Pharmacology

Statin use is associated with increased likelihood of diabetes progression, according to a new matched cohort analysis of data from the Department of Veteran Affairs.

Patients with diabetes who were on statins were more likely to begin taking insulin, become hyperglycemic, and to develop acute glycemic complications, and they were also more likely to be prescribed medications from more glucose-lowering drug classes.

Although previous observational and randomized, controlled trials suggested a link between statin use and diabetes progression, they typically relied on measures like insulin resistance, hemoglobin A1c, or fasting blood glucose levels. The new work, however, outlines changes in glycemic control.

The differences between fasting glucose levels and A1c levels were generally smaller than the differences in insulin sensitivity. But A1c and fasting glucose may underestimate a potential effect of statins, since physicians may escalate antidiabetes therapy in response to changes.

Insulin sensitivity is also rarely measured in real-world settings. “This study translated findings reported on academic studies of increased insulin resistance associated with statin use in research papers into everyday language of patient care. That is, patients on statins may need to escalate their antidiabetes therapy and there may have higher occurrences of uncontrolled diabetes events,” lead author Ishak Mansi, MD, said in an interview.

The study was published online in JAMA Internal Medicine.

Dr. Mansi, who is staff internist at the VA North Texas Health System and a professor of medicine and data and population science at the University of Texas, both in Dallas, cautioned about overinterpretation of the findings. “This is an observational study; therefore, it can establish association, but not causation.”
 

No reason to turn down statins

Dr. Mansi noted that it’s important to distinguish between those being prescribed statins as a primary preventive measurement against cardiovascular disease, and those starting statins with preexisting cardiovascular disease for secondary prevention. Statins are a key therapeutic class for secondary prevention. “Their benefits are tremendous, and we should emphasize that no patient should stop taking their statins based on our study – rather, they should talk to their doctors,” said Dr. Mansi.

The study is one of few to look at statin use and diabetes progression in patients who already have diabetes, and the first with a propensity-matched design, according to Om Ganda, MD, who was asked for comment. The results should not deter physicians from prescribing and patients from accepting statins. “Statins should not be withheld in people with high risk of cardiovascular disease, even for primary prevention, as the risk of progression of glucose levels is relatively much smaller and manageable, rather than risking cardiovascular events by stopping or not initiating when indicated by current guidelines,” said Dr. Ganda, who is the medical director of the Lipid Clinic at the Joslin Diabetes Center and an associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, both in Boston.

It’s possible that statins could increase risk of diabetes progression through promoting insulin resistance, and they may also reduce beta-cell function, which could in turn reduce insulin secretion, according to Dr. Ganda.

The study group included 83,022 pairs of statin users and matched controls, of whom 95% were men; 68.2% were White; 22% were Black; 2.1% were Native American, Pacific Islander, or Alaska Native; and 0.8% were Asian. The mean age was 60 years.

Some 56% of statin users experienced diabetes progression, compared with 48% of control patients (odds ratio, 1.37; P < .001). Progression was defined as intensification of diabetes therapy through new use of insulin or increase in the number of medication classes, new onset chronic hyperglycemia, or acute complications from hyperglycemia.

The association was seen in the component measures, including an increased number of glucose-lowering medication classes (OR, 1.41; P < .001), the frequency of new insulin use (OR, 1.16; P < .001), persistent glycemia (OR, 1.13; P < .001), and a new diagnosis of ketoacidosis or uncontrolled diabetes (OR, 1.24; P < .001).

There was also a dose-response relationship between the intensity of LDL cholesterol–lowering medication and diabetes progression.
 

More research needed

The findings don’t necessarily have a strong clinical impact, but the researchers hope it pushes toward greater personalization of statin treatment. The benefits of statins have been well studied, but their potential harms have not received the same attention. Dr. Mansi hopes to learn more about which populations stand to gain the most for primary cardiovascular disease prevention, such as older versus younger populations, healthier or sicker patients, and those with well-controlled versus uncontrolled diabetes. “Answering these questions [would] impact hundreds of millions of patients and cannot be postponed,” said Dr. Mansi. He also called for dedicated funding for research into the adverse events of frequently used medications.

Dr. Mansi and Dr. Ganda have no relevant financial disclosures.

Statin use is associated with increased likelihood of diabetes progression, according to a new matched cohort analysis of data from the Department of Veteran Affairs.

Patients with diabetes who were on statins were more likely to begin taking insulin, become hyperglycemic, and to develop acute glycemic complications, and they were also more likely to be prescribed medications from more glucose-lowering drug classes.

Although previous observational and randomized, controlled trials suggested a link between statin use and diabetes progression, they typically relied on measures like insulin resistance, hemoglobin A1c, or fasting blood glucose levels. The new work, however, outlines changes in glycemic control.

The differences between fasting glucose levels and A1c levels were generally smaller than the differences in insulin sensitivity. But A1c and fasting glucose may underestimate a potential effect of statins, since physicians may escalate antidiabetes therapy in response to changes.

Insulin sensitivity is also rarely measured in real-world settings. “This study translated findings reported on academic studies of increased insulin resistance associated with statin use in research papers into everyday language of patient care. That is, patients on statins may need to escalate their antidiabetes therapy and there may have higher occurrences of uncontrolled diabetes events,” lead author Ishak Mansi, MD, said in an interview.

The study was published online in JAMA Internal Medicine.

Dr. Mansi, who is staff internist at the VA North Texas Health System and a professor of medicine and data and population science at the University of Texas, both in Dallas, cautioned about overinterpretation of the findings. “This is an observational study; therefore, it can establish association, but not causation.”
 

No reason to turn down statins

Dr. Mansi noted that it’s important to distinguish between those being prescribed statins as a primary preventive measurement against cardiovascular disease, and those starting statins with preexisting cardiovascular disease for secondary prevention. Statins are a key therapeutic class for secondary prevention. “Their benefits are tremendous, and we should emphasize that no patient should stop taking their statins based on our study – rather, they should talk to their doctors,” said Dr. Mansi.

The study is one of few to look at statin use and diabetes progression in patients who already have diabetes, and the first with a propensity-matched design, according to Om Ganda, MD, who was asked for comment. The results should not deter physicians from prescribing and patients from accepting statins. “Statins should not be withheld in people with high risk of cardiovascular disease, even for primary prevention, as the risk of progression of glucose levels is relatively much smaller and manageable, rather than risking cardiovascular events by stopping or not initiating when indicated by current guidelines,” said Dr. Ganda, who is the medical director of the Lipid Clinic at the Joslin Diabetes Center and an associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, both in Boston.

It’s possible that statins could increase risk of diabetes progression through promoting insulin resistance, and they may also reduce beta-cell function, which could in turn reduce insulin secretion, according to Dr. Ganda.

The study group included 83,022 pairs of statin users and matched controls, of whom 95% were men; 68.2% were White; 22% were Black; 2.1% were Native American, Pacific Islander, or Alaska Native; and 0.8% were Asian. The mean age was 60 years.

Some 56% of statin users experienced diabetes progression, compared with 48% of control patients (odds ratio, 1.37; P < .001). Progression was defined as intensification of diabetes therapy through new use of insulin or increase in the number of medication classes, new onset chronic hyperglycemia, or acute complications from hyperglycemia.

The association was seen in the component measures, including an increased number of glucose-lowering medication classes (OR, 1.41; P < .001), the frequency of new insulin use (OR, 1.16; P < .001), persistent glycemia (OR, 1.13; P < .001), and a new diagnosis of ketoacidosis or uncontrolled diabetes (OR, 1.24; P < .001).

There was also a dose-response relationship between the intensity of LDL cholesterol–lowering medication and diabetes progression.
 

More research needed

The findings don’t necessarily have a strong clinical impact, but the researchers hope it pushes toward greater personalization of statin treatment. The benefits of statins have been well studied, but their potential harms have not received the same attention. Dr. Mansi hopes to learn more about which populations stand to gain the most for primary cardiovascular disease prevention, such as older versus younger populations, healthier or sicker patients, and those with well-controlled versus uncontrolled diabetes. “Answering these questions [would] impact hundreds of millions of patients and cannot be postponed,” said Dr. Mansi. He also called for dedicated funding for research into the adverse events of frequently used medications.

Dr. Mansi and Dr. Ganda have no relevant financial disclosures.

Statin use is associated with increased likelihood of diabetes progression, according to a new matched cohort analysis of data from the Department of Veteran Affairs.

Patients with diabetes who were on statins were more likely to begin taking insulin, become hyperglycemic, and to develop acute glycemic complications, and they were also more likely to be prescribed medications from more glucose-lowering drug classes.

Although previous observational and randomized, controlled trials suggested a link between statin use and diabetes progression, they typically relied on measures like insulin resistance, hemoglobin A1c, or fasting blood glucose levels. The new work, however, outlines changes in glycemic control.

The differences between fasting glucose levels and A1c levels were generally smaller than the differences in insulin sensitivity. But A1c and fasting glucose may underestimate a potential effect of statins, since physicians may escalate antidiabetes therapy in response to changes.

Insulin sensitivity is also rarely measured in real-world settings. “This study translated findings reported on academic studies of increased insulin resistance associated with statin use in research papers into everyday language of patient care. That is, patients on statins may need to escalate their antidiabetes therapy and there may have higher occurrences of uncontrolled diabetes events,” lead author Ishak Mansi, MD, said in an interview.

The study was published online in JAMA Internal Medicine.

Dr. Mansi, who is staff internist at the VA North Texas Health System and a professor of medicine and data and population science at the University of Texas, both in Dallas, cautioned about overinterpretation of the findings. “This is an observational study; therefore, it can establish association, but not causation.”
 

No reason to turn down statins

Dr. Mansi noted that it’s important to distinguish between those being prescribed statins as a primary preventive measurement against cardiovascular disease, and those starting statins with preexisting cardiovascular disease for secondary prevention. Statins are a key therapeutic class for secondary prevention. “Their benefits are tremendous, and we should emphasize that no patient should stop taking their statins based on our study – rather, they should talk to their doctors,” said Dr. Mansi.

The study is one of few to look at statin use and diabetes progression in patients who already have diabetes, and the first with a propensity-matched design, according to Om Ganda, MD, who was asked for comment. The results should not deter physicians from prescribing and patients from accepting statins. “Statins should not be withheld in people with high risk of cardiovascular disease, even for primary prevention, as the risk of progression of glucose levels is relatively much smaller and manageable, rather than risking cardiovascular events by stopping or not initiating when indicated by current guidelines,” said Dr. Ganda, who is the medical director of the Lipid Clinic at the Joslin Diabetes Center and an associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, both in Boston.

It’s possible that statins could increase risk of diabetes progression through promoting insulin resistance, and they may also reduce beta-cell function, which could in turn reduce insulin secretion, according to Dr. Ganda.

The study group included 83,022 pairs of statin users and matched controls, of whom 95% were men; 68.2% were White; 22% were Black; 2.1% were Native American, Pacific Islander, or Alaska Native; and 0.8% were Asian. The mean age was 60 years.

Some 56% of statin users experienced diabetes progression, compared with 48% of control patients (odds ratio, 1.37; P < .001). Progression was defined as intensification of diabetes therapy through new use of insulin or increase in the number of medication classes, new onset chronic hyperglycemia, or acute complications from hyperglycemia.

The association was seen in the component measures, including an increased number of glucose-lowering medication classes (OR, 1.41; P < .001), the frequency of new insulin use (OR, 1.16; P < .001), persistent glycemia (OR, 1.13; P < .001), and a new diagnosis of ketoacidosis or uncontrolled diabetes (OR, 1.24; P < .001).

There was also a dose-response relationship between the intensity of LDL cholesterol–lowering medication and diabetes progression.
 

More research needed

The findings don’t necessarily have a strong clinical impact, but the researchers hope it pushes toward greater personalization of statin treatment. The benefits of statins have been well studied, but their potential harms have not received the same attention. Dr. Mansi hopes to learn more about which populations stand to gain the most for primary cardiovascular disease prevention, such as older versus younger populations, healthier or sicker patients, and those with well-controlled versus uncontrolled diabetes. “Answering these questions [would] impact hundreds of millions of patients and cannot be postponed,” said Dr. Mansi. He also called for dedicated funding for research into the adverse events of frequently used medications.

Dr. Mansi and Dr. Ganda have no relevant financial disclosures.

Baricitinib, an oral inhibitor of Janus kinase (JAK) types 1 and 2, produced substantial rates of hair growth with acceptable tolerability for patients with alopecia areata, according to the results of two phase 3 trials presented at the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology (EADV) 2021 Annual Meeting.

In both trials, severe alopecia areata, defined as a SALT (Severity of Alopecia Tool) score of greater than or equal to 50, was an enrollment requirement. The primary endpoint was a SALT score of less than or equal to 20, signifying 80% scalp coverage.

“The mean SALT score at entry was 85,” reported Brett King, MD, PhD, associate professor of dermatology, Yale University, New Haven, Conn. He explained that the SALT scale extends from 0 (no hair loss) to 100 (complete hair loss). About 45% of patients in the phase 3 trials had alopecia universalis.

In both trials, called BRAVE-AA1 and BRAVE-AA2, a response was seen with baricitinib after about 4 weeks. Response increased steadily through the entire 36 weeks of treatment. At the end of 36 weeks, when response curves still had an upward trajectory, the proportion of those treated with the 4-mg dose of baricitinib who had achieved a SALT score of less than or equal to 20 had reached 35.2% in BRAVE-AA1 and 32.5% in BRAVE-AA2.

The nearly identical BRAVE-AA1 and BRAVE-AA2 trials enrolled 654 and 546 patients, respectively. The patients were randomly assigned in a 3:2:2 ratio to receive baricitinib 4 mg, baricitinib 2 mg, or placebo. All treatments were taken once daily. Regrowth of eyebrow and eyelash hair were secondary outcomes.

There was a clear dose effect; hair growth increased more quickly with the 4-mg dose of baricitinib than with the 2-mg dose. The difference between the active therapy and placebo was significant by 16 weeks with the 4-mg dose. By 24 weeks, the advantage of the 2-mg dose over placebo also reached significance. The response rate with the 4-mg dose was nearly twice as great.

At the end of the 36-week trials, the proportion of patients treated with baricitinib 2 mg who achieved the primary endpoint was 21.7% and 17.3% in the BRAVE-AA1 and BRAVE-AA2 trials, respectively. Among patients taking placebo, the primary endpoint was met by 5.3% and 2.6%, respectively, at the end of the two trials.

The differences in responses with the 4-mg and the 2-mg doses were significantly higher compared with placebo (P ≤ .001 for both doses vs. placebo).

Using a scoring system for eyebrow and eyelash hair loss, the proportion of patients who achieved a score of 0 (full coverage) or 1 (minimal gaps) was again superior in both trials for patients taking the higher dose of baricitinib. This level of response was reached by about 31% to 35% of those taking the 4-mg dose in BRAVE-AA1 and BRAVE-AA2 (P ≤ .001 vs. placebo). With the lower dose, the rates were 19.1% and 13.5%, respectively. This endpoint was reached in only about 3% of patients who took placebo.

Rates of adverse events were modestly higher in the two active treatment groups in comparison with the group taking placebo. The most commonly occurring adverse events with baricitinib included upper respiratory tract infections, nasopharyngitis, urinary tract infections, and headache, according to Dr. King.

“Most of the adverse events were mild to moderate,” he said. He also reported that none of these adverse events occurred in more than 10% of patients, and there were no cases of other opportunistic infections, thromboembolic events, or gastrointestinal perforations. The discontinuation rates because of adverse events with active therapy were less than 3% in both trials.

JAK inhibitors are currently employed in the treatment of a variety of inflammatory diseases. Baricitinib is currently approved for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. Because specificity differs markedly for their inhibition of JAK kinases (JAK1, JAK2, JAK3, and Tyk2), these drugs do not appear to be interchangeable with regard to clinical effect.

Several case reports of hair regrowth with baricitinib led to a phase 2 trial, which was recently published in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology. In this trial, the therapy also yielded substantial benefit for patients with alopecia areata. The benefit of baricitinib is attributed to inhibition of JAK1 and JAK2 signaling, which has been implicated in cytokine-mediated immune dysfunction leading to damage of hair follicles.

Alopecia areata is a common disorder that can have a large adverse impact on quality of life, Dr. King noted. There is no approved therapy for this condition, so there is a large unmet need. Although longer follow-up is needed to gauge sustained efficacy and safety, he considers these results promising for a therapy with clinically meaningful benefit.

This point was reiterated by Yolanda Gilaberte Calzada, MD, PhD, head of the Dermatology Service, University Hospital Miguel Servet, Zaragoza, Spain, who was moderator of the session in which Dr. King presented these data. She expressed excitement about the promise of baricitinib, particularly with regard to the substantial proportion of patients who achieved meaningful degrees of hair regrowth.

“All of us will be happy to have options for alopecia areata,” said Dr. Calzada, who predicted that the higher dose of baricitinib will be selected for clinical development, given its greater efficacy with little increase in safety concerns.

Eli Lilly provided funding for the BRAVE-AA1 and -AA2 trials. Dr. King has financial relationships with Arena, Aclaris, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Concert, Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi Genzyme, and Eli Lilly. Dr. Calzada has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Baricitinib, an oral inhibitor of Janus kinase (JAK) types 1 and 2, produced substantial rates of hair growth with acceptable tolerability for patients with alopecia areata, according to the results of two phase 3 trials presented at the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology (EADV) 2021 Annual Meeting.

In both trials, severe alopecia areata, defined as a SALT (Severity of Alopecia Tool) score of greater than or equal to 50, was an enrollment requirement. The primary endpoint was a SALT score of less than or equal to 20, signifying 80% scalp coverage.

“The mean SALT score at entry was 85,” reported Brett King, MD, PhD, associate professor of dermatology, Yale University, New Haven, Conn. He explained that the SALT scale extends from 0 (no hair loss) to 100 (complete hair loss). About 45% of patients in the phase 3 trials had alopecia universalis.

In both trials, called BRAVE-AA1 and BRAVE-AA2, a response was seen with baricitinib after about 4 weeks. Response increased steadily through the entire 36 weeks of treatment. At the end of 36 weeks, when response curves still had an upward trajectory, the proportion of those treated with the 4-mg dose of baricitinib who had achieved a SALT score of less than or equal to 20 had reached 35.2% in BRAVE-AA1 and 32.5% in BRAVE-AA2.

The nearly identical BRAVE-AA1 and BRAVE-AA2 trials enrolled 654 and 546 patients, respectively. The patients were randomly assigned in a 3:2:2 ratio to receive baricitinib 4 mg, baricitinib 2 mg, or placebo. All treatments were taken once daily. Regrowth of eyebrow and eyelash hair were secondary outcomes.

There was a clear dose effect; hair growth increased more quickly with the 4-mg dose of baricitinib than with the 2-mg dose. The difference between the active therapy and placebo was significant by 16 weeks with the 4-mg dose. By 24 weeks, the advantage of the 2-mg dose over placebo also reached significance. The response rate with the 4-mg dose was nearly twice as great.

At the end of the 36-week trials, the proportion of patients treated with baricitinib 2 mg who achieved the primary endpoint was 21.7% and 17.3% in the BRAVE-AA1 and BRAVE-AA2 trials, respectively. Among patients taking placebo, the primary endpoint was met by 5.3% and 2.6%, respectively, at the end of the two trials.

The differences in responses with the 4-mg and the 2-mg doses were significantly higher compared with placebo (P ≤ .001 for both doses vs. placebo).

Using a scoring system for eyebrow and eyelash hair loss, the proportion of patients who achieved a score of 0 (full coverage) or 1 (minimal gaps) was again superior in both trials for patients taking the higher dose of baricitinib. This level of response was reached by about 31% to 35% of those taking the 4-mg dose in BRAVE-AA1 and BRAVE-AA2 (P ≤ .001 vs. placebo). With the lower dose, the rates were 19.1% and 13.5%, respectively. This endpoint was reached in only about 3% of patients who took placebo.

Rates of adverse events were modestly higher in the two active treatment groups in comparison with the group taking placebo. The most commonly occurring adverse events with baricitinib included upper respiratory tract infections, nasopharyngitis, urinary tract infections, and headache, according to Dr. King.

“Most of the adverse events were mild to moderate,” he said. He also reported that none of these adverse events occurred in more than 10% of patients, and there were no cases of other opportunistic infections, thromboembolic events, or gastrointestinal perforations. The discontinuation rates because of adverse events with active therapy were less than 3% in both trials.

JAK inhibitors are currently employed in the treatment of a variety of inflammatory diseases. Baricitinib is currently approved for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. Because specificity differs markedly for their inhibition of JAK kinases (JAK1, JAK2, JAK3, and Tyk2), these drugs do not appear to be interchangeable with regard to clinical effect.

Several case reports of hair regrowth with baricitinib led to a phase 2 trial, which was recently published in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology. In this trial, the therapy also yielded substantial benefit for patients with alopecia areata. The benefit of baricitinib is attributed to inhibition of JAK1 and JAK2 signaling, which has been implicated in cytokine-mediated immune dysfunction leading to damage of hair follicles.

Alopecia areata is a common disorder that can have a large adverse impact on quality of life, Dr. King noted. There is no approved therapy for this condition, so there is a large unmet need. Although longer follow-up is needed to gauge sustained efficacy and safety, he considers these results promising for a therapy with clinically meaningful benefit.

This point was reiterated by Yolanda Gilaberte Calzada, MD, PhD, head of the Dermatology Service, University Hospital Miguel Servet, Zaragoza, Spain, who was moderator of the session in which Dr. King presented these data. She expressed excitement about the promise of baricitinib, particularly with regard to the substantial proportion of patients who achieved meaningful degrees of hair regrowth.

“All of us will be happy to have options for alopecia areata,” said Dr. Calzada, who predicted that the higher dose of baricitinib will be selected for clinical development, given its greater efficacy with little increase in safety concerns.

Eli Lilly provided funding for the BRAVE-AA1 and -AA2 trials. Dr. King has financial relationships with Arena, Aclaris, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Concert, Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi Genzyme, and Eli Lilly. Dr. Calzada has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Baricitinib, an oral inhibitor of Janus kinase (JAK) types 1 and 2, produced substantial rates of hair growth with acceptable tolerability for patients with alopecia areata, according to the results of two phase 3 trials presented at the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology (EADV) 2021 Annual Meeting.

In both trials, severe alopecia areata, defined as a SALT (Severity of Alopecia Tool) score of greater than or equal to 50, was an enrollment requirement. The primary endpoint was a SALT score of less than or equal to 20, signifying 80% scalp coverage.

“The mean SALT score at entry was 85,” reported Brett King, MD, PhD, associate professor of dermatology, Yale University, New Haven, Conn. He explained that the SALT scale extends from 0 (no hair loss) to 100 (complete hair loss). About 45% of patients in the phase 3 trials had alopecia universalis.

In both trials, called BRAVE-AA1 and BRAVE-AA2, a response was seen with baricitinib after about 4 weeks. Response increased steadily through the entire 36 weeks of treatment. At the end of 36 weeks, when response curves still had an upward trajectory, the proportion of those treated with the 4-mg dose of baricitinib who had achieved a SALT score of less than or equal to 20 had reached 35.2% in BRAVE-AA1 and 32.5% in BRAVE-AA2.

The nearly identical BRAVE-AA1 and BRAVE-AA2 trials enrolled 654 and 546 patients, respectively. The patients were randomly assigned in a 3:2:2 ratio to receive baricitinib 4 mg, baricitinib 2 mg, or placebo. All treatments were taken once daily. Regrowth of eyebrow and eyelash hair were secondary outcomes.

There was a clear dose effect; hair growth increased more quickly with the 4-mg dose of baricitinib than with the 2-mg dose. The difference between the active therapy and placebo was significant by 16 weeks with the 4-mg dose. By 24 weeks, the advantage of the 2-mg dose over placebo also reached significance. The response rate with the 4-mg dose was nearly twice as great.

At the end of the 36-week trials, the proportion of patients treated with baricitinib 2 mg who achieved the primary endpoint was 21.7% and 17.3% in the BRAVE-AA1 and BRAVE-AA2 trials, respectively. Among patients taking placebo, the primary endpoint was met by 5.3% and 2.6%, respectively, at the end of the two trials.

The differences in responses with the 4-mg and the 2-mg doses were significantly higher compared with placebo (P ≤ .001 for both doses vs. placebo).

Using a scoring system for eyebrow and eyelash hair loss, the proportion of patients who achieved a score of 0 (full coverage) or 1 (minimal gaps) was again superior in both trials for patients taking the higher dose of baricitinib. This level of response was reached by about 31% to 35% of those taking the 4-mg dose in BRAVE-AA1 and BRAVE-AA2 (P ≤ .001 vs. placebo). With the lower dose, the rates were 19.1% and 13.5%, respectively. This endpoint was reached in only about 3% of patients who took placebo.

Rates of adverse events were modestly higher in the two active treatment groups in comparison with the group taking placebo. The most commonly occurring adverse events with baricitinib included upper respiratory tract infections, nasopharyngitis, urinary tract infections, and headache, according to Dr. King.

“Most of the adverse events were mild to moderate,” he said. He also reported that none of these adverse events occurred in more than 10% of patients, and there were no cases of other opportunistic infections, thromboembolic events, or gastrointestinal perforations. The discontinuation rates because of adverse events with active therapy were less than 3% in both trials.

JAK inhibitors are currently employed in the treatment of a variety of inflammatory diseases. Baricitinib is currently approved for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. Because specificity differs markedly for their inhibition of JAK kinases (JAK1, JAK2, JAK3, and Tyk2), these drugs do not appear to be interchangeable with regard to clinical effect.

Several case reports of hair regrowth with baricitinib led to a phase 2 trial, which was recently published in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology. In this trial, the therapy also yielded substantial benefit for patients with alopecia areata. The benefit of baricitinib is attributed to inhibition of JAK1 and JAK2 signaling, which has been implicated in cytokine-mediated immune dysfunction leading to damage of hair follicles.

Alopecia areata is a common disorder that can have a large adverse impact on quality of life, Dr. King noted. There is no approved therapy for this condition, so there is a large unmet need. Although longer follow-up is needed to gauge sustained efficacy and safety, he considers these results promising for a therapy with clinically meaningful benefit.

This point was reiterated by Yolanda Gilaberte Calzada, MD, PhD, head of the Dermatology Service, University Hospital Miguel Servet, Zaragoza, Spain, who was moderator of the session in which Dr. King presented these data. She expressed excitement about the promise of baricitinib, particularly with regard to the substantial proportion of patients who achieved meaningful degrees of hair regrowth.

“All of us will be happy to have options for alopecia areata,” said Dr. Calzada, who predicted that the higher dose of baricitinib will be selected for clinical development, given its greater efficacy with little increase in safety concerns.

Eli Lilly provided funding for the BRAVE-AA1 and -AA2 trials. Dr. King has financial relationships with Arena, Aclaris, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Concert, Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi Genzyme, and Eli Lilly. Dr. Calzada has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A uniquely-designed three-drug study has demonstrated that individual clinical characteristics, including patient preference, can be used to guide medication choice in type 2 diabetes.

Results from the TriMaster trial using sitagliptin, pioglitazone, and canagliflozin as second- or third-line therapy in a total of 525 patients with type 2 diabetes were presented September 29 at the virtual European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD) 2021 Annual Meeting.

TriMaster is a phase 4, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, 12-month crossover trial examining the effects of all three drugs in subgroups of patients with type 2 diabetes who hadn’t achieved target glucose levels with metformin alone or combined with a sulfonylurea.   

While all three drugs lowered glucose similarly overall, pioglitazone did so more effectively among patients with a body mass index (BMI) above 30 kg/m², while sitagliptin worked better in those with a BMI less than 30 kg/m². However, pioglitazone resulted in more weight gain.

In a second comparison, canagliflozin (a sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 [SGLT2] inhibitor) was more effective than sitagliptin (a dipeptidyl peptidase-4 [DPP-4] inhibitor) in lowering glucose among patients with an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) above 90 mL/min/1.73m2, while sitagliptin actually lowered glucose better among individuals with an eGFR 60-90 mL/min/1.73m2 than canagliflozin.

And when participants were asked which drug they preferred, the results were split nearly evenly among the three, correlating with how well the drug worked and the side effect profile for each individual.  

“We proved a precision approach worked using predefined clinical criteria to define groups of patients where one drug is better than another. This is the first-ever proof of a precision medicine approach in type 2 diabetes,” chief investigator Andrew Hattersley, DM, professor of molecular medicine at the University of Exeter, U.K., told this news organization.

But, he stressed, “These results do not mean all patients with BMI above 30 should have pioglitazone or that all patients with an eGFR 60-90 should have a DPP-4 inhibitor.”

“Drug choice will need to consider other priorities than glycemia ... Patients with heart failure, cardiovascular disease, and chronic kidney disease should be prescribed SGLT2 inhibitors,” he noted. And “some patients will need to avoid specific drugs due to likely side effects.”
 

‘Modern era’ study used older drugs

Independent commentator Caroline M. Kistorp, MD, PhD, professor of endocrinology at University Hospital Copenhagen, congratulated the investigators for “moving precision medicine from the retrospective analysis of existing data into the modern era of evidence-based medicine with this randomized clinical trial in patients with type 2 diabetes ... Starting this trial back in 2015 was really ahead of their time.”

However, she questioned the use of a thiazolidinedione (TZD), pioglitazone, in the trial, as they are no longer used in many parts of the world in favor of more “modern” glucose-lowering drugs.

“I’m thinking of GLP-1 receptor agonists, especially if you want to treat type 2 diabetes patients who are obese with a BMI over 30 ... I acknowledge that there is a cost issue, but I still think we should try to give our patients the best treatments, so that’s why I’m not sure how much the [TZDs] will be used in the future, even with this trial,” she said.

Dr. Kistorp also noted the trial didn’t include cardiovascular disease outcomes, for which most SGLT2 inhibitors have shown benefit.

“We have to discuss and consider whether A1c is the most important parameter for these patients ... especially looking at their cardiovascular outcomes.” 

Mr. Hattersley responded that the study was designed in 2015, prior to the landmark EMPA-REG OUTCOME trial that began the shift toward use of SGLT2 inhibitors for cardiovascular and kidney disease reduction in addition to glycemic control in the clinical management of type 2 diabetes.

“We will report the cardiovascular profiles, but it wasn’t a specific thing because at that time the evidence didn’t exist, so it wasn’t in our protocol,” he explained.  

Regarding pioglitazone, he acknowledged that although it may be an alternative to insulin for some patients, “I think for most people you won’t be considering it in clinical practice,” but because it has a very different mechanism from the other two study drugs, “it did give the greater chance of differential effects ... Partly, what we’re really trying to do is test the question of whether precision medicine exists and can we do it.”
 

Unique study design had each patient act as their own control

Trial statistician Beverley Shields, PhD, of the University of Exeter, U.K., reported the results. The 525 participants with type 2 diabetes were aged 30-79 years and had A1c levels above 58 mmol/mol (7.5%) but not greater than 110 mmol/mol (12.2%) with metformin alone or combined with a sulfonylurea. Just over half (58%) had a BMI above 30 kg/m² and 52% had an eGFR greater than 90 mL/min/1.73m2.

Each participant received each of the three medications as second- or third-line oral therapy in random order – in one of six possible sequences – for 16 weeks each, with no washout period in between (to prevent dropouts due to hyperglycemia). Thus, each participant acted as their own control.

A total of 458 participants completed all three study periods.
 

The drugs work differently in different patient groups

Without stratification by patient type, there was no overall difference in A1c reduction between the three therapies, with all achieving about 59-60 mmol/mol (7.5-7.6%) from a baseline average of 69 mmol/mol (8.9%).

But when stratified by BMI, A1c was 1.48 mmol/mol higher with pioglitazone versus sitagliptin in the group with BMI less than 30 kg/m2 and 1.44 mmol/mol lower with pioglitazone versus sitagliptin in the group with BMI greater than 30 kg/m², giving a significant overall difference of 2.92 mmol/mol (P = .003).  

By eGFR stratification, A1c was 1.74 mmol/mol lower with sitagliptin than canagliflozin in the 60-90 mL/min/1.73m2 group and 1.08 mmol/mol higher in the greater than 90 mL/min/1.73m2 group, giving a significant difference of 2.83 mmol/mol (P = .002).

“So, if we were to treat the patients with the drug that is optimal for their strata ... this would lead to a benefit of about 3 mmol/mol compared to if those patients were treated with the other drug,” Dr. Shields said.

By BMI, there were no significant differences by drug or strata for tolerability, defined as staying on drug for at least 12 weeks (P = .2), nor in the percentage of patients reporting at least one hypoglycemic episode (P = .6).

However, pioglitazone was associated with higher weight gain in both BMI groups, resulting in a 0.93 kg difference overall (P < .001), although it was higher in the higher BMI group (1.9 vs. 0.97 kg).

Similarly, by eGFR there were no differences in tolerability or hypoglycemic episodes between sitagliptin and canagliflozin (P = .09 and P = .6, respectively). And here, there were no differences in weight (P = .6).
 

Patients compared their own experiences with each drug

Patients were asked about their drug preferences after being reminded about their own changes in A1c and weight with each one. The result was a split: 25.8% picked pioglitazone, 34.8% sitagliptin, and 38.7% canagliflozin.

Looking at study outcomes by therapy, pioglitazone had the lowest rate of nontolerability but the highest weight gain, sitagliptin had the highest nontolerability but the lowest number of side effects, while canagliflozin had the highest number of reported side effects but the lowest weight gain.  

Patients’ preferred drugs were associated with the lowest A1c and the fewest side effects for each group. Interestingly, pioglitazone was associated with the highest weight on therapy regardless of preference, so that even those who preferred pioglitazone had a higher weight than they did with the other two drugs.

In response to an audience question about durability of the results given the relatively short trial periods, Mr. Hattersley said: “We’re following up these patients who have chosen their drug, and on the whole, their primary care doctor agreed with them. So we’re following that up as a prospective cohort. We’re looking at tolerance and response and also to see if they’re still happy with that drug. That will be a future analysis.”

The TriMASTER data will be submitted for publication soon.

TriMASTER was funded by the UK Medical Research Council. Mr. Hattersley and Dr. Shields have reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Kistorp has reported receiving honoraria from and/or is on advisory boards for AstraZeneca, Novo Nordisk, Boehringer Ingelheim, MSD, Otsuka Pharma, and Chiesi.

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

A uniquely-designed three-drug study has demonstrated that individual clinical characteristics, including patient preference, can be used to guide medication choice in type 2 diabetes.

Results from the TriMaster trial using sitagliptin, pioglitazone, and canagliflozin as second- or third-line therapy in a total of 525 patients with type 2 diabetes were presented September 29 at the virtual European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD) 2021 Annual Meeting.

TriMaster is a phase 4, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, 12-month crossover trial examining the effects of all three drugs in subgroups of patients with type 2 diabetes who hadn’t achieved target glucose levels with metformin alone or combined with a sulfonylurea.   

While all three drugs lowered glucose similarly overall, pioglitazone did so more effectively among patients with a body mass index (BMI) above 30 kg/m², while sitagliptin worked better in those with a BMI less than 30 kg/m². However, pioglitazone resulted in more weight gain.

In a second comparison, canagliflozin (a sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 [SGLT2] inhibitor) was more effective than sitagliptin (a dipeptidyl peptidase-4 [DPP-4] inhibitor) in lowering glucose among patients with an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) above 90 mL/min/1.73m2, while sitagliptin actually lowered glucose better among individuals with an eGFR 60-90 mL/min/1.73m2 than canagliflozin.

And when participants were asked which drug they preferred, the results were split nearly evenly among the three, correlating with how well the drug worked and the side effect profile for each individual.  

“We proved a precision approach worked using predefined clinical criteria to define groups of patients where one drug is better than another. This is the first-ever proof of a precision medicine approach in type 2 diabetes,” chief investigator Andrew Hattersley, DM, professor of molecular medicine at the University of Exeter, U.K., told this news organization.

But, he stressed, “These results do not mean all patients with BMI above 30 should have pioglitazone or that all patients with an eGFR 60-90 should have a DPP-4 inhibitor.”

“Drug choice will need to consider other priorities than glycemia ... Patients with heart failure, cardiovascular disease, and chronic kidney disease should be prescribed SGLT2 inhibitors,” he noted. And “some patients will need to avoid specific drugs due to likely side effects.”
 

‘Modern era’ study used older drugs

Independent commentator Caroline M. Kistorp, MD, PhD, professor of endocrinology at University Hospital Copenhagen, congratulated the investigators for “moving precision medicine from the retrospective analysis of existing data into the modern era of evidence-based medicine with this randomized clinical trial in patients with type 2 diabetes ... Starting this trial back in 2015 was really ahead of their time.”

However, she questioned the use of a thiazolidinedione (TZD), pioglitazone, in the trial, as they are no longer used in many parts of the world in favor of more “modern” glucose-lowering drugs.

“I’m thinking of GLP-1 receptor agonists, especially if you want to treat type 2 diabetes patients who are obese with a BMI over 30 ... I acknowledge that there is a cost issue, but I still think we should try to give our patients the best treatments, so that’s why I’m not sure how much the [TZDs] will be used in the future, even with this trial,” she said.

Dr. Kistorp also noted the trial didn’t include cardiovascular disease outcomes, for which most SGLT2 inhibitors have shown benefit.

“We have to discuss and consider whether A1c is the most important parameter for these patients ... especially looking at their cardiovascular outcomes.” 

Mr. Hattersley responded that the study was designed in 2015, prior to the landmark EMPA-REG OUTCOME trial that began the shift toward use of SGLT2 inhibitors for cardiovascular and kidney disease reduction in addition to glycemic control in the clinical management of type 2 diabetes.

“We will report the cardiovascular profiles, but it wasn’t a specific thing because at that time the evidence didn’t exist, so it wasn’t in our protocol,” he explained.  

Regarding pioglitazone, he acknowledged that although it may be an alternative to insulin for some patients, “I think for most people you won’t be considering it in clinical practice,” but because it has a very different mechanism from the other two study drugs, “it did give the greater chance of differential effects ... Partly, what we’re really trying to do is test the question of whether precision medicine exists and can we do it.”
 

Unique study design had each patient act as their own control

Trial statistician Beverley Shields, PhD, of the University of Exeter, U.K., reported the results. The 525 participants with type 2 diabetes were aged 30-79 years and had A1c levels above 58 mmol/mol (7.5%) but not greater than 110 mmol/mol (12.2%) with metformin alone or combined with a sulfonylurea. Just over half (58%) had a BMI above 30 kg/m² and 52% had an eGFR greater than 90 mL/min/1.73m2.

Each participant received each of the three medications as second- or third-line oral therapy in random order – in one of six possible sequences – for 16 weeks each, with no washout period in between (to prevent dropouts due to hyperglycemia). Thus, each participant acted as their own control.

A total of 458 participants completed all three study periods.
 

The drugs work differently in different patient groups

Without stratification by patient type, there was no overall difference in A1c reduction between the three therapies, with all achieving about 59-60 mmol/mol (7.5-7.6%) from a baseline average of 69 mmol/mol (8.9%).

But when stratified by BMI, A1c was 1.48 mmol/mol higher with pioglitazone versus sitagliptin in the group with BMI less than 30 kg/m2 and 1.44 mmol/mol lower with pioglitazone versus sitagliptin in the group with BMI greater than 30 kg/m², giving a significant overall difference of 2.92 mmol/mol (P = .003).  

By eGFR stratification, A1c was 1.74 mmol/mol lower with sitagliptin than canagliflozin in the 60-90 mL/min/1.73m2 group and 1.08 mmol/mol higher in the greater than 90 mL/min/1.73m2 group, giving a significant difference of 2.83 mmol/mol (P = .002).

“So, if we were to treat the patients with the drug that is optimal for their strata ... this would lead to a benefit of about 3 mmol/mol compared to if those patients were treated with the other drug,” Dr. Shields said.

By BMI, there were no significant differences by drug or strata for tolerability, defined as staying on drug for at least 12 weeks (P = .2), nor in the percentage of patients reporting at least one hypoglycemic episode (P = .6).

However, pioglitazone was associated with higher weight gain in both BMI groups, resulting in a 0.93 kg difference overall (P < .001), although it was higher in the higher BMI group (1.9 vs. 0.97 kg).

Similarly, by eGFR there were no differences in tolerability or hypoglycemic episodes between sitagliptin and canagliflozin (P = .09 and P = .6, respectively). And here, there were no differences in weight (P = .6).
 

Patients compared their own experiences with each drug

Patients were asked about their drug preferences after being reminded about their own changes in A1c and weight with each one. The result was a split: 25.8% picked pioglitazone, 34.8% sitagliptin, and 38.7% canagliflozin.

Looking at study outcomes by therapy, pioglitazone had the lowest rate of nontolerability but the highest weight gain, sitagliptin had the highest nontolerability but the lowest number of side effects, while canagliflozin had the highest number of reported side effects but the lowest weight gain.  

Patients’ preferred drugs were associated with the lowest A1c and the fewest side effects for each group. Interestingly, pioglitazone was associated with the highest weight on therapy regardless of preference, so that even those who preferred pioglitazone had a higher weight than they did with the other two drugs.

In response to an audience question about durability of the results given the relatively short trial periods, Mr. Hattersley said: “We’re following up these patients who have chosen their drug, and on the whole, their primary care doctor agreed with them. So we’re following that up as a prospective cohort. We’re looking at tolerance and response and also to see if they’re still happy with that drug. That will be a future analysis.”

The TriMASTER data will be submitted for publication soon.

TriMASTER was funded by the UK Medical Research Council. Mr. Hattersley and Dr. Shields have reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Kistorp has reported receiving honoraria from and/or is on advisory boards for AstraZeneca, Novo Nordisk, Boehringer Ingelheim, MSD, Otsuka Pharma, and Chiesi.

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

A uniquely-designed three-drug study has demonstrated that individual clinical characteristics, including patient preference, can be used to guide medication choice in type 2 diabetes.

Results from the TriMaster trial using sitagliptin, pioglitazone, and canagliflozin as second- or third-line therapy in a total of 525 patients with type 2 diabetes were presented September 29 at the virtual European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD) 2021 Annual Meeting.

TriMaster is a phase 4, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, 12-month crossover trial examining the effects of all three drugs in subgroups of patients with type 2 diabetes who hadn’t achieved target glucose levels with metformin alone or combined with a sulfonylurea.   

While all three drugs lowered glucose similarly overall, pioglitazone did so more effectively among patients with a body mass index (BMI) above 30 kg/m², while sitagliptin worked better in those with a BMI less than 30 kg/m². However, pioglitazone resulted in more weight gain.

In a second comparison, canagliflozin (a sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 [SGLT2] inhibitor) was more effective than sitagliptin (a dipeptidyl peptidase-4 [DPP-4] inhibitor) in lowering glucose among patients with an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) above 90 mL/min/1.73m2, while sitagliptin actually lowered glucose better among individuals with an eGFR 60-90 mL/min/1.73m2 than canagliflozin.

And when participants were asked which drug they preferred, the results were split nearly evenly among the three, correlating with how well the drug worked and the side effect profile for each individual.  

“We proved a precision approach worked using predefined clinical criteria to define groups of patients where one drug is better than another. This is the first-ever proof of a precision medicine approach in type 2 diabetes,” chief investigator Andrew Hattersley, DM, professor of molecular medicine at the University of Exeter, U.K., told this news organization.

But, he stressed, “These results do not mean all patients with BMI above 30 should have pioglitazone or that all patients with an eGFR 60-90 should have a DPP-4 inhibitor.”

“Drug choice will need to consider other priorities than glycemia ... Patients with heart failure, cardiovascular disease, and chronic kidney disease should be prescribed SGLT2 inhibitors,” he noted. And “some patients will need to avoid specific drugs due to likely side effects.”
 

‘Modern era’ study used older drugs

Independent commentator Caroline M. Kistorp, MD, PhD, professor of endocrinology at University Hospital Copenhagen, congratulated the investigators for “moving precision medicine from the retrospective analysis of existing data into the modern era of evidence-based medicine with this randomized clinical trial in patients with type 2 diabetes ... Starting this trial back in 2015 was really ahead of their time.”

However, she questioned the use of a thiazolidinedione (TZD), pioglitazone, in the trial, as they are no longer used in many parts of the world in favor of more “modern” glucose-lowering drugs.

“I’m thinking of GLP-1 receptor agonists, especially if you want to treat type 2 diabetes patients who are obese with a BMI over 30 ... I acknowledge that there is a cost issue, but I still think we should try to give our patients the best treatments, so that’s why I’m not sure how much the [TZDs] will be used in the future, even with this trial,” she said.

Dr. Kistorp also noted the trial didn’t include cardiovascular disease outcomes, for which most SGLT2 inhibitors have shown benefit.

“We have to discuss and consider whether A1c is the most important parameter for these patients ... especially looking at their cardiovascular outcomes.” 

Mr. Hattersley responded that the study was designed in 2015, prior to the landmark EMPA-REG OUTCOME trial that began the shift toward use of SGLT2 inhibitors for cardiovascular and kidney disease reduction in addition to glycemic control in the clinical management of type 2 diabetes.

“We will report the cardiovascular profiles, but it wasn’t a specific thing because at that time the evidence didn’t exist, so it wasn’t in our protocol,” he explained.  

Regarding pioglitazone, he acknowledged that although it may be an alternative to insulin for some patients, “I think for most people you won’t be considering it in clinical practice,” but because it has a very different mechanism from the other two study drugs, “it did give the greater chance of differential effects ... Partly, what we’re really trying to do is test the question of whether precision medicine exists and can we do it.”
 

Unique study design had each patient act as their own control

Trial statistician Beverley Shields, PhD, of the University of Exeter, U.K., reported the results. The 525 participants with type 2 diabetes were aged 30-79 years and had A1c levels above 58 mmol/mol (7.5%) but not greater than 110 mmol/mol (12.2%) with metformin alone or combined with a sulfonylurea. Just over half (58%) had a BMI above 30 kg/m² and 52% had an eGFR greater than 90 mL/min/1.73m2.

Each participant received each of the three medications as second- or third-line oral therapy in random order – in one of six possible sequences – for 16 weeks each, with no washout period in between (to prevent dropouts due to hyperglycemia). Thus, each participant acted as their own control.

A total of 458 participants completed all three study periods.
 

The drugs work differently in different patient groups

Without stratification by patient type, there was no overall difference in A1c reduction between the three therapies, with all achieving about 59-60 mmol/mol (7.5-7.6%) from a baseline average of 69 mmol/mol (8.9%).

But when stratified by BMI, A1c was 1.48 mmol/mol higher with pioglitazone versus sitagliptin in the group with BMI less than 30 kg/m2 and 1.44 mmol/mol lower with pioglitazone versus sitagliptin in the group with BMI greater than 30 kg/m², giving a significant overall difference of 2.92 mmol/mol (P = .003).  

By eGFR stratification, A1c was 1.74 mmol/mol lower with sitagliptin than canagliflozin in the 60-90 mL/min/1.73m2 group and 1.08 mmol/mol higher in the greater than 90 mL/min/1.73m2 group, giving a significant difference of 2.83 mmol/mol (P = .002).

“So, if we were to treat the patients with the drug that is optimal for their strata ... this would lead to a benefit of about 3 mmol/mol compared to if those patients were treated with the other drug,” Dr. Shields said.

By BMI, there were no significant differences by drug or strata for tolerability, defined as staying on drug for at least 12 weeks (P = .2), nor in the percentage of patients reporting at least one hypoglycemic episode (P = .6).

However, pioglitazone was associated with higher weight gain in both BMI groups, resulting in a 0.93 kg difference overall (P < .001), although it was higher in the higher BMI group (1.9 vs. 0.97 kg).

Similarly, by eGFR there were no differences in tolerability or hypoglycemic episodes between sitagliptin and canagliflozin (P = .09 and P = .6, respectively). And here, there were no differences in weight (P = .6).
 

Patients compared their own experiences with each drug

Patients were asked about their drug preferences after being reminded about their own changes in A1c and weight with each one. The result was a split: 25.8% picked pioglitazone, 34.8% sitagliptin, and 38.7% canagliflozin.

Looking at study outcomes by therapy, pioglitazone had the lowest rate of nontolerability but the highest weight gain, sitagliptin had the highest nontolerability but the lowest number of side effects, while canagliflozin had the highest number of reported side effects but the lowest weight gain.  

Patients’ preferred drugs were associated with the lowest A1c and the fewest side effects for each group. Interestingly, pioglitazone was associated with the highest weight on therapy regardless of preference, so that even those who preferred pioglitazone had a higher weight than they did with the other two drugs.

In response to an audience question about durability of the results given the relatively short trial periods, Mr. Hattersley said: “We’re following up these patients who have chosen their drug, and on the whole, their primary care doctor agreed with them. So we’re following that up as a prospective cohort. We’re looking at tolerance and response and also to see if they’re still happy with that drug. That will be a future analysis.”

The TriMASTER data will be submitted for publication soon.

TriMASTER was funded by the UK Medical Research Council. Mr. Hattersley and Dr. Shields have reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Kistorp has reported receiving honoraria from and/or is on advisory boards for AstraZeneca, Novo Nordisk, Boehringer Ingelheim, MSD, Otsuka Pharma, and Chiesi.

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

Treatment with tapinarof 1%, a nonsteroidal topical cream in clinical development, was associated with durable control of plaque psoriasis in a 52-week phase 3 trial presented as a late-breaker at the virtual annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.

The drug has several unique features with meaningful clinical differences from other topical psoriasis therapies, according to Linda Stein Gold, MD, director of dermatology clinical research, Henry Ford Health System, Detroit.

“The currently available nonsteroidal topical therapies are typically associated with significant irritation. We did not see that with tapinarof,” said Dr. Stein Gold. This is one of several reasons she believes this drug will be a valuable addition if it receives regulatory approval.

Tapinarof is a small-molecule aryl hydrocarbon receptor (AhR) modulating agent. AhR is widely expressed in immune cells, including macrophages, mast cells, and antigen-presenting cells. It is believed that modulation of AhR signaling by tapinarof reverses immune dysregulation that is involved in the formation of psoriatic lesions.

The newly presented PSOARING 3 data with tapinarof 1% build on the data from the 12-week PSOARING 1 and PSOARING 2 trials, which were released in August 2020 but have yet to be published.

The primary endpoint in both of the 12-week trials, each of which enrolled about 500 patients with plaque psoriasis, was a Physician Global Assessment (PGA) score of 0 (clear) or 1 (almost clear). Relative to a placebo response rate of about 6% in both trials, the proportion of patients who achieved scores of 0/1 with tapinarof 1% was 35.4% and 40.2% in the PSOARING 1 and PSOARING 2 trials, respectively (P < .0001 vs. placebo in both studies).

For the key secondary endpoint of at least 75% improvement in the Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI 75), the relative advantage for tapinarof over placebo was similar. The results were highly statistically significant (P < .0001) in both of the 12-week trials.

More than 90% of the patients who participated in PSOARING 1 and PSOARING 2 and were eligible for the open-label PSOARING 3 extension trial, according to Dr. Stein Gold.

For the 79 patients with a score of 0 at the time of enrollment, tapinarof 1% was reapplied only if the PGA score reached at least 2 during the course of the study. For the 680 patients who entered with a PGA score of at least 1, once-daily applications of tapinarof 1% cream were maintained until a PGA score of 0 was achieved.

In the outcome analysis, response was defined as the proportion of patients with an initial PGA score of at least2 who achieved PGA 0. A remittive effect was defined as duration of a PGA score of 0 or 1 while off therapy after achieving a PGA score of 0. Durability of response was defined as the proportion of patients who achieved a PGA sore of 0 or 1 at least once during the study while on therapy. This last outcome provided a test of tachyphylaxis.

“Overall, 40.9% of patients achieved complete disease clearance at least once during the trial, and 58.2% who entered the study with a PGA score of 2 or higher achieved a PGA score of 0 or 1,” Dr. Stein Gold reported.

For the 79 patients who entered PSOARING 3 with a PGA score of 0 and were off treatment, the median duration of a remittive effect was 115 days. For the patients who entered the trial with a higher PGA score but who achieved a score of 0 during the study (312 patients), the mean remittive effect after discontinuing therapy was 130 days.

There was no evidence of tachyphylaxis. Rather, “there was no loss of effect despite intermittent therapy observed over the course of the trial,” Dr. Stein Gold reported.

The most common treatment-emergent adverse events in PSOARING 3, as in the previous PSOARING studies, were folliculitis, which was observed in 24.0% of patients; contact dermatitis, which occurred in 5.9% of patients; and headache, which was reported in 2%. Rates of study drug discontinuations for folliculitis and contact dermatitis were 1.2% and 1.4%, respectively. Headache did not lead to any study discontinuations.

Calling tapinarof a “first-in-class nonsteroidal,” Dr. Stein Gold suggested that this is likely to be a useful adjunctive therapy for psoriasis control. It avoids the adverse events associated with long-term topical steroid use, and its tolerability might be particularly attractive for use in sensitive areas.

“This is likely to be very useful in patients who are looking for a topical therapy for skin folds or the face, where there is a need for well-tolerated topical treatments,” Dr. Stein Gold said.

There are a lot of reasons to be positive about a new, well-tolerated topical agent for psoriasis, particularly as an alternative to topical steroids, agreed Adam Friedman, MD, director of translational research and professor and chair of the department of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington. He considers the data with tapinarof promising in general, but he also likes any new, effective topical psoriasis therapy.

“Patients and physicians are always hungry for new options, especially psoriasis patients, given many have ‘been there and done that’ with topical steroids,” Dr. Friedman said.

“Topical steroids are not irritating, but long-term use beyond recommended dosing can lead to skin thinning, lightening, tachyphylaxis, and, if really abused, HPA [hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal] axis suppression and adrenal insufficiency,” he observed.

A topical therapy with a durable effect is particularly intriguing.

“The other issue with topical steroids is that psoriatic plaques return rather easily after stopping. The data I have seen with tapinarof show more sustainability after cessation, owing to its mechanism of action,” Dr. Friedman said. Rather than its potential for application to sensitive areas, such as the face, the durability “to me is more interesting.”

He suspects that, owing to “the incurable steroid phobia that haunts many of our patients,” an effective nonsteroidal topical option is also likely to lead to better compliance with topical treatment over time.

“A well-tolerated nonsteroidal topical drug will probably find an important place in the future management of chronic inflammatory diseases,” Marius-Anton Ionescu, MD, PhD, a dermatologist at the Hôpital Saint Louis, Paris, said in an interview. He referred to the positive effects of treatment with tapinarof in clinical trials in adults with atopic dermatitis, in addition to psoriasis.

Tapinarof 1% is also being investigated in a phase 3 study involving patients with moderate to severe atopic dermatitis. In that study, patients are as young as age 2 years. The drug is under review at the Food and Drug Administration for the plaque psoriasis indication in adults.

Dr. Stein Gold has financial relationships with Arcutis, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Leo Pharma Ortho Dermatologic, UCB, and Dermavant Sciences, which is developing tapinarof and is provided funding for the PSOARING 3 trial. Dr. Friedman reported financial relationships with Amgen, Biogen, Encore, Galderma, GlaxoSmithKline, IntraDerm, Johnson & Johnson, Nerium, Novartis, Oculus, Onset, Pfizer, Sanova, and Valeant Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Ionescu has been a speaker or investigator (honoraria) for Celgene, Novartis, Lilly, and Uriage Cosmetics.

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

Treatment with tapinarof 1%, a nonsteroidal topical cream in clinical development, was associated with durable control of plaque psoriasis in a 52-week phase 3 trial presented as a late-breaker at the virtual annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.

The drug has several unique features with meaningful clinical differences from other topical psoriasis therapies, according to Linda Stein Gold, MD, director of dermatology clinical research, Henry Ford Health System, Detroit.

“The currently available nonsteroidal topical therapies are typically associated with significant irritation. We did not see that with tapinarof,” said Dr. Stein Gold. This is one of several reasons she believes this drug will be a valuable addition if it receives regulatory approval.

Tapinarof is a small-molecule aryl hydrocarbon receptor (AhR) modulating agent. AhR is widely expressed in immune cells, including macrophages, mast cells, and antigen-presenting cells. It is believed that modulation of AhR signaling by tapinarof reverses immune dysregulation that is involved in the formation of psoriatic lesions.

The newly presented PSOARING 3 data with tapinarof 1% build on the data from the 12-week PSOARING 1 and PSOARING 2 trials, which were released in August 2020 but have yet to be published.

The primary endpoint in both of the 12-week trials, each of which enrolled about 500 patients with plaque psoriasis, was a Physician Global Assessment (PGA) score of 0 (clear) or 1 (almost clear). Relative to a placebo response rate of about 6% in both trials, the proportion of patients who achieved scores of 0/1 with tapinarof 1% was 35.4% and 40.2% in the PSOARING 1 and PSOARING 2 trials, respectively (P < .0001 vs. placebo in both studies).

For the key secondary endpoint of at least 75% improvement in the Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI 75), the relative advantage for tapinarof over placebo was similar. The results were highly statistically significant (P < .0001) in both of the 12-week trials.

More than 90% of the patients who participated in PSOARING 1 and PSOARING 2 and were eligible for the open-label PSOARING 3 extension trial, according to Dr. Stein Gold.

For the 79 patients with a score of 0 at the time of enrollment, tapinarof 1% was reapplied only if the PGA score reached at least 2 during the course of the study. For the 680 patients who entered with a PGA score of at least 1, once-daily applications of tapinarof 1% cream were maintained until a PGA score of 0 was achieved.

In the outcome analysis, response was defined as the proportion of patients with an initial PGA score of at least2 who achieved PGA 0. A remittive effect was defined as duration of a PGA score of 0 or 1 while off therapy after achieving a PGA score of 0. Durability of response was defined as the proportion of patients who achieved a PGA sore of 0 or 1 at least once during the study while on therapy. This last outcome provided a test of tachyphylaxis.

“Overall, 40.9% of patients achieved complete disease clearance at least once during the trial, and 58.2% who entered the study with a PGA score of 2 or higher achieved a PGA score of 0 or 1,” Dr. Stein Gold reported.

For the 79 patients who entered PSOARING 3 with a PGA score of 0 and were off treatment, the median duration of a remittive effect was 115 days. For the patients who entered the trial with a higher PGA score but who achieved a score of 0 during the study (312 patients), the mean remittive effect after discontinuing therapy was 130 days.

There was no evidence of tachyphylaxis. Rather, “there was no loss of effect despite intermittent therapy observed over the course of the trial,” Dr. Stein Gold reported.

The most common treatment-emergent adverse events in PSOARING 3, as in the previous PSOARING studies, were folliculitis, which was observed in 24.0% of patients; contact dermatitis, which occurred in 5.9% of patients; and headache, which was reported in 2%. Rates of study drug discontinuations for folliculitis and contact dermatitis were 1.2% and 1.4%, respectively. Headache did not lead to any study discontinuations.

Calling tapinarof a “first-in-class nonsteroidal,” Dr. Stein Gold suggested that this is likely to be a useful adjunctive therapy for psoriasis control. It avoids the adverse events associated with long-term topical steroid use, and its tolerability might be particularly attractive for use in sensitive areas.

“This is likely to be very useful in patients who are looking for a topical therapy for skin folds or the face, where there is a need for well-tolerated topical treatments,” Dr. Stein Gold said.

There are a lot of reasons to be positive about a new, well-tolerated topical agent for psoriasis, particularly as an alternative to topical steroids, agreed Adam Friedman, MD, director of translational research and professor and chair of the department of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington. He considers the data with tapinarof promising in general, but he also likes any new, effective topical psoriasis therapy.

“Patients and physicians are always hungry for new options, especially psoriasis patients, given many have ‘been there and done that’ with topical steroids,” Dr. Friedman said.

“Topical steroids are not irritating, but long-term use beyond recommended dosing can lead to skin thinning, lightening, tachyphylaxis, and, if really abused, HPA [hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal] axis suppression and adrenal insufficiency,” he observed.

A topical therapy with a durable effect is particularly intriguing.

“The other issue with topical steroids is that psoriatic plaques return rather easily after stopping. The data I have seen with tapinarof show more sustainability after cessation, owing to its mechanism of action,” Dr. Friedman said. Rather than its potential for application to sensitive areas, such as the face, the durability “to me is more interesting.”

He suspects that, owing to “the incurable steroid phobia that haunts many of our patients,” an effective nonsteroidal topical option is also likely to lead to better compliance with topical treatment over time.

“A well-tolerated nonsteroidal topical drug will probably find an important place in the future management of chronic inflammatory diseases,” Marius-Anton Ionescu, MD, PhD, a dermatologist at the Hôpital Saint Louis, Paris, said in an interview. He referred to the positive effects of treatment with tapinarof in clinical trials in adults with atopic dermatitis, in addition to psoriasis.

Tapinarof 1% is also being investigated in a phase 3 study involving patients with moderate to severe atopic dermatitis. In that study, patients are as young as age 2 years. The drug is under review at the Food and Drug Administration for the plaque psoriasis indication in adults.

Dr. Stein Gold has financial relationships with Arcutis, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Leo Pharma Ortho Dermatologic, UCB, and Dermavant Sciences, which is developing tapinarof and is provided funding for the PSOARING 3 trial. Dr. Friedman reported financial relationships with Amgen, Biogen, Encore, Galderma, GlaxoSmithKline, IntraDerm, Johnson & Johnson, Nerium, Novartis, Oculus, Onset, Pfizer, Sanova, and Valeant Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Ionescu has been a speaker or investigator (honoraria) for Celgene, Novartis, Lilly, and Uriage Cosmetics.

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

Treatment with tapinarof 1%, a nonsteroidal topical cream in clinical development, was associated with durable control of plaque psoriasis in a 52-week phase 3 trial presented as a late-breaker at the virtual annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.

The drug has several unique features with meaningful clinical differences from other topical psoriasis therapies, according to Linda Stein Gold, MD, director of dermatology clinical research, Henry Ford Health System, Detroit.

“The currently available nonsteroidal topical therapies are typically associated with significant irritation. We did not see that with tapinarof,” said Dr. Stein Gold. This is one of several reasons she believes this drug will be a valuable addition if it receives regulatory approval.

Tapinarof is a small-molecule aryl hydrocarbon receptor (AhR) modulating agent. AhR is widely expressed in immune cells, including macrophages, mast cells, and antigen-presenting cells. It is believed that modulation of AhR signaling by tapinarof reverses immune dysregulation that is involved in the formation of psoriatic lesions.

The newly presented PSOARING 3 data with tapinarof 1% build on the data from the 12-week PSOARING 1 and PSOARING 2 trials, which were released in August 2020 but have yet to be published.

The primary endpoint in both of the 12-week trials, each of which enrolled about 500 patients with plaque psoriasis, was a Physician Global Assessment (PGA) score of 0 (clear) or 1 (almost clear). Relative to a placebo response rate of about 6% in both trials, the proportion of patients who achieved scores of 0/1 with tapinarof 1% was 35.4% and 40.2% in the PSOARING 1 and PSOARING 2 trials, respectively (P < .0001 vs. placebo in both studies).

For the key secondary endpoint of at least 75% improvement in the Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI 75), the relative advantage for tapinarof over placebo was similar. The results were highly statistically significant (P < .0001) in both of the 12-week trials.

More than 90% of the patients who participated in PSOARING 1 and PSOARING 2 and were eligible for the open-label PSOARING 3 extension trial, according to Dr. Stein Gold.

For the 79 patients with a score of 0 at the time of enrollment, tapinarof 1% was reapplied only if the PGA score reached at least 2 during the course of the study. For the 680 patients who entered with a PGA score of at least 1, once-daily applications of tapinarof 1% cream were maintained until a PGA score of 0 was achieved.

In the outcome analysis, response was defined as the proportion of patients with an initial PGA score of at least2 who achieved PGA 0. A remittive effect was defined as duration of a PGA score of 0 or 1 while off therapy after achieving a PGA score of 0. Durability of response was defined as the proportion of patients who achieved a PGA sore of 0 or 1 at least once during the study while on therapy. This last outcome provided a test of tachyphylaxis.

“Overall, 40.9% of patients achieved complete disease clearance at least once during the trial, and 58.2% who entered the study with a PGA score of 2 or higher achieved a PGA score of 0 or 1,” Dr. Stein Gold reported.

For the 79 patients who entered PSOARING 3 with a PGA score of 0 and were off treatment, the median duration of a remittive effect was 115 days. For the patients who entered the trial with a higher PGA score but who achieved a score of 0 during the study (312 patients), the mean remittive effect after discontinuing therapy was 130 days.

There was no evidence of tachyphylaxis. Rather, “there was no loss of effect despite intermittent therapy observed over the course of the trial,” Dr. Stein Gold reported.

The most common treatment-emergent adverse events in PSOARING 3, as in the previous PSOARING studies, were folliculitis, which was observed in 24.0% of patients; contact dermatitis, which occurred in 5.9% of patients; and headache, which was reported in 2%. Rates of study drug discontinuations for folliculitis and contact dermatitis were 1.2% and 1.4%, respectively. Headache did not lead to any study discontinuations.

Calling tapinarof a “first-in-class nonsteroidal,” Dr. Stein Gold suggested that this is likely to be a useful adjunctive therapy for psoriasis control. It avoids the adverse events associated with long-term topical steroid use, and its tolerability might be particularly attractive for use in sensitive areas.

“This is likely to be very useful in patients who are looking for a topical therapy for skin folds or the face, where there is a need for well-tolerated topical treatments,” Dr. Stein Gold said.

There are a lot of reasons to be positive about a new, well-tolerated topical agent for psoriasis, particularly as an alternative to topical steroids, agreed Adam Friedman, MD, director of translational research and professor and chair of the department of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington. He considers the data with tapinarof promising in general, but he also likes any new, effective topical psoriasis therapy.

“Patients and physicians are always hungry for new options, especially psoriasis patients, given many have ‘been there and done that’ with topical steroids,” Dr. Friedman said.

“Topical steroids are not irritating, but long-term use beyond recommended dosing can lead to skin thinning, lightening, tachyphylaxis, and, if really abused, HPA [hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal] axis suppression and adrenal insufficiency,” he observed.

A topical therapy with a durable effect is particularly intriguing.

“The other issue with topical steroids is that psoriatic plaques return rather easily after stopping. The data I have seen with tapinarof show more sustainability after cessation, owing to its mechanism of action,” Dr. Friedman said. Rather than its potential for application to sensitive areas, such as the face, the durability “to me is more interesting.”

He suspects that, owing to “the incurable steroid phobia that haunts many of our patients,” an effective nonsteroidal topical option is also likely to lead to better compliance with topical treatment over time.

“A well-tolerated nonsteroidal topical drug will probably find an important place in the future management of chronic inflammatory diseases,” Marius-Anton Ionescu, MD, PhD, a dermatologist at the Hôpital Saint Louis, Paris, said in an interview. He referred to the positive effects of treatment with tapinarof in clinical trials in adults with atopic dermatitis, in addition to psoriasis.

Tapinarof 1% is also being investigated in a phase 3 study involving patients with moderate to severe atopic dermatitis. In that study, patients are as young as age 2 years. The drug is under review at the Food and Drug Administration for the plaque psoriasis indication in adults.

Dr. Stein Gold has financial relationships with Arcutis, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Leo Pharma Ortho Dermatologic, UCB, and Dermavant Sciences, which is developing tapinarof and is provided funding for the PSOARING 3 trial. Dr. Friedman reported financial relationships with Amgen, Biogen, Encore, Galderma, GlaxoSmithKline, IntraDerm, Johnson & Johnson, Nerium, Novartis, Oculus, Onset, Pfizer, Sanova, and Valeant Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Ionescu has been a speaker or investigator (honoraria) for Celgene, Novartis, Lilly, and Uriage Cosmetics.

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

A one-time dose of two long-acting monoclonal antibodies reduced the risk of developing symptomatic COVID by 77% in comparison with placebo (P < .001) in a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial in adults, according to researchers who presented results at IDWeek 2021, an annual scientific meeting on infectious diseases.

The mix of tixagevimab and cilgavimab (AZD7442, Astra Zeneca) in a 300-mg dose is delivered in two intramuscular injections.

“This is the first long-acting combination of monoclonal antibodies that represents a potential new option to augment COVID-19 prevention,” said lead author Myron J. Levin, MD, a professor and pediatric infectious disease specialist at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, who presented the findings of the PROVENT trial.

Both antibodies were taken from B cells donated by patients who had been infected with SARS-CoV-2, and they work synergistically, Dr. Levin said.

“The combination of them is better than adding results of each individually,” he said. “In vitro experiments have already shown that variants of interest and concern, including the Delta variant, are successfully neutralized by this cocktail.”

The trial was conducted in 87 sites in the United States, the United Kingdom, Spain, France, and Belgium. Participants included 5,197 unvaccinated adults who had never been infected with SARS-CoV-2 and either were at higher risk for inadequate response to COVID-19 vaccines because they were immunocompromised or were at high risk for exposure.

“Efficacy was observed through at least 3 months,” Dr. Levin said. “Preliminary pharmacokinetic modeling predicts potential protection for up to 12 months.”

Raymund Razonable, MD, an infectious disease expert with the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., who was not involved with the trial, told this news organization he was particularly interested in this combination because the developers made use of novel technology that extends the half-life of the antibodies and because of the large number of participants in the study.

Modeling that shows protection could last up to a year is novel and important, he said.

“People won’t need frequent injections,” Dr. Razonable said. With postexposure prophylaxis monoclonal cocktails, people may be given a dose a month, he noted.

Dr. Razonable said, “This is something intended to prevent COVID in people who are unvaccinated. The downside to that is we want people to get vaccinated. The best strategy so far is really vaccination.”

He said AZD7442 could potentially help fill the void for patients who are not able to respond to the COVID vaccines, including some who are immunocompromised or are undergoing chemotherapy.

Dr. Razonable said that, although the 77% reduction for developing symptomatic COVID-19 (95% confidence interval vs. placebo, 46.0-90.0; P < .001) is impressive, it is a reduction in relative risk. Still unknown is how much an individual’s absolute risk is reduced.

He also said it would be helpful to know how many people in the study population were immunocompromised, “because I think that’s where this product will be useful for prevention.”

The primary study endpoints were the first case of SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR-positive symptomatic illness post dose and prior to day 183 (efficacy) as well as the safety of the product.

The cocktail appeared to be well tolerated. Adverse events occurred in 35% of participants administered AZD7442 and in 34% of the placebo group. Injection-site reactions occurred in 2.4% of the AZD7442 group and in 2.1% of the placebo group. There was one case of severe or critical COVID-19; two COVID-19–related deaths occurred in the placebo group.

AZD7442 is being developed with the help of funding from the U.S. government. Dr. Levin has received support from GlaxoSmithKline companies. Many of the coauthors are employed by AstraZeneca and hold stock in the company. Dr. Razonable has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A one-time dose of two long-acting monoclonal antibodies reduced the risk of developing symptomatic COVID by 77% in comparison with placebo (P < .001) in a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial in adults, according to researchers who presented results at IDWeek 2021, an annual scientific meeting on infectious diseases.

The mix of tixagevimab and cilgavimab (AZD7442, Astra Zeneca) in a 300-mg dose is delivered in two intramuscular injections.

“This is the first long-acting combination of monoclonal antibodies that represents a potential new option to augment COVID-19 prevention,” said lead author Myron J. Levin, MD, a professor and pediatric infectious disease specialist at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, who presented the findings of the PROVENT trial.

Both antibodies were taken from B cells donated by patients who had been infected with SARS-CoV-2, and they work synergistically, Dr. Levin said.

“The combination of them is better than adding results of each individually,” he said. “In vitro experiments have already shown that variants of interest and concern, including the Delta variant, are successfully neutralized by this cocktail.”

The trial was conducted in 87 sites in the United States, the United Kingdom, Spain, France, and Belgium. Participants included 5,197 unvaccinated adults who had never been infected with SARS-CoV-2 and either were at higher risk for inadequate response to COVID-19 vaccines because they were immunocompromised or were at high risk for exposure.

“Efficacy was observed through at least 3 months,” Dr. Levin said. “Preliminary pharmacokinetic modeling predicts potential protection for up to 12 months.”

Raymund Razonable, MD, an infectious disease expert with the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., who was not involved with the trial, told this news organization he was particularly interested in this combination because the developers made use of novel technology that extends the half-life of the antibodies and because of the large number of participants in the study.

Modeling that shows protection could last up to a year is novel and important, he said.

“People won’t need frequent injections,” Dr. Razonable said. With postexposure prophylaxis monoclonal cocktails, people may be given a dose a month, he noted.

Dr. Razonable said, “This is something intended to prevent COVID in people who are unvaccinated. The downside to that is we want people to get vaccinated. The best strategy so far is really vaccination.”

He said AZD7442 could potentially help fill the void for patients who are not able to respond to the COVID vaccines, including some who are immunocompromised or are undergoing chemotherapy.

Dr. Razonable said that, although the 77% reduction for developing symptomatic COVID-19 (95% confidence interval vs. placebo, 46.0-90.0; P < .001) is impressive, it is a reduction in relative risk. Still unknown is how much an individual’s absolute risk is reduced.

He also said it would be helpful to know how many people in the study population were immunocompromised, “because I think that’s where this product will be useful for prevention.”

The primary study endpoints were the first case of SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR-positive symptomatic illness post dose and prior to day 183 (efficacy) as well as the safety of the product.

The cocktail appeared to be well tolerated. Adverse events occurred in 35% of participants administered AZD7442 and in 34% of the placebo group. Injection-site reactions occurred in 2.4% of the AZD7442 group and in 2.1% of the placebo group. There was one case of severe or critical COVID-19; two COVID-19–related deaths occurred in the placebo group.

AZD7442 is being developed with the help of funding from the U.S. government. Dr. Levin has received support from GlaxoSmithKline companies. Many of the coauthors are employed by AstraZeneca and hold stock in the company. Dr. Razonable has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A one-time dose of two long-acting monoclonal antibodies reduced the risk of developing symptomatic COVID by 77% in comparison with placebo (P < .001) in a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial in adults, according to researchers who presented results at IDWeek 2021, an annual scientific meeting on infectious diseases.

The mix of tixagevimab and cilgavimab (AZD7442, Astra Zeneca) in a 300-mg dose is delivered in two intramuscular injections.

“This is the first long-acting combination of monoclonal antibodies that represents a potential new option to augment COVID-19 prevention,” said lead author Myron J. Levin, MD, a professor and pediatric infectious disease specialist at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, who presented the findings of the PROVENT trial.

Both antibodies were taken from B cells donated by patients who had been infected with SARS-CoV-2, and they work synergistically, Dr. Levin said.

“The combination of them is better than adding results of each individually,” he said. “In vitro experiments have already shown that variants of interest and concern, including the Delta variant, are successfully neutralized by this cocktail.”

The trial was conducted in 87 sites in the United States, the United Kingdom, Spain, France, and Belgium. Participants included 5,197 unvaccinated adults who had never been infected with SARS-CoV-2 and either were at higher risk for inadequate response to COVID-19 vaccines because they were immunocompromised or were at high risk for exposure.

“Efficacy was observed through at least 3 months,” Dr. Levin said. “Preliminary pharmacokinetic modeling predicts potential protection for up to 12 months.”

Raymund Razonable, MD, an infectious disease expert with the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., who was not involved with the trial, told this news organization he was particularly interested in this combination because the developers made use of novel technology that extends the half-life of the antibodies and because of the large number of participants in the study.

Modeling that shows protection could last up to a year is novel and important, he said.

“People won’t need frequent injections,” Dr. Razonable said. With postexposure prophylaxis monoclonal cocktails, people may be given a dose a month, he noted.

Dr. Razonable said, “This is something intended to prevent COVID in people who are unvaccinated. The downside to that is we want people to get vaccinated. The best strategy so far is really vaccination.”

He said AZD7442 could potentially help fill the void for patients who are not able to respond to the COVID vaccines, including some who are immunocompromised or are undergoing chemotherapy.

Dr. Razonable said that, although the 77% reduction for developing symptomatic COVID-19 (95% confidence interval vs. placebo, 46.0-90.0; P < .001) is impressive, it is a reduction in relative risk. Still unknown is how much an individual’s absolute risk is reduced.

He also said it would be helpful to know how many people in the study population were immunocompromised, “because I think that’s where this product will be useful for prevention.”

The primary study endpoints were the first case of SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR-positive symptomatic illness post dose and prior to day 183 (efficacy) as well as the safety of the product.

The cocktail appeared to be well tolerated. Adverse events occurred in 35% of participants administered AZD7442 and in 34% of the placebo group. Injection-site reactions occurred in 2.4% of the AZD7442 group and in 2.1% of the placebo group. There was one case of severe or critical COVID-19; two COVID-19–related deaths occurred in the placebo group.

AZD7442 is being developed with the help of funding from the U.S. government. Dr. Levin has received support from GlaxoSmithKline companies. Many of the coauthors are employed by AstraZeneca and hold stock in the company. Dr. Razonable has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A phase 3, randomized, double-blind, controlled trial has shown that oteseconazole (Mycovia Pharmaceuticals), an oral antifungal agent, is safe and effective in treating acute and recurrent yeast infections (vulvovaginal candidiasis [VVC]) and in preventing  recurrence of acute VVC episodes.

Findings of the ultraVIOLET trial, which compared oteseconazole with the standard fluconazole, were presented at IDWeek 2021, an annual scientific meeting on infectious diseases, by lead author Mark G. Martens, MD, a professor in the department of obstetrics and gynecology at Drexel University College of Medicine in Philadelphia.

About 75% of all women will have a yeast infection in their lifetime, Dr. Martens noted. About 138 million women worldwide have recurring episodes (at least three acute episodes in the last year) of the debilitating condition.

“Recurrent vulvovaginal candidiasis typically requires treatment of the acute episode followed by long-term suppressive therapy with either weekly or biweekly fluconazole,” Dr. Martens said. However, when therapy stops, more than 50% of patients with recurrent VVC experience an infection within the next 6 months, which takes a significant toll on daily life.

Additionally, fluconazole has been linked with safety issues concerning chronic dosing, he said, citing liver toxicity, drug-drug interactions and “increased risk of miscarriage and birth defects when used during pregnancy.”

Topical treatments have been associated with messy application and burning, he noted.

For this study, researchers enrolled 219 women with a history of recurrent VVC at 51 U.S. sites. Participants were randomized either to 600 mg oteseconazole on day 1, 450 mg oteseconazole on day 2 or placebo capsules; or three sequential 150 mg doses (every 72 hours) of fluconazole together with matching placebo capsules.

In the maintenance phase, 185 women with resolved acute VVC (clinical signs and symptoms were scored below 3) on day 14 received 150 mg oteseconazole or placebo weekly for 11 weeks.

Oteseconazole was superior to fluconazole/placebo in the proportion of subjects with at least one culture-verified acute VVC episode through week 50 in the intent-to-treat population (P < .001) which included subjects who failed to clear their infection in the induction phase.

The average percentage of participants with at least one culture-verified acute VVC episode through week 50 was lower in the oteseconazole group (5.1%), compared with the fluconazole/placebo group (42.2%).

Oteseconazole was noninferior to fluconazole in the proportion of subjects with resolved acute VVC infections at day 14 – 93.2% for the oteseconazole group vs. 95.8% for the fluconazole/placebo group.

The percentages of women who had at least one treatment-emergent adverse event (TEAE) were similar – 54% in the oteseconazole group and 64% in the fluconazole/placebo group.  Most TEAEs were mild or moderate and there were no drug-related SAEs or adverse effects on liver function.

“There was no difference in the two groups in he baseline characteristics of age, race, and history of diabetes,” he said.

Oluwatosin Goje, MD, an ob.gyn. with the Cleveland Clinic told this news organization that the drug may offer another option for women who don’t respond to azoles.

“The CDC guidelines say, and I agree, that most episodes of recurrent VVC that are caused by Candida albicans will respond to topical azoles, to oral azoles, to the known drugs that are available. You just may have to use them for a prolonged period of time,” Dr. Goje said. But some patients won’t respond to azoles, the currently available drugs, and topical treatments – so new options are welcome for them, she noted.

She pointed out that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in June approved ibrexafungerp (Brexafemme), the first oral nonazole treatment for vaginal yeast infections. It was the first approved medicine in a novel antifungal class in more than 2 decades.

Dr. Goje, who runs a large clinic with substantial numbers of women with recurrent yeast infections, said the psychosocial problems women with recurrent yeast infections face – and the time off work and money spent trying to get temporary relief from over-the-counter medications – is underestimated.

“Women have long suffered vaginitis. It can be a lot of social and economic burden. So anything in the toolbox to help women is welcome,” Dr. Goje said.

The study was sponsored by Mycovia Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Martens reports no relevant financial relationships. Several coauthors are either employees of Mycovia or receive support from the company. Dr. Goje has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A phase 3, randomized, double-blind, controlled trial has shown that oteseconazole (Mycovia Pharmaceuticals), an oral antifungal agent, is safe and effective in treating acute and recurrent yeast infections (vulvovaginal candidiasis [VVC]) and in preventing  recurrence of acute VVC episodes.

Findings of the ultraVIOLET trial, which compared oteseconazole with the standard fluconazole, were presented at IDWeek 2021, an annual scientific meeting on infectious diseases, by lead author Mark G. Martens, MD, a professor in the department of obstetrics and gynecology at Drexel University College of Medicine in Philadelphia.

About 75% of all women will have a yeast infection in their lifetime, Dr. Martens noted. About 138 million women worldwide have recurring episodes (at least three acute episodes in the last year) of the debilitating condition.

“Recurrent vulvovaginal candidiasis typically requires treatment of the acute episode followed by long-term suppressive therapy with either weekly or biweekly fluconazole,” Dr. Martens said. However, when therapy stops, more than 50% of patients with recurrent VVC experience an infection within the next 6 months, which takes a significant toll on daily life.

Additionally, fluconazole has been linked with safety issues concerning chronic dosing, he said, citing liver toxicity, drug-drug interactions and “increased risk of miscarriage and birth defects when used during pregnancy.”

Topical treatments have been associated with messy application and burning, he noted.

For this study, researchers enrolled 219 women with a history of recurrent VVC at 51 U.S. sites. Participants were randomized either to 600 mg oteseconazole on day 1, 450 mg oteseconazole on day 2 or placebo capsules; or three sequential 150 mg doses (every 72 hours) of fluconazole together with matching placebo capsules.

In the maintenance phase, 185 women with resolved acute VVC (clinical signs and symptoms were scored below 3) on day 14 received 150 mg oteseconazole or placebo weekly for 11 weeks.

Oteseconazole was superior to fluconazole/placebo in the proportion of subjects with at least one culture-verified acute VVC episode through week 50 in the intent-to-treat population (P < .001) which included subjects who failed to clear their infection in the induction phase.

The average percentage of participants with at least one culture-verified acute VVC episode through week 50 was lower in the oteseconazole group (5.1%), compared with the fluconazole/placebo group (42.2%).

Oteseconazole was noninferior to fluconazole in the proportion of subjects with resolved acute VVC infections at day 14 – 93.2% for the oteseconazole group vs. 95.8% for the fluconazole/placebo group.

The percentages of women who had at least one treatment-emergent adverse event (TEAE) were similar – 54% in the oteseconazole group and 64% in the fluconazole/placebo group.  Most TEAEs were mild or moderate and there were no drug-related SAEs or adverse effects on liver function.

“There was no difference in the two groups in he baseline characteristics of age, race, and history of diabetes,” he said.

Oluwatosin Goje, MD, an ob.gyn. with the Cleveland Clinic told this news organization that the drug may offer another option for women who don’t respond to azoles.

“The CDC guidelines say, and I agree, that most episodes of recurrent VVC that are caused by Candida albicans will respond to topical azoles, to oral azoles, to the known drugs that are available. You just may have to use them for a prolonged period of time,” Dr. Goje said. But some patients won’t respond to azoles, the currently available drugs, and topical treatments – so new options are welcome for them, she noted.

She pointed out that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in June approved ibrexafungerp (Brexafemme), the first oral nonazole treatment for vaginal yeast infections. It was the first approved medicine in a novel antifungal class in more than 2 decades.

Dr. Goje, who runs a large clinic with substantial numbers of women with recurrent yeast infections, said the psychosocial problems women with recurrent yeast infections face – and the time off work and money spent trying to get temporary relief from over-the-counter medications – is underestimated.

“Women have long suffered vaginitis. It can be a lot of social and economic burden. So anything in the toolbox to help women is welcome,” Dr. Goje said.

The study was sponsored by Mycovia Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Martens reports no relevant financial relationships. Several coauthors are either employees of Mycovia or receive support from the company. Dr. Goje has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A phase 3, randomized, double-blind, controlled trial has shown that oteseconazole (Mycovia Pharmaceuticals), an oral antifungal agent, is safe and effective in treating acute and recurrent yeast infections (vulvovaginal candidiasis [VVC]) and in preventing  recurrence of acute VVC episodes.

Findings of the ultraVIOLET trial, which compared oteseconazole with the standard fluconazole, were presented at IDWeek 2021, an annual scientific meeting on infectious diseases, by lead author Mark G. Martens, MD, a professor in the department of obstetrics and gynecology at Drexel University College of Medicine in Philadelphia.

About 75% of all women will have a yeast infection in their lifetime, Dr. Martens noted. About 138 million women worldwide have recurring episodes (at least three acute episodes in the last year) of the debilitating condition.

“Recurrent vulvovaginal candidiasis typically requires treatment of the acute episode followed by long-term suppressive therapy with either weekly or biweekly fluconazole,” Dr. Martens said. However, when therapy stops, more than 50% of patients with recurrent VVC experience an infection within the next 6 months, which takes a significant toll on daily life.

Additionally, fluconazole has been linked with safety issues concerning chronic dosing, he said, citing liver toxicity, drug-drug interactions and “increased risk of miscarriage and birth defects when used during pregnancy.”

Topical treatments have been associated with messy application and burning, he noted.

For this study, researchers enrolled 219 women with a history of recurrent VVC at 51 U.S. sites. Participants were randomized either to 600 mg oteseconazole on day 1, 450 mg oteseconazole on day 2 or placebo capsules; or three sequential 150 mg doses (every 72 hours) of fluconazole together with matching placebo capsules.

In the maintenance phase, 185 women with resolved acute VVC (clinical signs and symptoms were scored below 3) on day 14 received 150 mg oteseconazole or placebo weekly for 11 weeks.

Oteseconazole was superior to fluconazole/placebo in the proportion of subjects with at least one culture-verified acute VVC episode through week 50 in the intent-to-treat population (P < .001) which included subjects who failed to clear their infection in the induction phase.

The average percentage of participants with at least one culture-verified acute VVC episode through week 50 was lower in the oteseconazole group (5.1%), compared with the fluconazole/placebo group (42.2%).

Oteseconazole was noninferior to fluconazole in the proportion of subjects with resolved acute VVC infections at day 14 – 93.2% for the oteseconazole group vs. 95.8% for the fluconazole/placebo group.

The percentages of women who had at least one treatment-emergent adverse event (TEAE) were similar – 54% in the oteseconazole group and 64% in the fluconazole/placebo group.  Most TEAEs were mild or moderate and there were no drug-related SAEs or adverse effects on liver function.

“There was no difference in the two groups in he baseline characteristics of age, race, and history of diabetes,” he said.

Oluwatosin Goje, MD, an ob.gyn. with the Cleveland Clinic told this news organization that the drug may offer another option for women who don’t respond to azoles.

“The CDC guidelines say, and I agree, that most episodes of recurrent VVC that are caused by Candida albicans will respond to topical azoles, to oral azoles, to the known drugs that are available. You just may have to use them for a prolonged period of time,” Dr. Goje said. But some patients won’t respond to azoles, the currently available drugs, and topical treatments – so new options are welcome for them, she noted.

She pointed out that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in June approved ibrexafungerp (Brexafemme), the first oral nonazole treatment for vaginal yeast infections. It was the first approved medicine in a novel antifungal class in more than 2 decades.

Dr. Goje, who runs a large clinic with substantial numbers of women with recurrent yeast infections, said the psychosocial problems women with recurrent yeast infections face – and the time off work and money spent trying to get temporary relief from over-the-counter medications – is underestimated.

“Women have long suffered vaginitis. It can be a lot of social and economic burden. So anything in the toolbox to help women is welcome,” Dr. Goje said.

The study was sponsored by Mycovia Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Martens reports no relevant financial relationships. Several coauthors are either employees of Mycovia or receive support from the company. Dr. Goje has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has granted accelerated approval to tisotumab vedotin-tftv (Tivdak, Seagen/Genmab) for the treatment of adult patients with recurrent or metastatic cervical cancer who have experienced disease progression on or after chemotherapy.

There is currently no standard option for these patients. The mainstay of therapy in this setting is monotherapy with chemotherapy, but the benefit-risk profiles are poor, and overall response rates (ORRs) are less than 15%.

In the clinical trial that led to the accelerated approval, tisotumab vedotin-tftv yielded an ORR of 24%, which an expert not connected with the trial said was “impressive.”

“Tivdak’s approval as a monotherapy in the U.S. is an important milestone for women with recurrent or metastatic cervical cancer with disease progression on or after chemotherapy, as they are in need of a new treatment option and we look forward to making it available to them,” Jan van de Winkel, PhD, chief executive officer of Genmab, said in a statement.

Tisotumab vedotin is an antibody–drug conjugate: A human monoclonal antibody directed against tissue factor, which is highly expressed on many solid tumors, is attached to the microtubule-disrupting agent monomethyl auristatin E.
 

Details of clinical trial data

The accelerated approval was based on the results of the innovaTV 204, an open-label, multicenter, single-arm clinical trial, which was published online on April 9 in The Lancet Oncology, as reported at the time.

The trial included 101 women with recurrent or metastatic squamous cell, adenocarcinoma, or adenosquamous cervical cancer whose disease had progressed with or after doublet chemotherapy with bevacizumab (if eligible by local standards) and who had received two or fewer previous systemic regimens for recurrent or metastatic disease.

All patients received tisotumab vendotin intravenously at a dose of 2.0 mg/kg (up to a maximum of 200 mg) once every 3 weeks until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.

The confirmed ORR was 24% and included seven (7%) complete responses and 17 (17%) partial responses.

The disease control rate was 72%, and the median duration of response was 8.3 months. The median progression-free survival was 4.2 months; the 6-month progression-free survival rate was 30%.

Median overall survival (OS) was 12.1 months. OS rates were 79% at 6 months and 51% at 12 months.

Overall, the safety profile with tisotumab vedotin was manageable, the trialists reported. The most common treatment-related adverse events were alopecia (38%), epistaxis (30%), nausea (27%), conjunctivitis (26%), fatigue (26%), and dry eye (23%). Adverse events of grade 3 or higher were reported by 28% of patients and included neutropenia (3%), fatigue (2%), ulcerative keratitis (2%), and peripheral neuropathies (2%). One patient died as a result of septic shock that was considered by the investigators to be related to therapy.

The new product labeling includes a boxed warning for ocular toxicity. It notes that tisotumab vedotin “caused changes in the corneal epithelium and conjunctiva resulting in changes in vision, including severe vision loss, and corneal ulceration.” It recommends that clinicians conduct an ophthalmic exam at baseline, prior to each dose, and as clinically indicated and that patients adhere to premedication and required eye care before, during, and after infusion.
 

Confirmatory trial underway

Continued approval may be contingent upon verification and description of clinical benefit in confirmatory trials.

The confirmatory trial for tisotumab vedotin is already underway: The global phase 3 innovaTV 301 trial began in January 2021. It will compare tisotumab vendotin to chemotherapy (topotecan, vinorelbine, gemcitabine, irinotecan, or pemetrexed) for patients with recurrent or metastatic cervical cancer who have received one or two prior lines of systemic therapy.

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has granted accelerated approval to tisotumab vedotin-tftv (Tivdak, Seagen/Genmab) for the treatment of adult patients with recurrent or metastatic cervical cancer who have experienced disease progression on or after chemotherapy.

There is currently no standard option for these patients. The mainstay of therapy in this setting is monotherapy with chemotherapy, but the benefit-risk profiles are poor, and overall response rates (ORRs) are less than 15%.

In the clinical trial that led to the accelerated approval, tisotumab vedotin-tftv yielded an ORR of 24%, which an expert not connected with the trial said was “impressive.”

“Tivdak’s approval as a monotherapy in the U.S. is an important milestone for women with recurrent or metastatic cervical cancer with disease progression on or after chemotherapy, as they are in need of a new treatment option and we look forward to making it available to them,” Jan van de Winkel, PhD, chief executive officer of Genmab, said in a statement.

Tisotumab vedotin is an antibody–drug conjugate: A human monoclonal antibody directed against tissue factor, which is highly expressed on many solid tumors, is attached to the microtubule-disrupting agent monomethyl auristatin E.
 

Details of clinical trial data

The accelerated approval was based on the results of the innovaTV 204, an open-label, multicenter, single-arm clinical trial, which was published online on April 9 in The Lancet Oncology, as reported at the time.

The trial included 101 women with recurrent or metastatic squamous cell, adenocarcinoma, or adenosquamous cervical cancer whose disease had progressed with or after doublet chemotherapy with bevacizumab (if eligible by local standards) and who had received two or fewer previous systemic regimens for recurrent or metastatic disease.

All patients received tisotumab vendotin intravenously at a dose of 2.0 mg/kg (up to a maximum of 200 mg) once every 3 weeks until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.

The confirmed ORR was 24% and included seven (7%) complete responses and 17 (17%) partial responses.

The disease control rate was 72%, and the median duration of response was 8.3 months. The median progression-free survival was 4.2 months; the 6-month progression-free survival rate was 30%.

Median overall survival (OS) was 12.1 months. OS rates were 79% at 6 months and 51% at 12 months.

Overall, the safety profile with tisotumab vedotin was manageable, the trialists reported. The most common treatment-related adverse events were alopecia (38%), epistaxis (30%), nausea (27%), conjunctivitis (26%), fatigue (26%), and dry eye (23%). Adverse events of grade 3 or higher were reported by 28% of patients and included neutropenia (3%), fatigue (2%), ulcerative keratitis (2%), and peripheral neuropathies (2%). One patient died as a result of septic shock that was considered by the investigators to be related to therapy.

The new product labeling includes a boxed warning for ocular toxicity. It notes that tisotumab vedotin “caused changes in the corneal epithelium and conjunctiva resulting in changes in vision, including severe vision loss, and corneal ulceration.” It recommends that clinicians conduct an ophthalmic exam at baseline, prior to each dose, and as clinically indicated and that patients adhere to premedication and required eye care before, during, and after infusion.
 

Confirmatory trial underway

Continued approval may be contingent upon verification and description of clinical benefit in confirmatory trials.

The confirmatory trial for tisotumab vedotin is already underway: The global phase 3 innovaTV 301 trial began in January 2021. It will compare tisotumab vendotin to chemotherapy (topotecan, vinorelbine, gemcitabine, irinotecan, or pemetrexed) for patients with recurrent or metastatic cervical cancer who have received one or two prior lines of systemic therapy.

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has granted accelerated approval to tisotumab vedotin-tftv (Tivdak, Seagen/Genmab) for the treatment of adult patients with recurrent or metastatic cervical cancer who have experienced disease progression on or after chemotherapy.

There is currently no standard option for these patients. The mainstay of therapy in this setting is monotherapy with chemotherapy, but the benefit-risk profiles are poor, and overall response rates (ORRs) are less than 15%.

In the clinical trial that led to the accelerated approval, tisotumab vedotin-tftv yielded an ORR of 24%, which an expert not connected with the trial said was “impressive.”

“Tivdak’s approval as a monotherapy in the U.S. is an important milestone for women with recurrent or metastatic cervical cancer with disease progression on or after chemotherapy, as they are in need of a new treatment option and we look forward to making it available to them,” Jan van de Winkel, PhD, chief executive officer of Genmab, said in a statement.

Tisotumab vedotin is an antibody–drug conjugate: A human monoclonal antibody directed against tissue factor, which is highly expressed on many solid tumors, is attached to the microtubule-disrupting agent monomethyl auristatin E.
 

Details of clinical trial data

The accelerated approval was based on the results of the innovaTV 204, an open-label, multicenter, single-arm clinical trial, which was published online on April 9 in The Lancet Oncology, as reported at the time.

The trial included 101 women with recurrent or metastatic squamous cell, adenocarcinoma, or adenosquamous cervical cancer whose disease had progressed with or after doublet chemotherapy with bevacizumab (if eligible by local standards) and who had received two or fewer previous systemic regimens for recurrent or metastatic disease.

All patients received tisotumab vendotin intravenously at a dose of 2.0 mg/kg (up to a maximum of 200 mg) once every 3 weeks until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.

The confirmed ORR was 24% and included seven (7%) complete responses and 17 (17%) partial responses.

The disease control rate was 72%, and the median duration of response was 8.3 months. The median progression-free survival was 4.2 months; the 6-month progression-free survival rate was 30%.

Median overall survival (OS) was 12.1 months. OS rates were 79% at 6 months and 51% at 12 months.

Overall, the safety profile with tisotumab vedotin was manageable, the trialists reported. The most common treatment-related adverse events were alopecia (38%), epistaxis (30%), nausea (27%), conjunctivitis (26%), fatigue (26%), and dry eye (23%). Adverse events of grade 3 or higher were reported by 28% of patients and included neutropenia (3%), fatigue (2%), ulcerative keratitis (2%), and peripheral neuropathies (2%). One patient died as a result of septic shock that was considered by the investigators to be related to therapy.

The new product labeling includes a boxed warning for ocular toxicity. It notes that tisotumab vedotin “caused changes in the corneal epithelium and conjunctiva resulting in changes in vision, including severe vision loss, and corneal ulceration.” It recommends that clinicians conduct an ophthalmic exam at baseline, prior to each dose, and as clinically indicated and that patients adhere to premedication and required eye care before, during, and after infusion.
 

Confirmatory trial underway

Continued approval may be contingent upon verification and description of clinical benefit in confirmatory trials.

The confirmatory trial for tisotumab vedotin is already underway: The global phase 3 innovaTV 301 trial began in January 2021. It will compare tisotumab vendotin to chemotherapy (topotecan, vinorelbine, gemcitabine, irinotecan, or pemetrexed) for patients with recurrent or metastatic cervical cancer who have received one or two prior lines of systemic therapy.

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

For primary care patients feeling well enough to discontinue antidepressant medication, there was a higher rate of depressive relapse among those who discontinued therapy, compared with those who did not, a new study shows.

The results of the Antidepressants to Prevent Relapse in Depression (ANTLER) trial also suggest that “many patients can discontinue their antidepressants safely in primary care without relapsing, when there is a tapering regime,” said lead investigator Gemma Lewis, PhD, from University College London, in an interview.

The multicenter, randomized, double-blind trial, which was published in the New England Journal of Medicine (2021;385:1257-67), included 478 patients, from 150 primary care practices in the United Kingdom.

The participants (73% female, average age 54 years) had a history of at least two depressive episodes or had been taking antidepressants (citalopram, fluoxetine, sertraline, or mirtazapine) for at least 2 years. The vast majority of patients – 70% – had been using the drugs for more than 3 years, the researchers wrote.

Study participants were randomized to either maintain their antidepressant regimen or to taper off for up to 2 months before switching to a placebo.

Over a follow-up of 52 weeks, relapse occurred in 56% of those who discontinued, compared with 39% of those who maintained their regimen (hazard ratio, 2.06; P < .001). Relapse also occurred sooner in the discontinuation group (13 weeks vs. 19 weeks).

The definition of relapse was answering yes to either of the following two questions:

• Have you had a spell of feeling sad, miserable, or depressed?
• Have you been unable to enjoy or take an interest in things as much as you usually do?

Patients also had to report that one of these experiences had lasted for 2 weeks or more, and having had at least one of the following symptoms: depressive thoughts, fatigue, loss of concentration, or sleep disturbance.

By the end of the trial, 39% of patients in the group who discontinued taking an antidepressant had returned to taking that type of drug.

“We found that remaining on antidepressants long-term does effectively reduce the risk of relapse. However, we also found that 44% of those who discontinued their antidepressants did not relapse after a full year,” Dr. Lewis said.

Who can stop medications without relapsing is unknown

“Many people can stop their medication without relapsing, though at present we cannot identify who those people are,” noted Dr. Lewis.

“Our study did not investigate who is at higher risk of relapse … but this is something we will focus on in the future,” she said.

For primary care clinicians whose patients are considering discontinuation of antidepressant medication, “current best practice is to engage with patients’ priorities and collaborate in coming to a decision,” she noted.

“For the individual patient, it is only possible to know about the average likelihood of relapse – and the severity of potential relapses will also be unpredictable. Our findings will give patients and clinicians an estimate of the likely benefits and harms of stopping long-term maintenance antidepressants to inform shared decision-making in primary care.”

Findings are ‘important’ but ‘disappointing’

In an editorial published alongside the study (N Engl J Med. 2021;385:1327-8), Jeffrey L. Jackson, MD, MPH, from the Zablocki VA Medical Center and the Medical College of Wisconsin in Milwaukee characterized the findings as “important but disappointing.”

“They confirm what most primary care physicians already knew or intuited. The frequency of relapse after the discontinuation of treatment is high, particularly among patients with several previous depressive episodes,” he explained.

Dr. Jackson also pointed out some unknowns about the trial, including the length trial participants had been in remission for depression.

“It is unclear whether the trial results are generalizable to primary care patients with a first episode of depression,” he said, and noted that participants with three or more previous depressive episodes were more than twice as likely to relapse, compared with participants with fewer episodes.

“I encourage patients with a single bout of depression, especially episodes that are triggered by a life event, such as loss of a loved one, to consider weaning antidepressant treatment after at least 6 months of remission,” he wrote. “For those with three or more previous bouts of depression, my practice has been to recommend that they anticipate medical treatment for life or, if they wish to stop taking medication, explore nonpharmacologic approaches, such as cognitive-behavior therapy.”

Protective effect of antidepressants was clear

“This is an important paper providing an evidence base to the often-cited recommendation that after two or more episodes of depression, antidepressant medication should be continued indefinitely,” said Neil Skolnik, MD, professor of family and community medicine at the Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Thomas Jefferson University in Philadelphia, who was not involved in the study.

“The protective effect of antidepressant medication here was clear – those who discontinued antidepressant medication had a clinically and significantly higher rate of relapse at the end of a year.”

Side effects can be significant

“It is important to note, though, that in the discontinuation group, 44% of patients did not experience a relapse,” Dr. Skolnik said. “While antidepressants work without significant side effects for many patients, for others there are significant side effects that include adverse sexual side effects, effects on appetite and weight, nighttime sweats, and other side effects.”

“So, this study should not be confused to mean that all patients who have had recurrent depression should remain on antidepressants long term. The decision about whether to continue an antidepressant is influenced by many things and should be a shared decision-making process between clinician and patient, informed by the important results of this study, the current situation of the patient, and most importantly, the patient’s informed decision of what they would like to do,” he said.

The study was funded by the U.K. National Institute for Health Research

Dr. Lewis, Dr. Jackson, and Dr. Skolnik reported no conflicts of interest.

For primary care patients feeling well enough to discontinue antidepressant medication, there was a higher rate of depressive relapse among those who discontinued therapy, compared with those who did not, a new study shows.

The results of the Antidepressants to Prevent Relapse in Depression (ANTLER) trial also suggest that “many patients can discontinue their antidepressants safely in primary care without relapsing, when there is a tapering regime,” said lead investigator Gemma Lewis, PhD, from University College London, in an interview.

The multicenter, randomized, double-blind trial, which was published in the New England Journal of Medicine (2021;385:1257-67), included 478 patients, from 150 primary care practices in the United Kingdom.

The participants (73% female, average age 54 years) had a history of at least two depressive episodes or had been taking antidepressants (citalopram, fluoxetine, sertraline, or mirtazapine) for at least 2 years. The vast majority of patients – 70% – had been using the drugs for more than 3 years, the researchers wrote.

Study participants were randomized to either maintain their antidepressant regimen or to taper off for up to 2 months before switching to a placebo.

Over a follow-up of 52 weeks, relapse occurred in 56% of those who discontinued, compared with 39% of those who maintained their regimen (hazard ratio, 2.06; P < .001). Relapse also occurred sooner in the discontinuation group (13 weeks vs. 19 weeks).

The definition of relapse was answering yes to either of the following two questions:

• Have you had a spell of feeling sad, miserable, or depressed?
• Have you been unable to enjoy or take an interest in things as much as you usually do?

Patients also had to report that one of these experiences had lasted for 2 weeks or more, and having had at least one of the following symptoms: depressive thoughts, fatigue, loss of concentration, or sleep disturbance.

By the end of the trial, 39% of patients in the group who discontinued taking an antidepressant had returned to taking that type of drug.

“We found that remaining on antidepressants long-term does effectively reduce the risk of relapse. However, we also found that 44% of those who discontinued their antidepressants did not relapse after a full year,” Dr. Lewis said.

Who can stop medications without relapsing is unknown

“Many people can stop their medication without relapsing, though at present we cannot identify who those people are,” noted Dr. Lewis.

“Our study did not investigate who is at higher risk of relapse … but this is something we will focus on in the future,” she said.

For primary care clinicians whose patients are considering discontinuation of antidepressant medication, “current best practice is to engage with patients’ priorities and collaborate in coming to a decision,” she noted.

“For the individual patient, it is only possible to know about the average likelihood of relapse – and the severity of potential relapses will also be unpredictable. Our findings will give patients and clinicians an estimate of the likely benefits and harms of stopping long-term maintenance antidepressants to inform shared decision-making in primary care.”

Findings are ‘important’ but ‘disappointing’

In an editorial published alongside the study (N Engl J Med. 2021;385:1327-8), Jeffrey L. Jackson, MD, MPH, from the Zablocki VA Medical Center and the Medical College of Wisconsin in Milwaukee characterized the findings as “important but disappointing.”

“They confirm what most primary care physicians already knew or intuited. The frequency of relapse after the discontinuation of treatment is high, particularly among patients with several previous depressive episodes,” he explained.

Dr. Jackson also pointed out some unknowns about the trial, including the length trial participants had been in remission for depression.

“It is unclear whether the trial results are generalizable to primary care patients with a first episode of depression,” he said, and noted that participants with three or more previous depressive episodes were more than twice as likely to relapse, compared with participants with fewer episodes.

“I encourage patients with a single bout of depression, especially episodes that are triggered by a life event, such as loss of a loved one, to consider weaning antidepressant treatment after at least 6 months of remission,” he wrote. “For those with three or more previous bouts of depression, my practice has been to recommend that they anticipate medical treatment for life or, if they wish to stop taking medication, explore nonpharmacologic approaches, such as cognitive-behavior therapy.”

Protective effect of antidepressants was clear

“This is an important paper providing an evidence base to the often-cited recommendation that after two or more episodes of depression, antidepressant medication should be continued indefinitely,” said Neil Skolnik, MD, professor of family and community medicine at the Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Thomas Jefferson University in Philadelphia, who was not involved in the study.

“The protective effect of antidepressant medication here was clear – those who discontinued antidepressant medication had a clinically and significantly higher rate of relapse at the end of a year.”

Side effects can be significant

“It is important to note, though, that in the discontinuation group, 44% of patients did not experience a relapse,” Dr. Skolnik said. “While antidepressants work without significant side effects for many patients, for others there are significant side effects that include adverse sexual side effects, effects on appetite and weight, nighttime sweats, and other side effects.”

“So, this study should not be confused to mean that all patients who have had recurrent depression should remain on antidepressants long term. The decision about whether to continue an antidepressant is influenced by many things and should be a shared decision-making process between clinician and patient, informed by the important results of this study, the current situation of the patient, and most importantly, the patient’s informed decision of what they would like to do,” he said.

The study was funded by the U.K. National Institute for Health Research

Dr. Lewis, Dr. Jackson, and Dr. Skolnik reported no conflicts of interest.

For primary care patients feeling well enough to discontinue antidepressant medication, there was a higher rate of depressive relapse among those who discontinued therapy, compared with those who did not, a new study shows.

The results of the Antidepressants to Prevent Relapse in Depression (ANTLER) trial also suggest that “many patients can discontinue their antidepressants safely in primary care without relapsing, when there is a tapering regime,” said lead investigator Gemma Lewis, PhD, from University College London, in an interview.

The multicenter, randomized, double-blind trial, which was published in the New England Journal of Medicine (2021;385:1257-67), included 478 patients, from 150 primary care practices in the United Kingdom.

The participants (73% female, average age 54 years) had a history of at least two depressive episodes or had been taking antidepressants (citalopram, fluoxetine, sertraline, or mirtazapine) for at least 2 years. The vast majority of patients – 70% – had been using the drugs for more than 3 years, the researchers wrote.

Study participants were randomized to either maintain their antidepressant regimen or to taper off for up to 2 months before switching to a placebo.

Over a follow-up of 52 weeks, relapse occurred in 56% of those who discontinued, compared with 39% of those who maintained their regimen (hazard ratio, 2.06; P < .001). Relapse also occurred sooner in the discontinuation group (13 weeks vs. 19 weeks).

The definition of relapse was answering yes to either of the following two questions:

• Have you had a spell of feeling sad, miserable, or depressed?
• Have you been unable to enjoy or take an interest in things as much as you usually do?

Patients also had to report that one of these experiences had lasted for 2 weeks or more, and having had at least one of the following symptoms: depressive thoughts, fatigue, loss of concentration, or sleep disturbance.

By the end of the trial, 39% of patients in the group who discontinued taking an antidepressant had returned to taking that type of drug.

“We found that remaining on antidepressants long-term does effectively reduce the risk of relapse. However, we also found that 44% of those who discontinued their antidepressants did not relapse after a full year,” Dr. Lewis said.

Who can stop medications without relapsing is unknown

“Many people can stop their medication without relapsing, though at present we cannot identify who those people are,” noted Dr. Lewis.

“Our study did not investigate who is at higher risk of relapse … but this is something we will focus on in the future,” she said.

For primary care clinicians whose patients are considering discontinuation of antidepressant medication, “current best practice is to engage with patients’ priorities and collaborate in coming to a decision,” she noted.

“For the individual patient, it is only possible to know about the average likelihood of relapse – and the severity of potential relapses will also be unpredictable. Our findings will give patients and clinicians an estimate of the likely benefits and harms of stopping long-term maintenance antidepressants to inform shared decision-making in primary care.”

Findings are ‘important’ but ‘disappointing’

In an editorial published alongside the study (N Engl J Med. 2021;385:1327-8), Jeffrey L. Jackson, MD, MPH, from the Zablocki VA Medical Center and the Medical College of Wisconsin in Milwaukee characterized the findings as “important but disappointing.”

“They confirm what most primary care physicians already knew or intuited. The frequency of relapse after the discontinuation of treatment is high, particularly among patients with several previous depressive episodes,” he explained.

Dr. Jackson also pointed out some unknowns about the trial, including the length trial participants had been in remission for depression.

“It is unclear whether the trial results are generalizable to primary care patients with a first episode of depression,” he said, and noted that participants with three or more previous depressive episodes were more than twice as likely to relapse, compared with participants with fewer episodes.

“I encourage patients with a single bout of depression, especially episodes that are triggered by a life event, such as loss of a loved one, to consider weaning antidepressant treatment after at least 6 months of remission,” he wrote. “For those with three or more previous bouts of depression, my practice has been to recommend that they anticipate medical treatment for life or, if they wish to stop taking medication, explore nonpharmacologic approaches, such as cognitive-behavior therapy.”

Protective effect of antidepressants was clear

“This is an important paper providing an evidence base to the often-cited recommendation that after two or more episodes of depression, antidepressant medication should be continued indefinitely,” said Neil Skolnik, MD, professor of family and community medicine at the Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Thomas Jefferson University in Philadelphia, who was not involved in the study.

“The protective effect of antidepressant medication here was clear – those who discontinued antidepressant medication had a clinically and significantly higher rate of relapse at the end of a year.”

Side effects can be significant

“It is important to note, though, that in the discontinuation group, 44% of patients did not experience a relapse,” Dr. Skolnik said. “While antidepressants work without significant side effects for many patients, for others there are significant side effects that include adverse sexual side effects, effects on appetite and weight, nighttime sweats, and other side effects.”

“So, this study should not be confused to mean that all patients who have had recurrent depression should remain on antidepressants long term. The decision about whether to continue an antidepressant is influenced by many things and should be a shared decision-making process between clinician and patient, informed by the important results of this study, the current situation of the patient, and most importantly, the patient’s informed decision of what they would like to do,” he said.

The study was funded by the U.K. National Institute for Health Research

Dr. Lewis, Dr. Jackson, and Dr. Skolnik reported no conflicts of interest.

A common inert ingredient may be the culprit behind the rare allergic reactions reported among individuals who have received mRNA COVID-19 vaccines, according to investigators at a large regional health center that was among the first to administer the shots.

Blood samples from 10 of 11 individuals with suspected allergic reactions reacted to polyethylene glycol (PEG), a component of both the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA  vaccines, according to a report in JAMA Network Open.

In total, only 22 individuals had suspected allergic reactions out of nearly 39,000 mRNA COVID-19 vaccine doses administered, the investigators reported, noting that the reactions were generally mild and all fully resolved.

Those findings should be reassuring to individuals who are reticent to sign up for a COVID-19 vaccine because of fear of an allergic reaction, said study senior author Kari Nadeau, MD, PhD, director of the Parker Center for Allergy and Asthma Research at Stanford (Calif.) University.

“We’re hoping that this word will get out and then that the companies could also think about making vaccines that have other products in them that don’t include polyethylene glycol,” Dr. Nadeau said in an interview.

PEG is a compound used in many products, including pharmaceuticals, cosmetics, and food. In the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines, PEG serves to stabilize the lipid nanoparticles that help protect and transport mRNA. However, its use in this setting has been linked to allergic reactions in this and previous studies.

No immunoglobulin E (IgE) antibodies to PEG were detected among the 22 individuals with suspected allergic reactions to mRNA COVID-19 vaccine, but PEG immunoglobulin G (IgG) was present. That suggests non-IgE mediated allergic reactions to PEG may be implicated for the majority of cases, Dr. Nadeau said.

This case series provides interesting new evidence to confirm previous reports that a mechanism other than the classic IgE-mediated allergic response is behind the suspected allergic reactions that are occurring after mRNA COVID-19 vaccine, said Aleena Banerji, MD, associate professor at Harvard Medical School, Boston, and clinical director of the Drug Allergy Program at Massachusetts General Hospital.

“We need to further understand the mechanism of these reactions, but what we know is that IGE mediated allergy to excipients like PEG is probably not the main cause,” Dr. Banerji, who was not involved in the study, said in an interview.

In a recent research letter published in JAMA Internal Medicine, Dr. Banerji and coauthors reported that all individuals with immediate suspected allergic reactions to mRNA COVID-19 vaccine went on to tolerate the second dose, with mild symptoms reported in the minority of patients (32 out of 159, or about 20%).

“Again, that is very consistent with not having an IgE-mediated allergy, so it seems to all be fitting with that picture,” Dr. Banerji said.

The case series by Dr. Nadeau and coauthors was based on review of nearly 39,000 mRNA COVID-19 vaccine doses administered between December 18, 2020 and January 26, 2021. Most mRNA vaccine recipients were Stanford-affiliated health care workers, according to the report.

Among recipients of those doses, they identified 148 individuals who had anaphylaxis-related ICD-10 codes recorded over the same time period. In a review of medical records, investigators pinpointed 22 individuals as having suspected allergy and invited them to participate in follow-up allergy testing.

A total of 11 individuals underwent skin prick testing, but none of them tested positive to PEG or to polysorbate 80, another excipient that has been linked to vaccine-related allergic reactions. One of the patients tested positive to the same mRNA vaccine they had previously received, according to the report.

Those same 11 individuals also underwent basophil activation testing (BAT). In contrast to the skin testing results, BAT results were positive for PEG in 10 of 11 cases (or 91%) and positive for their administered vaccine in all 11 cases, the report shows.

High levels of IgG to PEG were identified in blood samples of individuals with an allergy to the vaccine. Investigators said it’s possible that the BAT results were activated due to IgG via complement activation–related pseudoallergy, or CARPA, as has been hypothesized by some other investigators.

The negative skin prick testing results for PEG, which contrast with the positive BAT results to PEG, suggest that the former may not be appropriate for use as a predictive marker of potential vaccine allergy, according to Dr. Nadeau.

“The take-home message for doctors is to be careful,” she said. “Don’t assume that just because the person skin-tests negative to PEG or to the vaccine itself that you’re out of the woods, because the skin test would be often negative in those scenarios.”

The study was supported by a grants from the Asthma and Allergic Diseases Cooperative Research Centers, a grant from the National Institutes of Health, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease SARS Vaccine study, the Parker Foundation, the Crown Foundation, and the Sunshine Foundation. Dr. Nadeau reports numerous conflicts with various sources in the industry. Dr. Banerji has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A common inert ingredient may be the culprit behind the rare allergic reactions reported among individuals who have received mRNA COVID-19 vaccines, according to investigators at a large regional health center that was among the first to administer the shots.

Blood samples from 10 of 11 individuals with suspected allergic reactions reacted to polyethylene glycol (PEG), a component of both the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA  vaccines, according to a report in JAMA Network Open.

In total, only 22 individuals had suspected allergic reactions out of nearly 39,000 mRNA COVID-19 vaccine doses administered, the investigators reported, noting that the reactions were generally mild and all fully resolved.

Those findings should be reassuring to individuals who are reticent to sign up for a COVID-19 vaccine because of fear of an allergic reaction, said study senior author Kari Nadeau, MD, PhD, director of the Parker Center for Allergy and Asthma Research at Stanford (Calif.) University.

“We’re hoping that this word will get out and then that the companies could also think about making vaccines that have other products in them that don’t include polyethylene glycol,” Dr. Nadeau said in an interview.

PEG is a compound used in many products, including pharmaceuticals, cosmetics, and food. In the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines, PEG serves to stabilize the lipid nanoparticles that help protect and transport mRNA. However, its use in this setting has been linked to allergic reactions in this and previous studies.

No immunoglobulin E (IgE) antibodies to PEG were detected among the 22 individuals with suspected allergic reactions to mRNA COVID-19 vaccine, but PEG immunoglobulin G (IgG) was present. That suggests non-IgE mediated allergic reactions to PEG may be implicated for the majority of cases, Dr. Nadeau said.

This case series provides interesting new evidence to confirm previous reports that a mechanism other than the classic IgE-mediated allergic response is behind the suspected allergic reactions that are occurring after mRNA COVID-19 vaccine, said Aleena Banerji, MD, associate professor at Harvard Medical School, Boston, and clinical director of the Drug Allergy Program at Massachusetts General Hospital.

“We need to further understand the mechanism of these reactions, but what we know is that IGE mediated allergy to excipients like PEG is probably not the main cause,” Dr. Banerji, who was not involved in the study, said in an interview.

In a recent research letter published in JAMA Internal Medicine, Dr. Banerji and coauthors reported that all individuals with immediate suspected allergic reactions to mRNA COVID-19 vaccine went on to tolerate the second dose, with mild symptoms reported in the minority of patients (32 out of 159, or about 20%).

“Again, that is very consistent with not having an IgE-mediated allergy, so it seems to all be fitting with that picture,” Dr. Banerji said.

The case series by Dr. Nadeau and coauthors was based on review of nearly 39,000 mRNA COVID-19 vaccine doses administered between December 18, 2020 and January 26, 2021. Most mRNA vaccine recipients were Stanford-affiliated health care workers, according to the report.

Among recipients of those doses, they identified 148 individuals who had anaphylaxis-related ICD-10 codes recorded over the same time period. In a review of medical records, investigators pinpointed 22 individuals as having suspected allergy and invited them to participate in follow-up allergy testing.

A total of 11 individuals underwent skin prick testing, but none of them tested positive to PEG or to polysorbate 80, another excipient that has been linked to vaccine-related allergic reactions. One of the patients tested positive to the same mRNA vaccine they had previously received, according to the report.

Those same 11 individuals also underwent basophil activation testing (BAT). In contrast to the skin testing results, BAT results were positive for PEG in 10 of 11 cases (or 91%) and positive for their administered vaccine in all 11 cases, the report shows.

High levels of IgG to PEG were identified in blood samples of individuals with an allergy to the vaccine. Investigators said it’s possible that the BAT results were activated due to IgG via complement activation–related pseudoallergy, or CARPA, as has been hypothesized by some other investigators.

The negative skin prick testing results for PEG, which contrast with the positive BAT results to PEG, suggest that the former may not be appropriate for use as a predictive marker of potential vaccine allergy, according to Dr. Nadeau.

“The take-home message for doctors is to be careful,” she said. “Don’t assume that just because the person skin-tests negative to PEG or to the vaccine itself that you’re out of the woods, because the skin test would be often negative in those scenarios.”

The study was supported by a grants from the Asthma and Allergic Diseases Cooperative Research Centers, a grant from the National Institutes of Health, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease SARS Vaccine study, the Parker Foundation, the Crown Foundation, and the Sunshine Foundation. Dr. Nadeau reports numerous conflicts with various sources in the industry. Dr. Banerji has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A common inert ingredient may be the culprit behind the rare allergic reactions reported among individuals who have received mRNA COVID-19 vaccines, according to investigators at a large regional health center that was among the first to administer the shots.

Blood samples from 10 of 11 individuals with suspected allergic reactions reacted to polyethylene glycol (PEG), a component of both the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA  vaccines, according to a report in JAMA Network Open.

In total, only 22 individuals had suspected allergic reactions out of nearly 39,000 mRNA COVID-19 vaccine doses administered, the investigators reported, noting that the reactions were generally mild and all fully resolved.

Those findings should be reassuring to individuals who are reticent to sign up for a COVID-19 vaccine because of fear of an allergic reaction, said study senior author Kari Nadeau, MD, PhD, director of the Parker Center for Allergy and Asthma Research at Stanford (Calif.) University.

“We’re hoping that this word will get out and then that the companies could also think about making vaccines that have other products in them that don’t include polyethylene glycol,” Dr. Nadeau said in an interview.

PEG is a compound used in many products, including pharmaceuticals, cosmetics, and food. In the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines, PEG serves to stabilize the lipid nanoparticles that help protect and transport mRNA. However, its use in this setting has been linked to allergic reactions in this and previous studies.

No immunoglobulin E (IgE) antibodies to PEG were detected among the 22 individuals with suspected allergic reactions to mRNA COVID-19 vaccine, but PEG immunoglobulin G (IgG) was present. That suggests non-IgE mediated allergic reactions to PEG may be implicated for the majority of cases, Dr. Nadeau said.

This case series provides interesting new evidence to confirm previous reports that a mechanism other than the classic IgE-mediated allergic response is behind the suspected allergic reactions that are occurring after mRNA COVID-19 vaccine, said Aleena Banerji, MD, associate professor at Harvard Medical School, Boston, and clinical director of the Drug Allergy Program at Massachusetts General Hospital.

“We need to further understand the mechanism of these reactions, but what we know is that IGE mediated allergy to excipients like PEG is probably not the main cause,” Dr. Banerji, who was not involved in the study, said in an interview.

In a recent research letter published in JAMA Internal Medicine, Dr. Banerji and coauthors reported that all individuals with immediate suspected allergic reactions to mRNA COVID-19 vaccine went on to tolerate the second dose, with mild symptoms reported in the minority of patients (32 out of 159, or about 20%).

“Again, that is very consistent with not having an IgE-mediated allergy, so it seems to all be fitting with that picture,” Dr. Banerji said.

The case series by Dr. Nadeau and coauthors was based on review of nearly 39,000 mRNA COVID-19 vaccine doses administered between December 18, 2020 and January 26, 2021. Most mRNA vaccine recipients were Stanford-affiliated health care workers, according to the report.

Among recipients of those doses, they identified 148 individuals who had anaphylaxis-related ICD-10 codes recorded over the same time period. In a review of medical records, investigators pinpointed 22 individuals as having suspected allergy and invited them to participate in follow-up allergy testing.

A total of 11 individuals underwent skin prick testing, but none of them tested positive to PEG or to polysorbate 80, another excipient that has been linked to vaccine-related allergic reactions. One of the patients tested positive to the same mRNA vaccine they had previously received, according to the report.

Those same 11 individuals also underwent basophil activation testing (BAT). In contrast to the skin testing results, BAT results were positive for PEG in 10 of 11 cases (or 91%) and positive for their administered vaccine in all 11 cases, the report shows.

High levels of IgG to PEG were identified in blood samples of individuals with an allergy to the vaccine. Investigators said it’s possible that the BAT results were activated due to IgG via complement activation–related pseudoallergy, or CARPA, as has been hypothesized by some other investigators.

The negative skin prick testing results for PEG, which contrast with the positive BAT results to PEG, suggest that the former may not be appropriate for use as a predictive marker of potential vaccine allergy, according to Dr. Nadeau.

“The take-home message for doctors is to be careful,” she said. “Don’t assume that just because the person skin-tests negative to PEG or to the vaccine itself that you’re out of the woods, because the skin test would be often negative in those scenarios.”

The study was supported by a grants from the Asthma and Allergic Diseases Cooperative Research Centers, a grant from the National Institutes of Health, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease SARS Vaccine study, the Parker Foundation, the Crown Foundation, and the Sunshine Foundation. Dr. Nadeau reports numerous conflicts with various sources in the industry. Dr. Banerji has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Foregoing chemotherapy in favor of cancer immunotherapy (CIT) alone for the first-line treatment of patients with metastatic nonsquamous non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and high programmed death–ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression did not impact survival outcomes in a retrospective cohort of U.S. patients – except in a subgroup of nonsmokers.

Median overall survival was similar at 21.0 months and 22.1 months in 169 patients who received cancer immunotherapy plus chemotherapy and 351 who received cancer immunotherapy monotherapy, respectively (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.03). Median real-world progression-free survival (PFS) was also similar in the two groups (10.8 vs. 11.5 months; aHR, 1.04), Solange Peters, MD, reported at the 2021 European Society for Medical Oncology Congress on Sept. 17 (abstract VP2_2021).

However, in a small subgroup of 50 never-smokers, CIT plus chemotherapy showed significant and meaningful improvement in both overall survival and real-world progression-free survival, compared with CIT monotherapy, said Dr. Peters, ESMO president and professor and chair of medical oncology at the Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Vaudois, Lausanne, Switzerland.

The hazard ratios for overall survival and progression-free survival, after adjusting for baseline characteristics, were 0.50 and 0.40 in this subgroup, Dr. Peters said.

She and her colleagues reviewed data from the nationwide Flatiron Health Electronic Health Record–derived deidentified database for patients with metastatic nonsquamous NSCLC with a PD-L1 tumor proportion score at least 50% expression who initiated first-line CIT monotherapy or CIT plus chemotherapy between Oct. 24, 2016, and Feb. 28, 2019.

Median follow-up was 23.5 and 19.9 months in the monotherapy and combination therapy groups, respectively.

The findings are notable because “this is a very important scientific question, which by the way, is a daily question we have,” Dr. Peters said during a plenary debate session at the conference.

“One in four patients [with metastatic nonsquamous NSCLC has] this high PDL expression,” she explained, noting that both treatment approaches are commonly used in the first-line setting in this patient population.

The findings highlight the value of “well-conducted real-world evidence trials” in the absence of randomized trial results, she said.

Invited discussant Marina Chiara Garassino, MBBS, professor of medicine at the University of Chicago, also acknowledged the importance of the findings, noting the “multiple possibilities” for treatment selection in the metastatic nonsquamous NSCLC patient population.

Although patients with PD-L1 expression below 50% derive clear benefit from combination versus single-agent therapy, treatment selection for those with high PD-L1 expression is “very tricky and debatable,” she said.

For those with high PD-L1 expression, the choice is less clear and wrought with uncertainties – particularly for certain subgroups like never-smokers and those with PD-L1 expression over 90%, she said.

The findings reinforce those seen in prior meta-analyses and other clinical trials, particularly with respect to the role of smoking history when making treatment decisions.

“After these results and previous subgroup analyses, in my opinion, in [patients with] PD-L1 expression over 50%, we should consider the combination of chemotherapy and immunotherapy,” she said.

Conversely, findings from this study showing no difference in outcomes between the treatment approaches in patients with brain or liver metastases are based on small numbers and lack power for drawing any conclusions, she said. It also remains unclear whether there is a differential effect for women and those with PD-L1 expression over 90%, high tumor mutation burden, performance score greater than 2, and age over 75 years.

Both Dr. Garassino and Dr. Peters said they are looking to the INSIGNA trial, which is currently recruiting patients in the United States to evaluate the timing of pembrolizumab alone or with chemotherapy as first-line treatment and maintenance in NSCLC, to provide more clarification regarding the best treatment approaches.

This study was funded by F. Hoffmann–La Roche. Dr. Peters and Dr. Garassino each disclosed personal and/or institutional financial relationships with numerous pharmaceutical companies.

sworcester@mdedge.com

Foregoing chemotherapy in favor of cancer immunotherapy (CIT) alone for the first-line treatment of patients with metastatic nonsquamous non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and high programmed death–ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression did not impact survival outcomes in a retrospective cohort of U.S. patients – except in a subgroup of nonsmokers.

Median overall survival was similar at 21.0 months and 22.1 months in 169 patients who received cancer immunotherapy plus chemotherapy and 351 who received cancer immunotherapy monotherapy, respectively (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.03). Median real-world progression-free survival (PFS) was also similar in the two groups (10.8 vs. 11.5 months; aHR, 1.04), Solange Peters, MD, reported at the 2021 European Society for Medical Oncology Congress on Sept. 17 (abstract VP2_2021).

However, in a small subgroup of 50 never-smokers, CIT plus chemotherapy showed significant and meaningful improvement in both overall survival and real-world progression-free survival, compared with CIT monotherapy, said Dr. Peters, ESMO president and professor and chair of medical oncology at the Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Vaudois, Lausanne, Switzerland.

The hazard ratios for overall survival and progression-free survival, after adjusting for baseline characteristics, were 0.50 and 0.40 in this subgroup, Dr. Peters said.

She and her colleagues reviewed data from the nationwide Flatiron Health Electronic Health Record–derived deidentified database for patients with metastatic nonsquamous NSCLC with a PD-L1 tumor proportion score at least 50% expression who initiated first-line CIT monotherapy or CIT plus chemotherapy between Oct. 24, 2016, and Feb. 28, 2019.

Median follow-up was 23.5 and 19.9 months in the monotherapy and combination therapy groups, respectively.

The findings are notable because “this is a very important scientific question, which by the way, is a daily question we have,” Dr. Peters said during a plenary debate session at the conference.

“One in four patients [with metastatic nonsquamous NSCLC has] this high PDL expression,” she explained, noting that both treatment approaches are commonly used in the first-line setting in this patient population.

The findings highlight the value of “well-conducted real-world evidence trials” in the absence of randomized trial results, she said.

Invited discussant Marina Chiara Garassino, MBBS, professor of medicine at the University of Chicago, also acknowledged the importance of the findings, noting the “multiple possibilities” for treatment selection in the metastatic nonsquamous NSCLC patient population.

Although patients with PD-L1 expression below 50% derive clear benefit from combination versus single-agent therapy, treatment selection for those with high PD-L1 expression is “very tricky and debatable,” she said.

For those with high PD-L1 expression, the choice is less clear and wrought with uncertainties – particularly for certain subgroups like never-smokers and those with PD-L1 expression over 90%, she said.

The findings reinforce those seen in prior meta-analyses and other clinical trials, particularly with respect to the role of smoking history when making treatment decisions.

“After these results and previous subgroup analyses, in my opinion, in [patients with] PD-L1 expression over 50%, we should consider the combination of chemotherapy and immunotherapy,” she said.

Conversely, findings from this study showing no difference in outcomes between the treatment approaches in patients with brain or liver metastases are based on small numbers and lack power for drawing any conclusions, she said. It also remains unclear whether there is a differential effect for women and those with PD-L1 expression over 90%, high tumor mutation burden, performance score greater than 2, and age over 75 years.

Both Dr. Garassino and Dr. Peters said they are looking to the INSIGNA trial, which is currently recruiting patients in the United States to evaluate the timing of pembrolizumab alone or with chemotherapy as first-line treatment and maintenance in NSCLC, to provide more clarification regarding the best treatment approaches.

This study was funded by F. Hoffmann–La Roche. Dr. Peters and Dr. Garassino each disclosed personal and/or institutional financial relationships with numerous pharmaceutical companies.

sworcester@mdedge.com

Foregoing chemotherapy in favor of cancer immunotherapy (CIT) alone for the first-line treatment of patients with metastatic nonsquamous non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and high programmed death–ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression did not impact survival outcomes in a retrospective cohort of U.S. patients – except in a subgroup of nonsmokers.

Median overall survival was similar at 21.0 months and 22.1 months in 169 patients who received cancer immunotherapy plus chemotherapy and 351 who received cancer immunotherapy monotherapy, respectively (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.03). Median real-world progression-free survival (PFS) was also similar in the two groups (10.8 vs. 11.5 months; aHR, 1.04), Solange Peters, MD, reported at the 2021 European Society for Medical Oncology Congress on Sept. 17 (abstract VP2_2021).

However, in a small subgroup of 50 never-smokers, CIT plus chemotherapy showed significant and meaningful improvement in both overall survival and real-world progression-free survival, compared with CIT monotherapy, said Dr. Peters, ESMO president and professor and chair of medical oncology at the Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Vaudois, Lausanne, Switzerland.

The hazard ratios for overall survival and progression-free survival, after adjusting for baseline characteristics, were 0.50 and 0.40 in this subgroup, Dr. Peters said.

She and her colleagues reviewed data from the nationwide Flatiron Health Electronic Health Record–derived deidentified database for patients with metastatic nonsquamous NSCLC with a PD-L1 tumor proportion score at least 50% expression who initiated first-line CIT monotherapy or CIT plus chemotherapy between Oct. 24, 2016, and Feb. 28, 2019.

Median follow-up was 23.5 and 19.9 months in the monotherapy and combination therapy groups, respectively.

The findings are notable because “this is a very important scientific question, which by the way, is a daily question we have,” Dr. Peters said during a plenary debate session at the conference.

“One in four patients [with metastatic nonsquamous NSCLC has] this high PDL expression,” she explained, noting that both treatment approaches are commonly used in the first-line setting in this patient population.

The findings highlight the value of “well-conducted real-world evidence trials” in the absence of randomized trial results, she said.

Invited discussant Marina Chiara Garassino, MBBS, professor of medicine at the University of Chicago, also acknowledged the importance of the findings, noting the “multiple possibilities” for treatment selection in the metastatic nonsquamous NSCLC patient population.

Although patients with PD-L1 expression below 50% derive clear benefit from combination versus single-agent therapy, treatment selection for those with high PD-L1 expression is “very tricky and debatable,” she said.

For those with high PD-L1 expression, the choice is less clear and wrought with uncertainties – particularly for certain subgroups like never-smokers and those with PD-L1 expression over 90%, she said.

The findings reinforce those seen in prior meta-analyses and other clinical trials, particularly with respect to the role of smoking history when making treatment decisions.

“After these results and previous subgroup analyses, in my opinion, in [patients with] PD-L1 expression over 50%, we should consider the combination of chemotherapy and immunotherapy,” she said.

Conversely, findings from this study showing no difference in outcomes between the treatment approaches in patients with brain or liver metastases are based on small numbers and lack power for drawing any conclusions, she said. It also remains unclear whether there is a differential effect for women and those with PD-L1 expression over 90%, high tumor mutation burden, performance score greater than 2, and age over 75 years.

Both Dr. Garassino and Dr. Peters said they are looking to the INSIGNA trial, which is currently recruiting patients in the United States to evaluate the timing of pembrolizumab alone or with chemotherapy as first-line treatment and maintenance in NSCLC, to provide more clarification regarding the best treatment approaches.

This study was funded by F. Hoffmann–La Roche. Dr. Peters and Dr. Garassino each disclosed personal and/or institutional financial relationships with numerous pharmaceutical companies.

sworcester@mdedge.com