CONGRESS 2024
New Options for Treating Atopic Dermatitis Available, and in Development
HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA — If the number of recent drug approvals for atopic dermatitis (AD) is overwhelming, the future is unlikely to be any less challenging: According to the National Eczema Association, the current pipeline for AD includes 39 injectable medications, 21 oral agents, and 49 topicals, some with novel targets, like human umbilical cord blood derived stem cells.
“It’s amazing how many drugs are coming out for AD,” Robert Sidbury, MD, MPH, said at the annual meeting of the Pacific Dermatologic Association (PDA). and is approved in Europe for the treatment of moderate to severe AD in patients aged ≥ 12 years. (On September 13, after the PDA meeting, lebrikizumab was approved by the Food and Drug Administration [FDA] for treatment of moderate to severe AD in adults and adolescents aged ≥ 12 years.)
In two identical phase 3 trials known as ADvocate 1 and ADvocate 2, researchers randomly assigned 851 patients with moderate to severe AD in a 2:1 ratio to receive either lebrikizumab at a dose of 250 mg (loading dose of 500 mg at baseline and week 2) or placebo, administered subcutaneously every 2 weeks, through week 16. The primary outcome was an Investigator’s Global Assessment (IGA) score of 0 or 1, indicating clear or almost clear skin. The researchers reported that an IGA score of 0 or 1 was achieved by 43.1% of patients in the lebrikizumab arm compared with 12.7% of those in the placebo arm.
“Those are good numbers,” said Dr. Sidbury, who was not involved with the study. Conjunctivitis occurred more often in those who received lebrikizumab compared with those who received placebo (7.4% vs 2.8%, respectively), “which is not surprising because it is an IL-13 agent,” he said.
In a subsequent study presented during the Revolutionizing Atopic Dermatitis meeting in the fall of 2023, researchers presented data on Eczema Severity and Area Index (EASI)-90 responses in the ADvocate trial participants, showing EASI-90 responses were sustained up to 38 weeks after lebrikizumab withdrawal, while serum concentrations were negligible. They found that between week 14 and week 32, approximately five serum concentration half-lives of the medication had elapsed since patients randomized to the withdrawal arm received their last dose of lebrikizumab, extending to approximately 11 half-lives by week 52. “That durability of response with next to no blood levels of drug in many of the study participants is interesting,” said Dr. Sidbury, who cochairs the current iteration of the American Academy of Dermatology Atopic Dermatitis Guidelines.
Nemolizumab is a neuroimmune response modulator that inhibits the IL-31 receptor and is approved in Japan for the treatment of itch associated with AD in patients aged ≥ 13 years. Results from two identical phase 3, randomized, controlled trials known as ARCADIA 1 and ARCADIA 2 found that 36% of patients in ARCADIA 1 and 38% in ARCADIA 2 achieved clear skin, compared with 25% and 26% of patients in the placebo group, respectively. (Nemolizumab was recently approved by the FDA for treating prurigo nodularis and is under FDA review for AD.)
In terms of safety, Dr. Sidbury, who is a member of the steering committee for the ARCADIA trials, said that nemolizumab has been “generally well tolerated;” with 1%-3% of study participants experiencing at least one serious treatment-emergent adverse event that included asthma exacerbation, facial edema, and peripheral edema. “The latest data are reassuring but we are watching these safety concerns carefully,” he said.
Dr. Sidbury disclosed that he is an investigator for Regeneron, Pfizer, Galderma, UCB, and Castle; a consultant for Lilly, Leo, Arcutis, and Dermavant; and a member of the speaker’s bureau for Beiersdorf.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA — If the number of recent drug approvals for atopic dermatitis (AD) is overwhelming, the future is unlikely to be any less challenging: According to the National Eczema Association, the current pipeline for AD includes 39 injectable medications, 21 oral agents, and 49 topicals, some with novel targets, like human umbilical cord blood derived stem cells.
“It’s amazing how many drugs are coming out for AD,” Robert Sidbury, MD, MPH, said at the annual meeting of the Pacific Dermatologic Association (PDA). and is approved in Europe for the treatment of moderate to severe AD in patients aged ≥ 12 years. (On September 13, after the PDA meeting, lebrikizumab was approved by the Food and Drug Administration [FDA] for treatment of moderate to severe AD in adults and adolescents aged ≥ 12 years.)
In two identical phase 3 trials known as ADvocate 1 and ADvocate 2, researchers randomly assigned 851 patients with moderate to severe AD in a 2:1 ratio to receive either lebrikizumab at a dose of 250 mg (loading dose of 500 mg at baseline and week 2) or placebo, administered subcutaneously every 2 weeks, through week 16. The primary outcome was an Investigator’s Global Assessment (IGA) score of 0 or 1, indicating clear or almost clear skin. The researchers reported that an IGA score of 0 or 1 was achieved by 43.1% of patients in the lebrikizumab arm compared with 12.7% of those in the placebo arm.
“Those are good numbers,” said Dr. Sidbury, who was not involved with the study. Conjunctivitis occurred more often in those who received lebrikizumab compared with those who received placebo (7.4% vs 2.8%, respectively), “which is not surprising because it is an IL-13 agent,” he said.
In a subsequent study presented during the Revolutionizing Atopic Dermatitis meeting in the fall of 2023, researchers presented data on Eczema Severity and Area Index (EASI)-90 responses in the ADvocate trial participants, showing EASI-90 responses were sustained up to 38 weeks after lebrikizumab withdrawal, while serum concentrations were negligible. They found that between week 14 and week 32, approximately five serum concentration half-lives of the medication had elapsed since patients randomized to the withdrawal arm received their last dose of lebrikizumab, extending to approximately 11 half-lives by week 52. “That durability of response with next to no blood levels of drug in many of the study participants is interesting,” said Dr. Sidbury, who cochairs the current iteration of the American Academy of Dermatology Atopic Dermatitis Guidelines.
Nemolizumab is a neuroimmune response modulator that inhibits the IL-31 receptor and is approved in Japan for the treatment of itch associated with AD in patients aged ≥ 13 years. Results from two identical phase 3, randomized, controlled trials known as ARCADIA 1 and ARCADIA 2 found that 36% of patients in ARCADIA 1 and 38% in ARCADIA 2 achieved clear skin, compared with 25% and 26% of patients in the placebo group, respectively. (Nemolizumab was recently approved by the FDA for treating prurigo nodularis and is under FDA review for AD.)
In terms of safety, Dr. Sidbury, who is a member of the steering committee for the ARCADIA trials, said that nemolizumab has been “generally well tolerated;” with 1%-3% of study participants experiencing at least one serious treatment-emergent adverse event that included asthma exacerbation, facial edema, and peripheral edema. “The latest data are reassuring but we are watching these safety concerns carefully,” he said.
Dr. Sidbury disclosed that he is an investigator for Regeneron, Pfizer, Galderma, UCB, and Castle; a consultant for Lilly, Leo, Arcutis, and Dermavant; and a member of the speaker’s bureau for Beiersdorf.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA — If the number of recent drug approvals for atopic dermatitis (AD) is overwhelming, the future is unlikely to be any less challenging: According to the National Eczema Association, the current pipeline for AD includes 39 injectable medications, 21 oral agents, and 49 topicals, some with novel targets, like human umbilical cord blood derived stem cells.
“It’s amazing how many drugs are coming out for AD,” Robert Sidbury, MD, MPH, said at the annual meeting of the Pacific Dermatologic Association (PDA). and is approved in Europe for the treatment of moderate to severe AD in patients aged ≥ 12 years. (On September 13, after the PDA meeting, lebrikizumab was approved by the Food and Drug Administration [FDA] for treatment of moderate to severe AD in adults and adolescents aged ≥ 12 years.)
In two identical phase 3 trials known as ADvocate 1 and ADvocate 2, researchers randomly assigned 851 patients with moderate to severe AD in a 2:1 ratio to receive either lebrikizumab at a dose of 250 mg (loading dose of 500 mg at baseline and week 2) or placebo, administered subcutaneously every 2 weeks, through week 16. The primary outcome was an Investigator’s Global Assessment (IGA) score of 0 or 1, indicating clear or almost clear skin. The researchers reported that an IGA score of 0 or 1 was achieved by 43.1% of patients in the lebrikizumab arm compared with 12.7% of those in the placebo arm.
“Those are good numbers,” said Dr. Sidbury, who was not involved with the study. Conjunctivitis occurred more often in those who received lebrikizumab compared with those who received placebo (7.4% vs 2.8%, respectively), “which is not surprising because it is an IL-13 agent,” he said.
In a subsequent study presented during the Revolutionizing Atopic Dermatitis meeting in the fall of 2023, researchers presented data on Eczema Severity and Area Index (EASI)-90 responses in the ADvocate trial participants, showing EASI-90 responses were sustained up to 38 weeks after lebrikizumab withdrawal, while serum concentrations were negligible. They found that between week 14 and week 32, approximately five serum concentration half-lives of the medication had elapsed since patients randomized to the withdrawal arm received their last dose of lebrikizumab, extending to approximately 11 half-lives by week 52. “That durability of response with next to no blood levels of drug in many of the study participants is interesting,” said Dr. Sidbury, who cochairs the current iteration of the American Academy of Dermatology Atopic Dermatitis Guidelines.
Nemolizumab is a neuroimmune response modulator that inhibits the IL-31 receptor and is approved in Japan for the treatment of itch associated with AD in patients aged ≥ 13 years. Results from two identical phase 3, randomized, controlled trials known as ARCADIA 1 and ARCADIA 2 found that 36% of patients in ARCADIA 1 and 38% in ARCADIA 2 achieved clear skin, compared with 25% and 26% of patients in the placebo group, respectively. (Nemolizumab was recently approved by the FDA for treating prurigo nodularis and is under FDA review for AD.)
In terms of safety, Dr. Sidbury, who is a member of the steering committee for the ARCADIA trials, said that nemolizumab has been “generally well tolerated;” with 1%-3% of study participants experiencing at least one serious treatment-emergent adverse event that included asthma exacerbation, facial edema, and peripheral edema. “The latest data are reassuring but we are watching these safety concerns carefully,” he said.
Dr. Sidbury disclosed that he is an investigator for Regeneron, Pfizer, Galderma, UCB, and Castle; a consultant for Lilly, Leo, Arcutis, and Dermavant; and a member of the speaker’s bureau for Beiersdorf.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM PDA 2024
Whooping Cough Rising Fast, Especially Among Teens
Whooping cough is surging in the United States, with four times as many cases reported so far this year, compared to all of 2023.
The CDC said 14,569 cases had been reported as of Sept. 14, compared to 3475 in all of 2023.
Whooping cough, also called pertussis, is a respiratory illness spread through coughing, sneezing, or breathing very close to another person. Babies are given the DTaP vaccine to protect against whooping cough, diphtheria, and tetanus. Because the vaccine effectiveness wanes faster for whooping cough than the two other illnesses, boosters are recommended every decade or so.
Why the Whooping Cough Vaccine Is Important
Whooping cough is a very contagious bacteria, so vaccination is an important step to avoid it.
But many children in their tweens aren’t getting boosters, and that age group is driving the whooping cough outbreak.
“With the increase in vaccine hesitancy that has been going on since the COVID-19 pandemic, we’re seeing outbreaks occurring in kids who are not vaccinated,” Tina Tan, MD, president-elect of the Infectious Diseases Society of America, told NBC News.
Also, people are not social distancing the way they did during the height of the COVID pandemic, when whooping cough numbers went down.
“Levels of pertussis dropped dramatically when we were all masking, and now this huge increase is getting us back to pre-pandemic levels, and probably a little above that,” Thomas Murray, MD, a Yale Medicine pediatric infectious diseases specialist, said in a news release from the school. “It’s a contagious respiratory virus that can spread fairly quickly through the population.”
FDA advisers were scheduled to meet Sept. 20 to discuss developing more effective boosters for whooping cough.
A version of this article appeared on WebMD.com.
Whooping cough is surging in the United States, with four times as many cases reported so far this year, compared to all of 2023.
The CDC said 14,569 cases had been reported as of Sept. 14, compared to 3475 in all of 2023.
Whooping cough, also called pertussis, is a respiratory illness spread through coughing, sneezing, or breathing very close to another person. Babies are given the DTaP vaccine to protect against whooping cough, diphtheria, and tetanus. Because the vaccine effectiveness wanes faster for whooping cough than the two other illnesses, boosters are recommended every decade or so.
Why the Whooping Cough Vaccine Is Important
Whooping cough is a very contagious bacteria, so vaccination is an important step to avoid it.
But many children in their tweens aren’t getting boosters, and that age group is driving the whooping cough outbreak.
“With the increase in vaccine hesitancy that has been going on since the COVID-19 pandemic, we’re seeing outbreaks occurring in kids who are not vaccinated,” Tina Tan, MD, president-elect of the Infectious Diseases Society of America, told NBC News.
Also, people are not social distancing the way they did during the height of the COVID pandemic, when whooping cough numbers went down.
“Levels of pertussis dropped dramatically when we were all masking, and now this huge increase is getting us back to pre-pandemic levels, and probably a little above that,” Thomas Murray, MD, a Yale Medicine pediatric infectious diseases specialist, said in a news release from the school. “It’s a contagious respiratory virus that can spread fairly quickly through the population.”
FDA advisers were scheduled to meet Sept. 20 to discuss developing more effective boosters for whooping cough.
A version of this article appeared on WebMD.com.
Whooping cough is surging in the United States, with four times as many cases reported so far this year, compared to all of 2023.
The CDC said 14,569 cases had been reported as of Sept. 14, compared to 3475 in all of 2023.
Whooping cough, also called pertussis, is a respiratory illness spread through coughing, sneezing, or breathing very close to another person. Babies are given the DTaP vaccine to protect against whooping cough, diphtheria, and tetanus. Because the vaccine effectiveness wanes faster for whooping cough than the two other illnesses, boosters are recommended every decade or so.
Why the Whooping Cough Vaccine Is Important
Whooping cough is a very contagious bacteria, so vaccination is an important step to avoid it.
But many children in their tweens aren’t getting boosters, and that age group is driving the whooping cough outbreak.
“With the increase in vaccine hesitancy that has been going on since the COVID-19 pandemic, we’re seeing outbreaks occurring in kids who are not vaccinated,” Tina Tan, MD, president-elect of the Infectious Diseases Society of America, told NBC News.
Also, people are not social distancing the way they did during the height of the COVID pandemic, when whooping cough numbers went down.
“Levels of pertussis dropped dramatically when we were all masking, and now this huge increase is getting us back to pre-pandemic levels, and probably a little above that,” Thomas Murray, MD, a Yale Medicine pediatric infectious diseases specialist, said in a news release from the school. “It’s a contagious respiratory virus that can spread fairly quickly through the population.”
FDA advisers were scheduled to meet Sept. 20 to discuss developing more effective boosters for whooping cough.
A version of this article appeared on WebMD.com.
Feds Sue Three Biggest Pharmacy Benefit Managers Over Insulin Costs
The US Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has sued the nation’s three largest pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs), alleging that they have steered patients to buying higher-priced insulins so that they can reap more profits.
The three PBMs administer 80% of prescriptions in the United States, the FTC said in a statement announcing the action.
The agency filed an administrative complaint, which means its allegations will be tried in a formal hearing before an administrative law judge. It will not be heard in a criminal court.
The three PBMs “have extracted millions of dollars off the backs of patients who need life-saving medications,” Rahul Rao, deputy director of the FTC’s Bureau of Competition, said in the statement.
The FTC action is not the first taken by a government agency against PBMs. Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost sued Express Scripts and Prime Therapeutics in March 2023, alleging antitrust violations.
The FTC’s complaint, which is not yet public, alleges that PBMs excluded lower-priced insulins from their formularies “in favor of high list price, highly rebated insulin products.”
The FTC describes a market in which PBMs, as they consolidated market power, began to extract higher rebates from drug makers. In turn, insulin manufacturers started raising their prices. That allowed PBMs to collect larger rebates, even as drug makers profited, according to the FTC.
The PBMs “engaged in unfair methods of competition and unfair acts or practices under Section 5 of the FTC Act by incentivizing manufacturers to inflate insulin list prices, restricting patients’ access to more affordable insulins on drug formularies and shifting the cost of high list price insulins to vulnerable patient populations,” said the FTC, in its statement.
Andrea Nelson, chief legal officer for The Cigna Group, said in a statement that the lawsuit “continues a troubling pattern from the FTC of unsubstantiated and ideologically-driven attacks on pharmacy benefit managers, following the FTC’s biased and misleading July 2024 report, which Express Scripts demanded the Commission retract earlier this week.”
Conduct ‘Raises Serious Concerns’
Drug makers are not off the hook, said the FTC. Mr. Rao said in a separate statement that “all drug manufacturers should be on notice that their participation in the type of conduct challenged here raises serious concerns and that the Bureau of Competition may recommend suing drug manufacturers in any future enforcement actions.”
The lawsuit comes on the heels of a report issued by the FTC in July, in which it accused the industry of driving small pharmacies out of business and of having extraordinary control over where Americans access prescription drugs and how much they pay.
The agency also noted in that report that some PBMs had still not responded to its requests for information, some 2 years after first asking.
Cigna’s Express Scripts sued the FTC on September 17, 2024, claiming that the report hurt the company’s reputation.
The report is “74 pages of unsupported innuendo leveled against Express Scripts and other PBMs under a false and defamatory headline and accompanied by a false and defamatory press release,” said the Cigna suit.
Cigna is seeking to have the report scrubbed from the FTC website and an injunction that would bar FTC Chairwoman Lina Khan from participating in any FTC business relating to Express Scripts.
Cigna’s Ms. Nelson accused the FTC of trying to “score political points” and said that forcing PBMs to include some drugs on its formularies “will drive drug prices higher in this country.”
CVS Health’s Caremark and UnitedHealth’s Optum also pushed back, as did the industry trade group, the Pharmaceutical Care Management Association.
“This action not only fails to accurately consider the role of the entire prescription drug supply chain, but disregards positive progress, supported by PBMs, in making insulin more affordable for patients,” the association said in a statement. “In contrast to the rhetoric, the current insulin market is actually working, with PBMs effectively leveraging greater competition to drive down insulin prices and doing their part to make insulin affordable for patients through innovative programs,” said the group.
“The FTC has missed the mark entirely,” David Whitrap, vice president for external affairs at CVS Health, said in a statement emailed to this news organization.
CVS Health members “on average pay less than $25, far below list prices and far below the Biden Administration’s $35 cap,” said Mr. Whitrap, who added that the PBM had protected customers from “pharma price-gouging.”
UnitedHealth’s Optum also said that it had reduced insulin prices for members to an average of less than $18 per month. “This baseless action demonstrates a profound misunderstanding of how drug pricing works,” wrote Elizabeth Hoff, a spokesperson for UnitedHealth’s Optum Rx, in an email to this news organization.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
The US Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has sued the nation’s three largest pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs), alleging that they have steered patients to buying higher-priced insulins so that they can reap more profits.
The three PBMs administer 80% of prescriptions in the United States, the FTC said in a statement announcing the action.
The agency filed an administrative complaint, which means its allegations will be tried in a formal hearing before an administrative law judge. It will not be heard in a criminal court.
The three PBMs “have extracted millions of dollars off the backs of patients who need life-saving medications,” Rahul Rao, deputy director of the FTC’s Bureau of Competition, said in the statement.
The FTC action is not the first taken by a government agency against PBMs. Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost sued Express Scripts and Prime Therapeutics in March 2023, alleging antitrust violations.
The FTC’s complaint, which is not yet public, alleges that PBMs excluded lower-priced insulins from their formularies “in favor of high list price, highly rebated insulin products.”
The FTC describes a market in which PBMs, as they consolidated market power, began to extract higher rebates from drug makers. In turn, insulin manufacturers started raising their prices. That allowed PBMs to collect larger rebates, even as drug makers profited, according to the FTC.
The PBMs “engaged in unfair methods of competition and unfair acts or practices under Section 5 of the FTC Act by incentivizing manufacturers to inflate insulin list prices, restricting patients’ access to more affordable insulins on drug formularies and shifting the cost of high list price insulins to vulnerable patient populations,” said the FTC, in its statement.
Andrea Nelson, chief legal officer for The Cigna Group, said in a statement that the lawsuit “continues a troubling pattern from the FTC of unsubstantiated and ideologically-driven attacks on pharmacy benefit managers, following the FTC’s biased and misleading July 2024 report, which Express Scripts demanded the Commission retract earlier this week.”
Conduct ‘Raises Serious Concerns’
Drug makers are not off the hook, said the FTC. Mr. Rao said in a separate statement that “all drug manufacturers should be on notice that their participation in the type of conduct challenged here raises serious concerns and that the Bureau of Competition may recommend suing drug manufacturers in any future enforcement actions.”
The lawsuit comes on the heels of a report issued by the FTC in July, in which it accused the industry of driving small pharmacies out of business and of having extraordinary control over where Americans access prescription drugs and how much they pay.
The agency also noted in that report that some PBMs had still not responded to its requests for information, some 2 years after first asking.
Cigna’s Express Scripts sued the FTC on September 17, 2024, claiming that the report hurt the company’s reputation.
The report is “74 pages of unsupported innuendo leveled against Express Scripts and other PBMs under a false and defamatory headline and accompanied by a false and defamatory press release,” said the Cigna suit.
Cigna is seeking to have the report scrubbed from the FTC website and an injunction that would bar FTC Chairwoman Lina Khan from participating in any FTC business relating to Express Scripts.
Cigna’s Ms. Nelson accused the FTC of trying to “score political points” and said that forcing PBMs to include some drugs on its formularies “will drive drug prices higher in this country.”
CVS Health’s Caremark and UnitedHealth’s Optum also pushed back, as did the industry trade group, the Pharmaceutical Care Management Association.
“This action not only fails to accurately consider the role of the entire prescription drug supply chain, but disregards positive progress, supported by PBMs, in making insulin more affordable for patients,” the association said in a statement. “In contrast to the rhetoric, the current insulin market is actually working, with PBMs effectively leveraging greater competition to drive down insulin prices and doing their part to make insulin affordable for patients through innovative programs,” said the group.
“The FTC has missed the mark entirely,” David Whitrap, vice president for external affairs at CVS Health, said in a statement emailed to this news organization.
CVS Health members “on average pay less than $25, far below list prices and far below the Biden Administration’s $35 cap,” said Mr. Whitrap, who added that the PBM had protected customers from “pharma price-gouging.”
UnitedHealth’s Optum also said that it had reduced insulin prices for members to an average of less than $18 per month. “This baseless action demonstrates a profound misunderstanding of how drug pricing works,” wrote Elizabeth Hoff, a spokesperson for UnitedHealth’s Optum Rx, in an email to this news organization.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
The US Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has sued the nation’s three largest pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs), alleging that they have steered patients to buying higher-priced insulins so that they can reap more profits.
The three PBMs administer 80% of prescriptions in the United States, the FTC said in a statement announcing the action.
The agency filed an administrative complaint, which means its allegations will be tried in a formal hearing before an administrative law judge. It will not be heard in a criminal court.
The three PBMs “have extracted millions of dollars off the backs of patients who need life-saving medications,” Rahul Rao, deputy director of the FTC’s Bureau of Competition, said in the statement.
The FTC action is not the first taken by a government agency against PBMs. Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost sued Express Scripts and Prime Therapeutics in March 2023, alleging antitrust violations.
The FTC’s complaint, which is not yet public, alleges that PBMs excluded lower-priced insulins from their formularies “in favor of high list price, highly rebated insulin products.”
The FTC describes a market in which PBMs, as they consolidated market power, began to extract higher rebates from drug makers. In turn, insulin manufacturers started raising their prices. That allowed PBMs to collect larger rebates, even as drug makers profited, according to the FTC.
The PBMs “engaged in unfair methods of competition and unfair acts or practices under Section 5 of the FTC Act by incentivizing manufacturers to inflate insulin list prices, restricting patients’ access to more affordable insulins on drug formularies and shifting the cost of high list price insulins to vulnerable patient populations,” said the FTC, in its statement.
Andrea Nelson, chief legal officer for The Cigna Group, said in a statement that the lawsuit “continues a troubling pattern from the FTC of unsubstantiated and ideologically-driven attacks on pharmacy benefit managers, following the FTC’s biased and misleading July 2024 report, which Express Scripts demanded the Commission retract earlier this week.”
Conduct ‘Raises Serious Concerns’
Drug makers are not off the hook, said the FTC. Mr. Rao said in a separate statement that “all drug manufacturers should be on notice that their participation in the type of conduct challenged here raises serious concerns and that the Bureau of Competition may recommend suing drug manufacturers in any future enforcement actions.”
The lawsuit comes on the heels of a report issued by the FTC in July, in which it accused the industry of driving small pharmacies out of business and of having extraordinary control over where Americans access prescription drugs and how much they pay.
The agency also noted in that report that some PBMs had still not responded to its requests for information, some 2 years after first asking.
Cigna’s Express Scripts sued the FTC on September 17, 2024, claiming that the report hurt the company’s reputation.
The report is “74 pages of unsupported innuendo leveled against Express Scripts and other PBMs under a false and defamatory headline and accompanied by a false and defamatory press release,” said the Cigna suit.
Cigna is seeking to have the report scrubbed from the FTC website and an injunction that would bar FTC Chairwoman Lina Khan from participating in any FTC business relating to Express Scripts.
Cigna’s Ms. Nelson accused the FTC of trying to “score political points” and said that forcing PBMs to include some drugs on its formularies “will drive drug prices higher in this country.”
CVS Health’s Caremark and UnitedHealth’s Optum also pushed back, as did the industry trade group, the Pharmaceutical Care Management Association.
“This action not only fails to accurately consider the role of the entire prescription drug supply chain, but disregards positive progress, supported by PBMs, in making insulin more affordable for patients,” the association said in a statement. “In contrast to the rhetoric, the current insulin market is actually working, with PBMs effectively leveraging greater competition to drive down insulin prices and doing their part to make insulin affordable for patients through innovative programs,” said the group.
“The FTC has missed the mark entirely,” David Whitrap, vice president for external affairs at CVS Health, said in a statement emailed to this news organization.
CVS Health members “on average pay less than $25, far below list prices and far below the Biden Administration’s $35 cap,” said Mr. Whitrap, who added that the PBM had protected customers from “pharma price-gouging.”
UnitedHealth’s Optum also said that it had reduced insulin prices for members to an average of less than $18 per month. “This baseless action demonstrates a profound misunderstanding of how drug pricing works,” wrote Elizabeth Hoff, a spokesperson for UnitedHealth’s Optum Rx, in an email to this news organization.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Isatuximab Approved First-Line for Transplant-Ineligible MM
The new first-line indication joins two previous approvals of the CD38 antibody for later-line indications, one for relapsed disease with carfilzomib and dexamethasone, the other with pomalidomide and dexamethasone after at least two prior regimens that include lenalidomide and a proteasome inhibitor.
In addition to other MM indications, isatuximab’s anti-CD38 competitor on the US market, daratumumab (Darzalex — Johnson & Johnson), also carries a first-line indication for transplant-ineligible MM in combination with either lenalidomide and dexamethasone or bortezomib, melphalan, and prednisone.
Isatuximab’s new approval is based on the open-label IMROZ trial in 446 patients randomized 3:2 to either isatuximab or placebo on a background of bortezomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone.
At a median follow-up of 59.7 months, estimated progression-free survival (PFS) was 63.2% with isatuximab add-on vs 45.2% in the placebo arm. Median PFS was not reached in the isatuximab group but 54.3 months with placebo (hazard ratio, 0.60; 98.5% CI, 0.41-0.88; P < .001).
In a press release announcing the results, Sanofi said “IMROZ is the first global phase 3 study of an anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody” to show benefit in combination with bortezomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone, the current standard of care for transplant-ineligible MM.
Upper respiratory tract infections, diarrhea, fatigue, peripheral sensory neuropathy, pneumonia, musculoskeletal pain, cataract, constipation, peripheral edema, rash, infusion-related reaction, insomnia, and COVID-19 were the most common adverse events in the isatuximab arm of IMROZ, occurring in 20% or more of subjects.
Eleven percent of isatuximab patients died during treatment vs 5.5% in the placebo group, driven primarily by infections.
The recommended dose of isatuximab is 10 mg/kg every week for 4 weeks followed by every 2 weeks until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.
The cost is approximately $843 for 5 mL of the 20 mg/mL intravenous solution, according to Drugs.com.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
The new first-line indication joins two previous approvals of the CD38 antibody for later-line indications, one for relapsed disease with carfilzomib and dexamethasone, the other with pomalidomide and dexamethasone after at least two prior regimens that include lenalidomide and a proteasome inhibitor.
In addition to other MM indications, isatuximab’s anti-CD38 competitor on the US market, daratumumab (Darzalex — Johnson & Johnson), also carries a first-line indication for transplant-ineligible MM in combination with either lenalidomide and dexamethasone or bortezomib, melphalan, and prednisone.
Isatuximab’s new approval is based on the open-label IMROZ trial in 446 patients randomized 3:2 to either isatuximab or placebo on a background of bortezomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone.
At a median follow-up of 59.7 months, estimated progression-free survival (PFS) was 63.2% with isatuximab add-on vs 45.2% in the placebo arm. Median PFS was not reached in the isatuximab group but 54.3 months with placebo (hazard ratio, 0.60; 98.5% CI, 0.41-0.88; P < .001).
In a press release announcing the results, Sanofi said “IMROZ is the first global phase 3 study of an anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody” to show benefit in combination with bortezomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone, the current standard of care for transplant-ineligible MM.
Upper respiratory tract infections, diarrhea, fatigue, peripheral sensory neuropathy, pneumonia, musculoskeletal pain, cataract, constipation, peripheral edema, rash, infusion-related reaction, insomnia, and COVID-19 were the most common adverse events in the isatuximab arm of IMROZ, occurring in 20% or more of subjects.
Eleven percent of isatuximab patients died during treatment vs 5.5% in the placebo group, driven primarily by infections.
The recommended dose of isatuximab is 10 mg/kg every week for 4 weeks followed by every 2 weeks until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.
The cost is approximately $843 for 5 mL of the 20 mg/mL intravenous solution, according to Drugs.com.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
The new first-line indication joins two previous approvals of the CD38 antibody for later-line indications, one for relapsed disease with carfilzomib and dexamethasone, the other with pomalidomide and dexamethasone after at least two prior regimens that include lenalidomide and a proteasome inhibitor.
In addition to other MM indications, isatuximab’s anti-CD38 competitor on the US market, daratumumab (Darzalex — Johnson & Johnson), also carries a first-line indication for transplant-ineligible MM in combination with either lenalidomide and dexamethasone or bortezomib, melphalan, and prednisone.
Isatuximab’s new approval is based on the open-label IMROZ trial in 446 patients randomized 3:2 to either isatuximab or placebo on a background of bortezomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone.
At a median follow-up of 59.7 months, estimated progression-free survival (PFS) was 63.2% with isatuximab add-on vs 45.2% in the placebo arm. Median PFS was not reached in the isatuximab group but 54.3 months with placebo (hazard ratio, 0.60; 98.5% CI, 0.41-0.88; P < .001).
In a press release announcing the results, Sanofi said “IMROZ is the first global phase 3 study of an anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody” to show benefit in combination with bortezomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone, the current standard of care for transplant-ineligible MM.
Upper respiratory tract infections, diarrhea, fatigue, peripheral sensory neuropathy, pneumonia, musculoskeletal pain, cataract, constipation, peripheral edema, rash, infusion-related reaction, insomnia, and COVID-19 were the most common adverse events in the isatuximab arm of IMROZ, occurring in 20% or more of subjects.
Eleven percent of isatuximab patients died during treatment vs 5.5% in the placebo group, driven primarily by infections.
The recommended dose of isatuximab is 10 mg/kg every week for 4 weeks followed by every 2 weeks until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.
The cost is approximately $843 for 5 mL of the 20 mg/mL intravenous solution, according to Drugs.com.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.