Pharmacology

Intramuscular injections of glucocorticoids have efficacy similar to that of intra-articular injections in reducing pain in knee osteoarthritis but without the concerns about joint infection and the challenges of administration, according to results from a randomized, controlled trial reported at the OARSI 2021 World Congress.

Intra-articular injections of glucocorticoids are commonly used to relieve OA pain, but some general practitioners have difficulty administering them to patients, said Qiuke Wang, a PhD candidate at Erasmus University Medical Center in Rotterdam, the Netherlands. There are also concerns about whether intra-articular injections may cause damage to knee cartilage, Mr. Wang said at the conference, which is sponsored by the Osteoarthritis Research Society International.

Mr. Wang and colleagues conducted a randomized, controlled trial in which 145 patients with symptomatic knee OA received either an intramuscular or intra-articular injection of 40 mg triamcinolone acetonide, and then followed up at regular intervals for 24 weeks.

The study showed that Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Scores for pain improved in both the intra-articular and intramuscular groups. Improvements in pain scores peaked in the intra-articular injection group at the 4-week mark, when the difference with intramuscular injections was statistically significant. However, the two groups showed no significant differences in pain improvement at the 8-, 12-, and 24-week follow-up points.

“Intra-articular injection can act immediately on inhibiting joint inflammation after injection,” Mr. Wang said in an interview. “In contrast, for intramuscular injection, glucocorticoid needs firstly to be absorbed by muscle into blood and then travel into the knee via the circulatory system.”

The study also showed no significant differences between the two groups in the secondary outcomes of patient symptoms, stiffness, function, and sport and quality of life scores. There were more adverse events in the intra-articular injection group: 42% of patients reported an adverse event, compared to 33% in the intramuscular group, and the adverse events reported in the intramuscular group were nonserious events, such as headache and flushing.

Mr. Wang told the conference that while the intramuscular injection was inferior to intra-articular injections at 4 weeks, it was noninferior at 8 and 24 weeks and should be considered an effective way to reduce pain in patients with knee OA.

“This trial provides evidence for shared decision making because in some cases a patient may have a preference for specific injection and the GP may feel incompetent to administer the intra-articular injection,” he said.

An audience member pointed out that there was now a growing body of evidence suggesting that intra-articular injections may contribute to faster progression of knee OA because of effects on knee cartilage.

Mr. Wang acknowledged that their own research had shown these side effects of intra-articular injections, which was why the trial was intended to examine whether intramuscular injections might achieve the same pain relief.

“In the real practice, I would say that both injections are effective, but the intra-articular injection may provide a slightly [better] effect in the short term,” he said.

Commenting on the findings, Martin van der Esch, PhD, of Amsterdam University of Applied Sciences, said there were no guidelines as to whether intra-articular or intramuscular injections were the best option, so it really came down to the clinician’s decision.

“Therefore this is really an interesting study, because it gives some light – not the answer – but some light in what direction it could go for specific groups of patients,” Dr. van der Esch said in an interview.

Dr. van der Esch suggested that intramuscular injections might be more appropriate for patients with more systemic disease affecting multiple joints, but intra-articular injections might offer greater benefits in a patient with severe and long-lasting disease in a single joint.

No conflicts of interest were declared.

Intramuscular injections of glucocorticoids have efficacy similar to that of intra-articular injections in reducing pain in knee osteoarthritis but without the concerns about joint infection and the challenges of administration, according to results from a randomized, controlled trial reported at the OARSI 2021 World Congress.

Intra-articular injections of glucocorticoids are commonly used to relieve OA pain, but some general practitioners have difficulty administering them to patients, said Qiuke Wang, a PhD candidate at Erasmus University Medical Center in Rotterdam, the Netherlands. There are also concerns about whether intra-articular injections may cause damage to knee cartilage, Mr. Wang said at the conference, which is sponsored by the Osteoarthritis Research Society International.

Mr. Wang and colleagues conducted a randomized, controlled trial in which 145 patients with symptomatic knee OA received either an intramuscular or intra-articular injection of 40 mg triamcinolone acetonide, and then followed up at regular intervals for 24 weeks.

The study showed that Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Scores for pain improved in both the intra-articular and intramuscular groups. Improvements in pain scores peaked in the intra-articular injection group at the 4-week mark, when the difference with intramuscular injections was statistically significant. However, the two groups showed no significant differences in pain improvement at the 8-, 12-, and 24-week follow-up points.

“Intra-articular injection can act immediately on inhibiting joint inflammation after injection,” Mr. Wang said in an interview. “In contrast, for intramuscular injection, glucocorticoid needs firstly to be absorbed by muscle into blood and then travel into the knee via the circulatory system.”

The study also showed no significant differences between the two groups in the secondary outcomes of patient symptoms, stiffness, function, and sport and quality of life scores. There were more adverse events in the intra-articular injection group: 42% of patients reported an adverse event, compared to 33% in the intramuscular group, and the adverse events reported in the intramuscular group were nonserious events, such as headache and flushing.

Mr. Wang told the conference that while the intramuscular injection was inferior to intra-articular injections at 4 weeks, it was noninferior at 8 and 24 weeks and should be considered an effective way to reduce pain in patients with knee OA.

“This trial provides evidence for shared decision making because in some cases a patient may have a preference for specific injection and the GP may feel incompetent to administer the intra-articular injection,” he said.

An audience member pointed out that there was now a growing body of evidence suggesting that intra-articular injections may contribute to faster progression of knee OA because of effects on knee cartilage.

Mr. Wang acknowledged that their own research had shown these side effects of intra-articular injections, which was why the trial was intended to examine whether intramuscular injections might achieve the same pain relief.

“In the real practice, I would say that both injections are effective, but the intra-articular injection may provide a slightly [better] effect in the short term,” he said.

Commenting on the findings, Martin van der Esch, PhD, of Amsterdam University of Applied Sciences, said there were no guidelines as to whether intra-articular or intramuscular injections were the best option, so it really came down to the clinician’s decision.

“Therefore this is really an interesting study, because it gives some light – not the answer – but some light in what direction it could go for specific groups of patients,” Dr. van der Esch said in an interview.

Dr. van der Esch suggested that intramuscular injections might be more appropriate for patients with more systemic disease affecting multiple joints, but intra-articular injections might offer greater benefits in a patient with severe and long-lasting disease in a single joint.

No conflicts of interest were declared.

Intramuscular injections of glucocorticoids have efficacy similar to that of intra-articular injections in reducing pain in knee osteoarthritis but without the concerns about joint infection and the challenges of administration, according to results from a randomized, controlled trial reported at the OARSI 2021 World Congress.

Intra-articular injections of glucocorticoids are commonly used to relieve OA pain, but some general practitioners have difficulty administering them to patients, said Qiuke Wang, a PhD candidate at Erasmus University Medical Center in Rotterdam, the Netherlands. There are also concerns about whether intra-articular injections may cause damage to knee cartilage, Mr. Wang said at the conference, which is sponsored by the Osteoarthritis Research Society International.

Mr. Wang and colleagues conducted a randomized, controlled trial in which 145 patients with symptomatic knee OA received either an intramuscular or intra-articular injection of 40 mg triamcinolone acetonide, and then followed up at regular intervals for 24 weeks.

The study showed that Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Scores for pain improved in both the intra-articular and intramuscular groups. Improvements in pain scores peaked in the intra-articular injection group at the 4-week mark, when the difference with intramuscular injections was statistically significant. However, the two groups showed no significant differences in pain improvement at the 8-, 12-, and 24-week follow-up points.

“Intra-articular injection can act immediately on inhibiting joint inflammation after injection,” Mr. Wang said in an interview. “In contrast, for intramuscular injection, glucocorticoid needs firstly to be absorbed by muscle into blood and then travel into the knee via the circulatory system.”

The study also showed no significant differences between the two groups in the secondary outcomes of patient symptoms, stiffness, function, and sport and quality of life scores. There were more adverse events in the intra-articular injection group: 42% of patients reported an adverse event, compared to 33% in the intramuscular group, and the adverse events reported in the intramuscular group were nonserious events, such as headache and flushing.

Mr. Wang told the conference that while the intramuscular injection was inferior to intra-articular injections at 4 weeks, it was noninferior at 8 and 24 weeks and should be considered an effective way to reduce pain in patients with knee OA.

“This trial provides evidence for shared decision making because in some cases a patient may have a preference for specific injection and the GP may feel incompetent to administer the intra-articular injection,” he said.

An audience member pointed out that there was now a growing body of evidence suggesting that intra-articular injections may contribute to faster progression of knee OA because of effects on knee cartilage.

Mr. Wang acknowledged that their own research had shown these side effects of intra-articular injections, which was why the trial was intended to examine whether intramuscular injections might achieve the same pain relief.

“In the real practice, I would say that both injections are effective, but the intra-articular injection may provide a slightly [better] effect in the short term,” he said.

Commenting on the findings, Martin van der Esch, PhD, of Amsterdam University of Applied Sciences, said there were no guidelines as to whether intra-articular or intramuscular injections were the best option, so it really came down to the clinician’s decision.

“Therefore this is really an interesting study, because it gives some light – not the answer – but some light in what direction it could go for specific groups of patients,” Dr. van der Esch said in an interview.

Dr. van der Esch suggested that intramuscular injections might be more appropriate for patients with more systemic disease affecting multiple joints, but intra-articular injections might offer greater benefits in a patient with severe and long-lasting disease in a single joint.

No conflicts of interest were declared.

The Food and Drug Administration granted accelerated approval to pembrolizumab (Keytruda) in combination with other agents for the first-line treatment of patients with locally advanced unresectable or metastatic HER2-positive gastric or gastroesophageal junction (GEJ) adenocarcinoma.

The checkpoint inhibitor is to be used in conjunction with trastuzumab (Herceptin) and fluoropyrimidine- and platinum-containing chemotherapy.

Previously, pembrolizumab was approved as a single agent for these cancers for patients whose tumors express PD-L1 and whose disease progressed after two or more lines of treatment that included chemotherapy and HER2-targeted therapy.

The new approval comes about a year after the FDA’s first-ever approval of a checkpoint inhibitor (nivolumab [Opdivo] in combination with chemotherapies) for the frontline treatment of gastric cancers, as reported by this news organization.

The new approval is based on interim data from the first 264 patients of the ongoing KEYNOTE-811 trial, a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial involving patients with HER2-positive advanced gastric or GEJ adenocarcinoma who had not previously received systemic therapy for their metastatic disease.

Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either pembrolizumab at 200 mg or placebo every 3 weeks in combination with trastuzumab and either fluorouracil plus cisplatin or capecitabine plus oxaliplatin.

The overall response rate, which is the primary outcome, was 74% in the pembrolizumab arm and 52% in the placebo arm (one-sided P < .0001).

The median duration of response was 10.6 months in the pembrolizumab arm and 9.5 months in the placebo arm.

The adverse-reaction profile for patients receiving pembrolizumab is consistent with the known pembrolizumab safety profile, the FDA said in a statement.

The recommended pembrolizumab dose in this setting is 200 mg every 3 weeks or 400 mg every 6 weeks.

The FDA’s review, which was granted priority status, used the Real-Time Oncology Review pilot program, which allows streamlined data submission prior to the filing of the full clinical application, and Assessment Aid, a voluntary submission that facilitates the FDA’s assessment.

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

The Food and Drug Administration granted accelerated approval to pembrolizumab (Keytruda) in combination with other agents for the first-line treatment of patients with locally advanced unresectable or metastatic HER2-positive gastric or gastroesophageal junction (GEJ) adenocarcinoma.

The checkpoint inhibitor is to be used in conjunction with trastuzumab (Herceptin) and fluoropyrimidine- and platinum-containing chemotherapy.

Previously, pembrolizumab was approved as a single agent for these cancers for patients whose tumors express PD-L1 and whose disease progressed after two or more lines of treatment that included chemotherapy and HER2-targeted therapy.

The new approval comes about a year after the FDA’s first-ever approval of a checkpoint inhibitor (nivolumab [Opdivo] in combination with chemotherapies) for the frontline treatment of gastric cancers, as reported by this news organization.

The new approval is based on interim data from the first 264 patients of the ongoing KEYNOTE-811 trial, a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial involving patients with HER2-positive advanced gastric or GEJ adenocarcinoma who had not previously received systemic therapy for their metastatic disease.

Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either pembrolizumab at 200 mg or placebo every 3 weeks in combination with trastuzumab and either fluorouracil plus cisplatin or capecitabine plus oxaliplatin.

The overall response rate, which is the primary outcome, was 74% in the pembrolizumab arm and 52% in the placebo arm (one-sided P < .0001).

The median duration of response was 10.6 months in the pembrolizumab arm and 9.5 months in the placebo arm.

The adverse-reaction profile for patients receiving pembrolizumab is consistent with the known pembrolizumab safety profile, the FDA said in a statement.

The recommended pembrolizumab dose in this setting is 200 mg every 3 weeks or 400 mg every 6 weeks.

The FDA’s review, which was granted priority status, used the Real-Time Oncology Review pilot program, which allows streamlined data submission prior to the filing of the full clinical application, and Assessment Aid, a voluntary submission that facilitates the FDA’s assessment.

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

The Food and Drug Administration granted accelerated approval to pembrolizumab (Keytruda) in combination with other agents for the first-line treatment of patients with locally advanced unresectable or metastatic HER2-positive gastric or gastroesophageal junction (GEJ) adenocarcinoma.

The checkpoint inhibitor is to be used in conjunction with trastuzumab (Herceptin) and fluoropyrimidine- and platinum-containing chemotherapy.

Previously, pembrolizumab was approved as a single agent for these cancers for patients whose tumors express PD-L1 and whose disease progressed after two or more lines of treatment that included chemotherapy and HER2-targeted therapy.

The new approval comes about a year after the FDA’s first-ever approval of a checkpoint inhibitor (nivolumab [Opdivo] in combination with chemotherapies) for the frontline treatment of gastric cancers, as reported by this news organization.

The new approval is based on interim data from the first 264 patients of the ongoing KEYNOTE-811 trial, a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial involving patients with HER2-positive advanced gastric or GEJ adenocarcinoma who had not previously received systemic therapy for their metastatic disease.

Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either pembrolizumab at 200 mg or placebo every 3 weeks in combination with trastuzumab and either fluorouracil plus cisplatin or capecitabine plus oxaliplatin.

The overall response rate, which is the primary outcome, was 74% in the pembrolizumab arm and 52% in the placebo arm (one-sided P < .0001).

The median duration of response was 10.6 months in the pembrolizumab arm and 9.5 months in the placebo arm.

The adverse-reaction profile for patients receiving pembrolizumab is consistent with the known pembrolizumab safety profile, the FDA said in a statement.

The recommended pembrolizumab dose in this setting is 200 mg every 3 weeks or 400 mg every 6 weeks.

The FDA’s review, which was granted priority status, used the Real-Time Oncology Review pilot program, which allows streamlined data submission prior to the filing of the full clinical application, and Assessment Aid, a voluntary submission that facilitates the FDA’s assessment.

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

The use of neoadjuvant endocrine therapy (NET) increased significantly during the first 8 months of the COVID-19 pandemic for women with estrogen receptor–positive (ER+) breast cancer. These patients would normally undergo surgery first, but because of operating room restrictions, those surgeries were delayed because of the pandemic, according to a new study.
 

“We hypothesized that by offering a nontoxic therapy, we would be able to ‘hold over’ patients until such time when personal protective equipment supplies were renewed and we could get into the operating room,” lead author Lee Wilke, MD, professor of surgery, University of Wisconsin, Madison, said in an interview.

“And while a small number of women with ER+ tumors get NET anyway, we found over one-third of patients with ER+ breast cancer were treated with NET due to COVID-19 during the first 8 months of last year,” she said.

“One year later, 31% of the same patient population is still getting NET,” she added.

The study was presented during the online annual meeting of the American Society of Breast Surgeons (ASBrS).
 

COVID-specific registry

Dr. Wilke believes that this study presents an accurate snapshot of changes in treatment caused by the pandemic.

She and her colleagues compared data collected in the ASBrS Mastery Program registry to data collected in an embedded but separate COVID-19 segment. The data were for the period from March 1 to Oct. 28, 2020.

Almost three-quarters of the surgeons who entered patients into the COVID-19 segment were from urban areas; 95% reported stopping mammographic screening during part of this period.

The preliminary analysis focused on data collected from 2,476 patients in the COVID-19 segment and 2,303 patients within the Mastery registry.

For patients with ER+/HER2- breast cancer, NET was described as a usual approach in 6.5% of patients in the COVID-19 registry. In the Mastery registry, 7.8% of patients received NET.

Compared with surgery first/usual practice, which served as the reference, older patients were more likely to receive NET first because of the COVID-19 pandemic than younger patients, and they were more likely to receive NET first if they lived in the Northeast or the Southeast compared to other regions of the United States. Dr. Wilke pointed out that the Northeast and the Southeast were hardest hit by COVID-19 early on in the pandemic.

Genomic testing was carried out in a small subgroup of patients; 24% of those patients underwent testing on the core biopsy specimen because of COVID-19, the investigators noted. Genomic testing on a core biopsy specimen helps determine whether it’s feasible to forgo chemotherapy and use NET instead or whether the patient should proceed directly to surgery. The authors noted that almost 11% of patients required a change in the usual surgical approach because of COVID-19. Such changes were made primarily to avoid hospitalizations during the early phase of the pandemic for patients who were to undergo mastectomy or reconstruction.

“Patients who needed standard approaches still got them,” Dr. Wilke emphasized in a statement. For example, women with aggressive triple-negative and HER2+ tumors were treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy, she added. “However, NET is a very good approach for a moderate subset of patients, and we think we will see it being used more often in the U.S. now,” Dr. Wilke observed.

“But especially early during the pandemic, these revised treatments were necessary because access to hospital ORs was limited or unavailable, so our algorithmic-based treatment guidelines allowed us to offer high-quality, evidence-based care fine-tuned for a patient’s specific cancer profile,” she affirmed.

Dr. Wilke has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The use of neoadjuvant endocrine therapy (NET) increased significantly during the first 8 months of the COVID-19 pandemic for women with estrogen receptor–positive (ER+) breast cancer. These patients would normally undergo surgery first, but because of operating room restrictions, those surgeries were delayed because of the pandemic, according to a new study.
 

“We hypothesized that by offering a nontoxic therapy, we would be able to ‘hold over’ patients until such time when personal protective equipment supplies were renewed and we could get into the operating room,” lead author Lee Wilke, MD, professor of surgery, University of Wisconsin, Madison, said in an interview.

“And while a small number of women with ER+ tumors get NET anyway, we found over one-third of patients with ER+ breast cancer were treated with NET due to COVID-19 during the first 8 months of last year,” she said.

“One year later, 31% of the same patient population is still getting NET,” she added.

The study was presented during the online annual meeting of the American Society of Breast Surgeons (ASBrS).
 

COVID-specific registry

Dr. Wilke believes that this study presents an accurate snapshot of changes in treatment caused by the pandemic.

She and her colleagues compared data collected in the ASBrS Mastery Program registry to data collected in an embedded but separate COVID-19 segment. The data were for the period from March 1 to Oct. 28, 2020.

Almost three-quarters of the surgeons who entered patients into the COVID-19 segment were from urban areas; 95% reported stopping mammographic screening during part of this period.

The preliminary analysis focused on data collected from 2,476 patients in the COVID-19 segment and 2,303 patients within the Mastery registry.

For patients with ER+/HER2- breast cancer, NET was described as a usual approach in 6.5% of patients in the COVID-19 registry. In the Mastery registry, 7.8% of patients received NET.

Compared with surgery first/usual practice, which served as the reference, older patients were more likely to receive NET first because of the COVID-19 pandemic than younger patients, and they were more likely to receive NET first if they lived in the Northeast or the Southeast compared to other regions of the United States. Dr. Wilke pointed out that the Northeast and the Southeast were hardest hit by COVID-19 early on in the pandemic.

Genomic testing was carried out in a small subgroup of patients; 24% of those patients underwent testing on the core biopsy specimen because of COVID-19, the investigators noted. Genomic testing on a core biopsy specimen helps determine whether it’s feasible to forgo chemotherapy and use NET instead or whether the patient should proceed directly to surgery. The authors noted that almost 11% of patients required a change in the usual surgical approach because of COVID-19. Such changes were made primarily to avoid hospitalizations during the early phase of the pandemic for patients who were to undergo mastectomy or reconstruction.

“Patients who needed standard approaches still got them,” Dr. Wilke emphasized in a statement. For example, women with aggressive triple-negative and HER2+ tumors were treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy, she added. “However, NET is a very good approach for a moderate subset of patients, and we think we will see it being used more often in the U.S. now,” Dr. Wilke observed.

“But especially early during the pandemic, these revised treatments were necessary because access to hospital ORs was limited or unavailable, so our algorithmic-based treatment guidelines allowed us to offer high-quality, evidence-based care fine-tuned for a patient’s specific cancer profile,” she affirmed.

Dr. Wilke has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The use of neoadjuvant endocrine therapy (NET) increased significantly during the first 8 months of the COVID-19 pandemic for women with estrogen receptor–positive (ER+) breast cancer. These patients would normally undergo surgery first, but because of operating room restrictions, those surgeries were delayed because of the pandemic, according to a new study.
 

“We hypothesized that by offering a nontoxic therapy, we would be able to ‘hold over’ patients until such time when personal protective equipment supplies were renewed and we could get into the operating room,” lead author Lee Wilke, MD, professor of surgery, University of Wisconsin, Madison, said in an interview.

“And while a small number of women with ER+ tumors get NET anyway, we found over one-third of patients with ER+ breast cancer were treated with NET due to COVID-19 during the first 8 months of last year,” she said.

“One year later, 31% of the same patient population is still getting NET,” she added.

The study was presented during the online annual meeting of the American Society of Breast Surgeons (ASBrS).
 

COVID-specific registry

Dr. Wilke believes that this study presents an accurate snapshot of changes in treatment caused by the pandemic.

She and her colleagues compared data collected in the ASBrS Mastery Program registry to data collected in an embedded but separate COVID-19 segment. The data were for the period from March 1 to Oct. 28, 2020.

Almost three-quarters of the surgeons who entered patients into the COVID-19 segment were from urban areas; 95% reported stopping mammographic screening during part of this period.

The preliminary analysis focused on data collected from 2,476 patients in the COVID-19 segment and 2,303 patients within the Mastery registry.

For patients with ER+/HER2- breast cancer, NET was described as a usual approach in 6.5% of patients in the COVID-19 registry. In the Mastery registry, 7.8% of patients received NET.

Compared with surgery first/usual practice, which served as the reference, older patients were more likely to receive NET first because of the COVID-19 pandemic than younger patients, and they were more likely to receive NET first if they lived in the Northeast or the Southeast compared to other regions of the United States. Dr. Wilke pointed out that the Northeast and the Southeast were hardest hit by COVID-19 early on in the pandemic.

Genomic testing was carried out in a small subgroup of patients; 24% of those patients underwent testing on the core biopsy specimen because of COVID-19, the investigators noted. Genomic testing on a core biopsy specimen helps determine whether it’s feasible to forgo chemotherapy and use NET instead or whether the patient should proceed directly to surgery. The authors noted that almost 11% of patients required a change in the usual surgical approach because of COVID-19. Such changes were made primarily to avoid hospitalizations during the early phase of the pandemic for patients who were to undergo mastectomy or reconstruction.

“Patients who needed standard approaches still got them,” Dr. Wilke emphasized in a statement. For example, women with aggressive triple-negative and HER2+ tumors were treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy, she added. “However, NET is a very good approach for a moderate subset of patients, and we think we will see it being used more often in the U.S. now,” Dr. Wilke observed.

“But especially early during the pandemic, these revised treatments were necessary because access to hospital ORs was limited or unavailable, so our algorithmic-based treatment guidelines allowed us to offer high-quality, evidence-based care fine-tuned for a patient’s specific cancer profile,” she affirmed.

Dr. Wilke has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Nearly one out of five American adults with hypertension is on a prescription drug known to raise blood pressure, based on analysis of more than 27,000 people included in recent reports from the recurring National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES).

Nearly half of these American adults had hypertension, and in this subgroup, 18.5% reported using a prescription drug known to increase blood pressure. The most widely used class of agents with this effect was antidepressants, used by 8.7%; followed by nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), used by 6.5%; steroids, 1.9%; estrogens, 1.7%; and several other agents each used by fewer than 1% of the study cohort, John Vitarello, MD, said during a press briefing on reports from the upcoming annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology.

He and his associates estimated that this use of prescription drugs known to raise blood pressure could be what stands in the way of some 560,000-2.2 million Americans from having their hypertension under control, depending on the exact blood pressure impact that various pressure-increasing drugs have and presuming that half of those on blood pressure increasing agents could stop them and switch to alternative agents, said Dr. Vitarello, a researcher at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston.

He also highlighted that the study assessed only prescription drugs and did not examine OTC drug use, which may be especially relevant for the many people who regularly take NSAIDs.

“Clinicians should review the prescription and OTC drug use of patients with hypertension and consider stopping drugs that increase blood pressure or switching the patient to alternatives” that are blood pressure neutral, Dr. Vitarello said during the briefing. He cautioned that maintaining hypertensive patients on agents that raise their blood pressure can result in “prescribing cascades” where taking drugs that boost blood pressure results in need for intensified antihypertensive treatment.
 

An opportunity for NSAID alternatives

“This study hopefully raises awareness that there is a very high use of medications that increase blood pressure, and use of OTC agents could increase the rate even higher” said Eugene Yang, MD, a cardiologist and codirector of the Cardiovascular Wellness and Prevention Program of the University of Washington, Seattle. Substituting for certain antidepressant agents may often not be realistic, but an opportunity exists for reducing NSAID use, a class also linked with an increased risk for bleeding and other adverse effects, Dr. Yang said during the briefing. Minimizing use of NSAIDs including ibuprofen and naproxen use “is something to think about,” he suggested.

“The effect of NSAIDs on blood pressure is not well studied and can vary from person to person” noted Dr. Vitarello, who added that higher NSAID dosages and more prolonged use likely increase the risk for an adverse effect on blood pressure. One reasonable option is to encourage patients to use an alternative class of pain reliever such as acetaminophen.

It remains “a challenge” to discern differences in adverse blood pressure effects, and in all adverse cardiovascular effects among different NSAIDs, said Dr. Yang. Results from “some studies show that certain NSAIDs may be safer, but other studies did not. We need to be very careful using NSAIDs because, on average, they increase blood pressure by about 3 mm Hg. We need to be mindful to try to prescribe alternative agents, like acetaminophen.”
 

A decade of data from NHANES

The analysis run by Dr. Vitarello and associates used data from 27,599 American adults included in the NHANES during 2009-2018, and focused on the 44% who either had an average blood pressure measurement of at least 130/80 mm Hg or reported having ever been told by a clinician that they had hypertension. The NHANES assessments included the prescription medications taken by each participant. The prevalence of using at least one prescription drug known to raise blood pressure was 24% among women and 14% among men, and 4% of those with hypertension were on two or more pressure-increasing agents.

The researchers based their identification of pressure-increasing prescription drugs on the list included in the 2017 guideline for managing high blood pressure from the American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association. This list specifies that the antidepressants that raise blood pressure are the monoamine oxidase inhibitors, serotonin norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors, and tricyclic antidepressants.

Dr. Vitarello and Dr. Yang had no disclosures.

mzoler@mdedge.com

Nearly one out of five American adults with hypertension is on a prescription drug known to raise blood pressure, based on analysis of more than 27,000 people included in recent reports from the recurring National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES).

Nearly half of these American adults had hypertension, and in this subgroup, 18.5% reported using a prescription drug known to increase blood pressure. The most widely used class of agents with this effect was antidepressants, used by 8.7%; followed by nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), used by 6.5%; steroids, 1.9%; estrogens, 1.7%; and several other agents each used by fewer than 1% of the study cohort, John Vitarello, MD, said during a press briefing on reports from the upcoming annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology.

He and his associates estimated that this use of prescription drugs known to raise blood pressure could be what stands in the way of some 560,000-2.2 million Americans from having their hypertension under control, depending on the exact blood pressure impact that various pressure-increasing drugs have and presuming that half of those on blood pressure increasing agents could stop them and switch to alternative agents, said Dr. Vitarello, a researcher at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston.

He also highlighted that the study assessed only prescription drugs and did not examine OTC drug use, which may be especially relevant for the many people who regularly take NSAIDs.

“Clinicians should review the prescription and OTC drug use of patients with hypertension and consider stopping drugs that increase blood pressure or switching the patient to alternatives” that are blood pressure neutral, Dr. Vitarello said during the briefing. He cautioned that maintaining hypertensive patients on agents that raise their blood pressure can result in “prescribing cascades” where taking drugs that boost blood pressure results in need for intensified antihypertensive treatment.
 

An opportunity for NSAID alternatives

“This study hopefully raises awareness that there is a very high use of medications that increase blood pressure, and use of OTC agents could increase the rate even higher” said Eugene Yang, MD, a cardiologist and codirector of the Cardiovascular Wellness and Prevention Program of the University of Washington, Seattle. Substituting for certain antidepressant agents may often not be realistic, but an opportunity exists for reducing NSAID use, a class also linked with an increased risk for bleeding and other adverse effects, Dr. Yang said during the briefing. Minimizing use of NSAIDs including ibuprofen and naproxen use “is something to think about,” he suggested.

“The effect of NSAIDs on blood pressure is not well studied and can vary from person to person” noted Dr. Vitarello, who added that higher NSAID dosages and more prolonged use likely increase the risk for an adverse effect on blood pressure. One reasonable option is to encourage patients to use an alternative class of pain reliever such as acetaminophen.

It remains “a challenge” to discern differences in adverse blood pressure effects, and in all adverse cardiovascular effects among different NSAIDs, said Dr. Yang. Results from “some studies show that certain NSAIDs may be safer, but other studies did not. We need to be very careful using NSAIDs because, on average, they increase blood pressure by about 3 mm Hg. We need to be mindful to try to prescribe alternative agents, like acetaminophen.”
 

A decade of data from NHANES

The analysis run by Dr. Vitarello and associates used data from 27,599 American adults included in the NHANES during 2009-2018, and focused on the 44% who either had an average blood pressure measurement of at least 130/80 mm Hg or reported having ever been told by a clinician that they had hypertension. The NHANES assessments included the prescription medications taken by each participant. The prevalence of using at least one prescription drug known to raise blood pressure was 24% among women and 14% among men, and 4% of those with hypertension were on two or more pressure-increasing agents.

The researchers based their identification of pressure-increasing prescription drugs on the list included in the 2017 guideline for managing high blood pressure from the American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association. This list specifies that the antidepressants that raise blood pressure are the monoamine oxidase inhibitors, serotonin norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors, and tricyclic antidepressants.

Dr. Vitarello and Dr. Yang had no disclosures.

mzoler@mdedge.com

Nearly one out of five American adults with hypertension is on a prescription drug known to raise blood pressure, based on analysis of more than 27,000 people included in recent reports from the recurring National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES).

Nearly half of these American adults had hypertension, and in this subgroup, 18.5% reported using a prescription drug known to increase blood pressure. The most widely used class of agents with this effect was antidepressants, used by 8.7%; followed by nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), used by 6.5%; steroids, 1.9%; estrogens, 1.7%; and several other agents each used by fewer than 1% of the study cohort, John Vitarello, MD, said during a press briefing on reports from the upcoming annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology.

He and his associates estimated that this use of prescription drugs known to raise blood pressure could be what stands in the way of some 560,000-2.2 million Americans from having their hypertension under control, depending on the exact blood pressure impact that various pressure-increasing drugs have and presuming that half of those on blood pressure increasing agents could stop them and switch to alternative agents, said Dr. Vitarello, a researcher at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston.

He also highlighted that the study assessed only prescription drugs and did not examine OTC drug use, which may be especially relevant for the many people who regularly take NSAIDs.

“Clinicians should review the prescription and OTC drug use of patients with hypertension and consider stopping drugs that increase blood pressure or switching the patient to alternatives” that are blood pressure neutral, Dr. Vitarello said during the briefing. He cautioned that maintaining hypertensive patients on agents that raise their blood pressure can result in “prescribing cascades” where taking drugs that boost blood pressure results in need for intensified antihypertensive treatment.
 

An opportunity for NSAID alternatives

“This study hopefully raises awareness that there is a very high use of medications that increase blood pressure, and use of OTC agents could increase the rate even higher” said Eugene Yang, MD, a cardiologist and codirector of the Cardiovascular Wellness and Prevention Program of the University of Washington, Seattle. Substituting for certain antidepressant agents may often not be realistic, but an opportunity exists for reducing NSAID use, a class also linked with an increased risk for bleeding and other adverse effects, Dr. Yang said during the briefing. Minimizing use of NSAIDs including ibuprofen and naproxen use “is something to think about,” he suggested.

“The effect of NSAIDs on blood pressure is not well studied and can vary from person to person” noted Dr. Vitarello, who added that higher NSAID dosages and more prolonged use likely increase the risk for an adverse effect on blood pressure. One reasonable option is to encourage patients to use an alternative class of pain reliever such as acetaminophen.

It remains “a challenge” to discern differences in adverse blood pressure effects, and in all adverse cardiovascular effects among different NSAIDs, said Dr. Yang. Results from “some studies show that certain NSAIDs may be safer, but other studies did not. We need to be very careful using NSAIDs because, on average, they increase blood pressure by about 3 mm Hg. We need to be mindful to try to prescribe alternative agents, like acetaminophen.”
 

A decade of data from NHANES

The analysis run by Dr. Vitarello and associates used data from 27,599 American adults included in the NHANES during 2009-2018, and focused on the 44% who either had an average blood pressure measurement of at least 130/80 mm Hg or reported having ever been told by a clinician that they had hypertension. The NHANES assessments included the prescription medications taken by each participant. The prevalence of using at least one prescription drug known to raise blood pressure was 24% among women and 14% among men, and 4% of those with hypertension were on two or more pressure-increasing agents.

The researchers based their identification of pressure-increasing prescription drugs on the list included in the 2017 guideline for managing high blood pressure from the American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association. This list specifies that the antidepressants that raise blood pressure are the monoamine oxidase inhibitors, serotonin norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors, and tricyclic antidepressants.

Dr. Vitarello and Dr. Yang had no disclosures.

mzoler@mdedge.com

For persons with obesity who lost a substantial amount of weight on a low-calorie diet, the combination of exercise and medication significantly improved weight-loss maintenance, and more so than either strategy alone, according to results of a randomized, head-to-head trial.

A year after starting moderate to vigorous exercise coupled with liraglutide treatment, study participants had a weight loss 9.5 kg more than those who received placebo and usual activity, study results show.

Reductions in both weight and fat loss seen with exercise and liraglutide was roughly twice as much as what was achieved at 1 year with the strategies of liraglutide or exercise alone, according to authors of the study, which appears in the New England Journal of Medicine .

Although the findings may not apply to those who can’t or won’t perform moderate to vigorous exercise, the intervention in this study was nevertheless feasible in this group of persons with obesity who had a very low level of fitness, according to the authors.
 

Hope for healthy weight loss maintenance

Investigator Signe S. Torekov, PhD, said in an interview that these results provide hope that more-intensive exercise regimens, with or without medication, can be useful and well accepted among individuals struggling with obesity.

“When we started our study, we were told, ‘you are never going to have people with obesity exercising that much, and for that long’ – but people were actually very happy about the exercise,” said Dr. Torekov, a professor in the department of biomedical sciences at the University of Copenhagen.

“If you actually set up a program where people are monitored and you have a feedback system, then exercise is an excellent component in obesity treatment that should be much more actively used – not only for its weight-lowering component, but also for improving health and quality of life,” she said in an interview.

Weight-management specialist John D. Clark, MD, PhD, said results of this study can be used to help inform patients about how successful different strategies incorporating exercise and medication may be following initial weight loss.

“When patients plateau on a consistent, calorie-restricted dietary plan, we can educate them and manage expectations about what options may be available to them after their initial weight loss,” said Dr. Clark, of the University of Texas, Dallas.

“If the patient’s goal specifically is weight loss at all costs, then I may suggest, ‘let’s consider liraglutide or liraglutide in combination with exercise,’ ” he said in an interview. “Exercise improves body composition, even if it may not on its own be as successful in the next phase of their weight-loss journey, as shown in this study.”
 

Obesity and weight-loss challenges

Although it’s not uncommon for obese patients to lose a large amount of weight, keeping the weight off is frequently a challenge unless the patient follows a structured weight maintenance program, according to Dr. Torekov and coauthors.

The rapid weight regain seen in many obese patients could be a result of reductions in total energy expenditure or increased appetite. Exercise is one strategy to sustain weight loss, though according to the authors, very few studies have looked at exercise in isolation to quantify its contribution to maintenance.

Accordingly, the present study sought to determine whether exercise, medication, or the combination thereof works best to keep weight off.

The study incorporated liraglutide, a GLP-1 receptor agonist indicated for chronic weight management, along with a reduced-calorie diet and increased physical activity, in adults with elevated body mass index and at least one weight-related comorbidity.

The investigator-initiated phase 3 trial included 215 adults with a body mass index of 32-43. Individuals with type 2 diabetes were excluded. All participants followed an 8-week, low-calorie diet comprising 800 calories per day.

Participants who lost 5% or more of their body weight were then randomized to 1 year of exercise plus liraglutide, exercise plus placebo, usual activity plus liraglutide, or usual activity plus placebo.

The exercise program – which was structured but flexible, according to investigators – included group exercise sessions that incorporated 30 minutes of indoor cycling and 15 minutes of circuit training 2 days each week. Participants wore heart rate monitors during exercise to make sure they reached targets for moderate to vigorous intensity.

Instructors trained in exercise physiology planned and monitored individualized exercise programs for each participant in the exercise-medication or exercise-only arms of the study.

Participants in all groups attended 12 one-on-one consultations where body weight was measured and dietetic support was provided.
 

Weight loss with exercise and medication

Out of 215 individuals enrolled in the study, 195 lost at least 5% of body weight and continued on to the randomized portion, the investigators reported. During the diet phase, they lost a mean of 13.1 kg, translating into a 12% mean reduction in body weight.

The mean frequency of exercise was 2.4 times per week in the exercise-plus-medication group and 2.5 times per week in the exercise-only group. About one-third of the exercise took place in the group sessions, and there was no difference in relative intensity between group and individual exercise regimens, the investigators said.

Individuals in the exercise plus medication group continued to lose more weight, such that, at the end of 1 year, the weight loss decreased even further, by a mean of –3.4 kg. By contrast, weight increased by a mean of 6.1 kg for the placebo group, adding up to a treatment difference of –9.5 kg (95% confidence interval, –13.1 to –5.9; P < .001), according to the report.

That treatment effect was also seen, but more muted, in the exercise- and liraglutide-only groups, at –4.1 kg and –6.8 kg, respectively.

A significant treatment effect was observed for exercise plus liraglutide, compared with exercise alone, at –5.4 kg (P = .004), while the treatment effect for the combination versus liraglutide alone was not significant at –2.7 kg (P = .13), the data show.

Body-fat reduction at 52 weeks was –3.9 percentage points for exercise plus liraglutide as compared with placebo, or roughly twice the reductions seen in the exercise- and liraglutide-alone groups, the investigators said, adding that the combination preserved lean mass.

Reductions in hemoglobin A1c, which are generally thought to reduce diabetes risk, were reduced in both the liraglutide and liraglutide-exercise combination group, according to their report.

The research was supported in part by grants from the Novo Nordisk Foundation.

For persons with obesity who lost a substantial amount of weight on a low-calorie diet, the combination of exercise and medication significantly improved weight-loss maintenance, and more so than either strategy alone, according to results of a randomized, head-to-head trial.

A year after starting moderate to vigorous exercise coupled with liraglutide treatment, study participants had a weight loss 9.5 kg more than those who received placebo and usual activity, study results show.

Reductions in both weight and fat loss seen with exercise and liraglutide was roughly twice as much as what was achieved at 1 year with the strategies of liraglutide or exercise alone, according to authors of the study, which appears in the New England Journal of Medicine .

Although the findings may not apply to those who can’t or won’t perform moderate to vigorous exercise, the intervention in this study was nevertheless feasible in this group of persons with obesity who had a very low level of fitness, according to the authors.
 

Hope for healthy weight loss maintenance

Investigator Signe S. Torekov, PhD, said in an interview that these results provide hope that more-intensive exercise regimens, with or without medication, can be useful and well accepted among individuals struggling with obesity.

“When we started our study, we were told, ‘you are never going to have people with obesity exercising that much, and for that long’ – but people were actually very happy about the exercise,” said Dr. Torekov, a professor in the department of biomedical sciences at the University of Copenhagen.

“If you actually set up a program where people are monitored and you have a feedback system, then exercise is an excellent component in obesity treatment that should be much more actively used – not only for its weight-lowering component, but also for improving health and quality of life,” she said in an interview.

Weight-management specialist John D. Clark, MD, PhD, said results of this study can be used to help inform patients about how successful different strategies incorporating exercise and medication may be following initial weight loss.

“When patients plateau on a consistent, calorie-restricted dietary plan, we can educate them and manage expectations about what options may be available to them after their initial weight loss,” said Dr. Clark, of the University of Texas, Dallas.

“If the patient’s goal specifically is weight loss at all costs, then I may suggest, ‘let’s consider liraglutide or liraglutide in combination with exercise,’ ” he said in an interview. “Exercise improves body composition, even if it may not on its own be as successful in the next phase of their weight-loss journey, as shown in this study.”
 

Obesity and weight-loss challenges

Although it’s not uncommon for obese patients to lose a large amount of weight, keeping the weight off is frequently a challenge unless the patient follows a structured weight maintenance program, according to Dr. Torekov and coauthors.

The rapid weight regain seen in many obese patients could be a result of reductions in total energy expenditure or increased appetite. Exercise is one strategy to sustain weight loss, though according to the authors, very few studies have looked at exercise in isolation to quantify its contribution to maintenance.

Accordingly, the present study sought to determine whether exercise, medication, or the combination thereof works best to keep weight off.

The study incorporated liraglutide, a GLP-1 receptor agonist indicated for chronic weight management, along with a reduced-calorie diet and increased physical activity, in adults with elevated body mass index and at least one weight-related comorbidity.

The investigator-initiated phase 3 trial included 215 adults with a body mass index of 32-43. Individuals with type 2 diabetes were excluded. All participants followed an 8-week, low-calorie diet comprising 800 calories per day.

Participants who lost 5% or more of their body weight were then randomized to 1 year of exercise plus liraglutide, exercise plus placebo, usual activity plus liraglutide, or usual activity plus placebo.

The exercise program – which was structured but flexible, according to investigators – included group exercise sessions that incorporated 30 minutes of indoor cycling and 15 minutes of circuit training 2 days each week. Participants wore heart rate monitors during exercise to make sure they reached targets for moderate to vigorous intensity.

Instructors trained in exercise physiology planned and monitored individualized exercise programs for each participant in the exercise-medication or exercise-only arms of the study.

Participants in all groups attended 12 one-on-one consultations where body weight was measured and dietetic support was provided.
 

Weight loss with exercise and medication

Out of 215 individuals enrolled in the study, 195 lost at least 5% of body weight and continued on to the randomized portion, the investigators reported. During the diet phase, they lost a mean of 13.1 kg, translating into a 12% mean reduction in body weight.

The mean frequency of exercise was 2.4 times per week in the exercise-plus-medication group and 2.5 times per week in the exercise-only group. About one-third of the exercise took place in the group sessions, and there was no difference in relative intensity between group and individual exercise regimens, the investigators said.

Individuals in the exercise plus medication group continued to lose more weight, such that, at the end of 1 year, the weight loss decreased even further, by a mean of –3.4 kg. By contrast, weight increased by a mean of 6.1 kg for the placebo group, adding up to a treatment difference of –9.5 kg (95% confidence interval, –13.1 to –5.9; P < .001), according to the report.

That treatment effect was also seen, but more muted, in the exercise- and liraglutide-only groups, at –4.1 kg and –6.8 kg, respectively.

A significant treatment effect was observed for exercise plus liraglutide, compared with exercise alone, at –5.4 kg (P = .004), while the treatment effect for the combination versus liraglutide alone was not significant at –2.7 kg (P = .13), the data show.

Body-fat reduction at 52 weeks was –3.9 percentage points for exercise plus liraglutide as compared with placebo, or roughly twice the reductions seen in the exercise- and liraglutide-alone groups, the investigators said, adding that the combination preserved lean mass.

Reductions in hemoglobin A1c, which are generally thought to reduce diabetes risk, were reduced in both the liraglutide and liraglutide-exercise combination group, according to their report.

The research was supported in part by grants from the Novo Nordisk Foundation.

For persons with obesity who lost a substantial amount of weight on a low-calorie diet, the combination of exercise and medication significantly improved weight-loss maintenance, and more so than either strategy alone, according to results of a randomized, head-to-head trial.

A year after starting moderate to vigorous exercise coupled with liraglutide treatment, study participants had a weight loss 9.5 kg more than those who received placebo and usual activity, study results show.

Reductions in both weight and fat loss seen with exercise and liraglutide was roughly twice as much as what was achieved at 1 year with the strategies of liraglutide or exercise alone, according to authors of the study, which appears in the New England Journal of Medicine .

Although the findings may not apply to those who can’t or won’t perform moderate to vigorous exercise, the intervention in this study was nevertheless feasible in this group of persons with obesity who had a very low level of fitness, according to the authors.
 

Hope for healthy weight loss maintenance

Investigator Signe S. Torekov, PhD, said in an interview that these results provide hope that more-intensive exercise regimens, with or without medication, can be useful and well accepted among individuals struggling with obesity.

“When we started our study, we were told, ‘you are never going to have people with obesity exercising that much, and for that long’ – but people were actually very happy about the exercise,” said Dr. Torekov, a professor in the department of biomedical sciences at the University of Copenhagen.

“If you actually set up a program where people are monitored and you have a feedback system, then exercise is an excellent component in obesity treatment that should be much more actively used – not only for its weight-lowering component, but also for improving health and quality of life,” she said in an interview.

Weight-management specialist John D. Clark, MD, PhD, said results of this study can be used to help inform patients about how successful different strategies incorporating exercise and medication may be following initial weight loss.

“When patients plateau on a consistent, calorie-restricted dietary plan, we can educate them and manage expectations about what options may be available to them after their initial weight loss,” said Dr. Clark, of the University of Texas, Dallas.

“If the patient’s goal specifically is weight loss at all costs, then I may suggest, ‘let’s consider liraglutide or liraglutide in combination with exercise,’ ” he said in an interview. “Exercise improves body composition, even if it may not on its own be as successful in the next phase of their weight-loss journey, as shown in this study.”
 

Obesity and weight-loss challenges

Although it’s not uncommon for obese patients to lose a large amount of weight, keeping the weight off is frequently a challenge unless the patient follows a structured weight maintenance program, according to Dr. Torekov and coauthors.

The rapid weight regain seen in many obese patients could be a result of reductions in total energy expenditure or increased appetite. Exercise is one strategy to sustain weight loss, though according to the authors, very few studies have looked at exercise in isolation to quantify its contribution to maintenance.

Accordingly, the present study sought to determine whether exercise, medication, or the combination thereof works best to keep weight off.

The study incorporated liraglutide, a GLP-1 receptor agonist indicated for chronic weight management, along with a reduced-calorie diet and increased physical activity, in adults with elevated body mass index and at least one weight-related comorbidity.

The investigator-initiated phase 3 trial included 215 adults with a body mass index of 32-43. Individuals with type 2 diabetes were excluded. All participants followed an 8-week, low-calorie diet comprising 800 calories per day.

Participants who lost 5% or more of their body weight were then randomized to 1 year of exercise plus liraglutide, exercise plus placebo, usual activity plus liraglutide, or usual activity plus placebo.

The exercise program – which was structured but flexible, according to investigators – included group exercise sessions that incorporated 30 minutes of indoor cycling and 15 minutes of circuit training 2 days each week. Participants wore heart rate monitors during exercise to make sure they reached targets for moderate to vigorous intensity.

Instructors trained in exercise physiology planned and monitored individualized exercise programs for each participant in the exercise-medication or exercise-only arms of the study.

Participants in all groups attended 12 one-on-one consultations where body weight was measured and dietetic support was provided.
 

Weight loss with exercise and medication

Out of 215 individuals enrolled in the study, 195 lost at least 5% of body weight and continued on to the randomized portion, the investigators reported. During the diet phase, they lost a mean of 13.1 kg, translating into a 12% mean reduction in body weight.

The mean frequency of exercise was 2.4 times per week in the exercise-plus-medication group and 2.5 times per week in the exercise-only group. About one-third of the exercise took place in the group sessions, and there was no difference in relative intensity between group and individual exercise regimens, the investigators said.

Individuals in the exercise plus medication group continued to lose more weight, such that, at the end of 1 year, the weight loss decreased even further, by a mean of –3.4 kg. By contrast, weight increased by a mean of 6.1 kg for the placebo group, adding up to a treatment difference of –9.5 kg (95% confidence interval, –13.1 to –5.9; P < .001), according to the report.

That treatment effect was also seen, but more muted, in the exercise- and liraglutide-only groups, at –4.1 kg and –6.8 kg, respectively.

A significant treatment effect was observed for exercise plus liraglutide, compared with exercise alone, at –5.4 kg (P = .004), while the treatment effect for the combination versus liraglutide alone was not significant at –2.7 kg (P = .13), the data show.

Body-fat reduction at 52 weeks was –3.9 percentage points for exercise plus liraglutide as compared with placebo, or roughly twice the reductions seen in the exercise- and liraglutide-alone groups, the investigators said, adding that the combination preserved lean mass.

Reductions in hemoglobin A1c, which are generally thought to reduce diabetes risk, were reduced in both the liraglutide and liraglutide-exercise combination group, according to their report.

The research was supported in part by grants from the Novo Nordisk Foundation.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved dapagliflozin (Farxiga, AstraZeneca) to reduce the risk for kidney function decline, kidney failure, cardiovascular death, and hospitalization for heart failure in adult patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) at risk for disease progression.

“Chronic kidney disease is an important public health issue, and there is a significant unmet need for therapies that slow disease progression and improve outcomes,” said Aliza Thompson, MD, deputy director of the division of cardiology and nephrology at the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research. “Today’s approval of Farxiga for the treatment of chronic kidney disease is an important step forward in helping people living with kidney disease.”

Dapagliflozin was approved in 2014 to improve glycemic control in patients with diabetes mellitus, and approval was expanded in 2020 to include treatment of patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction, based on results of the DAPA-HF trial.

This new approval in chronic kidney disease was based on results of the DAPA-CKD trial that was stopped early in March 2020 because of efficacy of the treatment.

DAPA-CKD randomly assigned 4,304 patients with CKD but without diabetes to receive either dapagliflozin or placebo. The full study results, reported at the 2020 annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology and simultaneously published in the New England Journal of Medicine, showed that, during a median of 2.4 years, treatment with dapagliflozin led to a significant 31% relative reduction, compared with placebo in the study’s primary outcome, a composite that included at least a 50% drop in estimated glomerular filtration rate, compared with baseline, end-stage kidney disease, kidney transplant, renal death, or cardiovascular death.

Dapagliflozin treatment also cut all-cause mortality by a statistically significant relative reduction of 31%, and another secondary-endpoint analysis showed a statistically significant 29% relative reduction in the rate of cardiovascular death or heart failure hospitalization.

“Farxiga was not studied, nor is expected to be effective, in treating chronic kidney disease among patients with autosomal dominant or recessive polycystic (characterized by multiple cysts) kidney disease or among patients who require or have recently used immunosuppressive therapy to treat kidney disease,” the FDA statement noted.

Dapagliflozin should not be used by patients with a history of serious hypersensitivity reactions to this medication, or who are on dialysis, the agency added. “Serious, life-threatening cases of Fournier’s Gangrene have occurred in patients with diabetes taking Farxiga.”

Patients should consider taking a lower dose of insulin or insulin secretagogue to reduce hypoglycemic risk if they are also taking dapagliflozin. Treatment can also cause dehydration, serious urinary tract infections, genital yeast infections, and metabolic acidosis, the announcement said. “Patients should be assessed for their volume status and kidney function before starting Farxiga.”

Dapagliflozin previously received Fast Track, Breakthrough Therapy, and Priority Review designations for this new indication.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved dapagliflozin (Farxiga, AstraZeneca) to reduce the risk for kidney function decline, kidney failure, cardiovascular death, and hospitalization for heart failure in adult patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) at risk for disease progression.

“Chronic kidney disease is an important public health issue, and there is a significant unmet need for therapies that slow disease progression and improve outcomes,” said Aliza Thompson, MD, deputy director of the division of cardiology and nephrology at the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research. “Today’s approval of Farxiga for the treatment of chronic kidney disease is an important step forward in helping people living with kidney disease.”

Dapagliflozin was approved in 2014 to improve glycemic control in patients with diabetes mellitus, and approval was expanded in 2020 to include treatment of patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction, based on results of the DAPA-HF trial.

This new approval in chronic kidney disease was based on results of the DAPA-CKD trial that was stopped early in March 2020 because of efficacy of the treatment.

DAPA-CKD randomly assigned 4,304 patients with CKD but without diabetes to receive either dapagliflozin or placebo. The full study results, reported at the 2020 annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology and simultaneously published in the New England Journal of Medicine, showed that, during a median of 2.4 years, treatment with dapagliflozin led to a significant 31% relative reduction, compared with placebo in the study’s primary outcome, a composite that included at least a 50% drop in estimated glomerular filtration rate, compared with baseline, end-stage kidney disease, kidney transplant, renal death, or cardiovascular death.

Dapagliflozin treatment also cut all-cause mortality by a statistically significant relative reduction of 31%, and another secondary-endpoint analysis showed a statistically significant 29% relative reduction in the rate of cardiovascular death or heart failure hospitalization.

“Farxiga was not studied, nor is expected to be effective, in treating chronic kidney disease among patients with autosomal dominant or recessive polycystic (characterized by multiple cysts) kidney disease or among patients who require or have recently used immunosuppressive therapy to treat kidney disease,” the FDA statement noted.

Dapagliflozin should not be used by patients with a history of serious hypersensitivity reactions to this medication, or who are on dialysis, the agency added. “Serious, life-threatening cases of Fournier’s Gangrene have occurred in patients with diabetes taking Farxiga.”

Patients should consider taking a lower dose of insulin or insulin secretagogue to reduce hypoglycemic risk if they are also taking dapagliflozin. Treatment can also cause dehydration, serious urinary tract infections, genital yeast infections, and metabolic acidosis, the announcement said. “Patients should be assessed for their volume status and kidney function before starting Farxiga.”

Dapagliflozin previously received Fast Track, Breakthrough Therapy, and Priority Review designations for this new indication.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved dapagliflozin (Farxiga, AstraZeneca) to reduce the risk for kidney function decline, kidney failure, cardiovascular death, and hospitalization for heart failure in adult patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) at risk for disease progression.

“Chronic kidney disease is an important public health issue, and there is a significant unmet need for therapies that slow disease progression and improve outcomes,” said Aliza Thompson, MD, deputy director of the division of cardiology and nephrology at the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research. “Today’s approval of Farxiga for the treatment of chronic kidney disease is an important step forward in helping people living with kidney disease.”

Dapagliflozin was approved in 2014 to improve glycemic control in patients with diabetes mellitus, and approval was expanded in 2020 to include treatment of patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction, based on results of the DAPA-HF trial.

This new approval in chronic kidney disease was based on results of the DAPA-CKD trial that was stopped early in March 2020 because of efficacy of the treatment.

DAPA-CKD randomly assigned 4,304 patients with CKD but without diabetes to receive either dapagliflozin or placebo. The full study results, reported at the 2020 annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology and simultaneously published in the New England Journal of Medicine, showed that, during a median of 2.4 years, treatment with dapagliflozin led to a significant 31% relative reduction, compared with placebo in the study’s primary outcome, a composite that included at least a 50% drop in estimated glomerular filtration rate, compared with baseline, end-stage kidney disease, kidney transplant, renal death, or cardiovascular death.

Dapagliflozin treatment also cut all-cause mortality by a statistically significant relative reduction of 31%, and another secondary-endpoint analysis showed a statistically significant 29% relative reduction in the rate of cardiovascular death or heart failure hospitalization.

“Farxiga was not studied, nor is expected to be effective, in treating chronic kidney disease among patients with autosomal dominant or recessive polycystic (characterized by multiple cysts) kidney disease or among patients who require or have recently used immunosuppressive therapy to treat kidney disease,” the FDA statement noted.

Dapagliflozin should not be used by patients with a history of serious hypersensitivity reactions to this medication, or who are on dialysis, the agency added. “Serious, life-threatening cases of Fournier’s Gangrene have occurred in patients with diabetes taking Farxiga.”

Patients should consider taking a lower dose of insulin or insulin secretagogue to reduce hypoglycemic risk if they are also taking dapagliflozin. Treatment can also cause dehydration, serious urinary tract infections, genital yeast infections, and metabolic acidosis, the announcement said. “Patients should be assessed for their volume status and kidney function before starting Farxiga.”

Dapagliflozin previously received Fast Track, Breakthrough Therapy, and Priority Review designations for this new indication.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved a higher-dose naloxone hydrochloride nasal spray (Kloxxado) for the emergency treatment of known or suspected opioid overdose, as manifested by respiratory and/or central nervous system depression.

Olivier Le Moal/Getty Images

Kloxxado delivers 8 mg of naloxone into the nasal cavity, which is twice as much as the 4 mg of naloxone contained in Narcan nasal spray.

When administered quickly, naloxone can counter opioid overdose effects, usually within minutes. A higher dose of naloxone provides an additional option for the treatment of opioid overdoses, the FDA said in a news release.

“This approval meets another critical need in combating opioid overdose,” Patrizia Cavazzoni, MD, director, FDA Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, said in the release.

“Addressing the opioid crisis is a top priority for the FDA, and we will continue our efforts to increase access to naloxone and place this important medicine in the hands of those who need it most,” said Dr. Cavazzoni.

In a company news release announcing the approval, manufacturer Hikma Pharmaceuticals noted that a recent survey of community organizations in which the 4-mg naloxone nasal spray had been distributed showed that for 34% of attempted reversals, two or more doses of naloxone were used.

A separate study found that the percentage of overdose-related emergency medical service calls in the United States that led to the administration of multiple doses of naloxone increased to 21% during the period of 2013-2016, which represents a 43% increase over 4 years.

“The approval of Kloxxado is an important step in providing patients, friends, and family members – as well as the public health community – with an important new option for treating opioid overdose,” Brian Hoffmann, president of Hikma Generics, said in the release.

The company expects Kloxxado to available in the second half of 2021.

The FDA approved Kloxxado through the 505(b)(2) regulatory pathway, which allows the agency to refer to previous findings of safety and efficacy for an already-approved product, as well as to review findings from further studies of the product.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved a higher-dose naloxone hydrochloride nasal spray (Kloxxado) for the emergency treatment of known or suspected opioid overdose, as manifested by respiratory and/or central nervous system depression.

Olivier Le Moal/Getty Images

Kloxxado delivers 8 mg of naloxone into the nasal cavity, which is twice as much as the 4 mg of naloxone contained in Narcan nasal spray.

When administered quickly, naloxone can counter opioid overdose effects, usually within minutes. A higher dose of naloxone provides an additional option for the treatment of opioid overdoses, the FDA said in a news release.

“This approval meets another critical need in combating opioid overdose,” Patrizia Cavazzoni, MD, director, FDA Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, said in the release.

“Addressing the opioid crisis is a top priority for the FDA, and we will continue our efforts to increase access to naloxone and place this important medicine in the hands of those who need it most,” said Dr. Cavazzoni.

In a company news release announcing the approval, manufacturer Hikma Pharmaceuticals noted that a recent survey of community organizations in which the 4-mg naloxone nasal spray had been distributed showed that for 34% of attempted reversals, two or more doses of naloxone were used.

A separate study found that the percentage of overdose-related emergency medical service calls in the United States that led to the administration of multiple doses of naloxone increased to 21% during the period of 2013-2016, which represents a 43% increase over 4 years.

“The approval of Kloxxado is an important step in providing patients, friends, and family members – as well as the public health community – with an important new option for treating opioid overdose,” Brian Hoffmann, president of Hikma Generics, said in the release.

The company expects Kloxxado to available in the second half of 2021.

The FDA approved Kloxxado through the 505(b)(2) regulatory pathway, which allows the agency to refer to previous findings of safety and efficacy for an already-approved product, as well as to review findings from further studies of the product.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved a higher-dose naloxone hydrochloride nasal spray (Kloxxado) for the emergency treatment of known or suspected opioid overdose, as manifested by respiratory and/or central nervous system depression.

Olivier Le Moal/Getty Images

Kloxxado delivers 8 mg of naloxone into the nasal cavity, which is twice as much as the 4 mg of naloxone contained in Narcan nasal spray.

When administered quickly, naloxone can counter opioid overdose effects, usually within minutes. A higher dose of naloxone provides an additional option for the treatment of opioid overdoses, the FDA said in a news release.

“This approval meets another critical need in combating opioid overdose,” Patrizia Cavazzoni, MD, director, FDA Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, said in the release.

“Addressing the opioid crisis is a top priority for the FDA, and we will continue our efforts to increase access to naloxone and place this important medicine in the hands of those who need it most,” said Dr. Cavazzoni.

In a company news release announcing the approval, manufacturer Hikma Pharmaceuticals noted that a recent survey of community organizations in which the 4-mg naloxone nasal spray had been distributed showed that for 34% of attempted reversals, two or more doses of naloxone were used.

A separate study found that the percentage of overdose-related emergency medical service calls in the United States that led to the administration of multiple doses of naloxone increased to 21% during the period of 2013-2016, which represents a 43% increase over 4 years.

“The approval of Kloxxado is an important step in providing patients, friends, and family members – as well as the public health community – with an important new option for treating opioid overdose,” Brian Hoffmann, president of Hikma Generics, said in the release.

The company expects Kloxxado to available in the second half of 2021.

The FDA approved Kloxxado through the 505(b)(2) regulatory pathway, which allows the agency to refer to previous findings of safety and efficacy for an already-approved product, as well as to review findings from further studies of the product.

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

Although the healing properties of cannabis have been touted for millennia, research into its potential neuropsychiatric applications truly began to take off in the 1990s following the discovery of the cannabinoid system in the brain. This led to speculation that cannabis could play a therapeutic role in regulating dopamine, serotonin, and other neurotransmitters and offer a new means of treating various ailments.

LPETTET/Getty Images

At the same time, efforts to liberalize marijuana laws have successfully played out in several nations, including the United States, where, as of April 29, 36 states provide some access to cannabis. These dual tracks – medical and political – have made cannabis an increasingly accepted part of the cultural fabric.

Yet with this development has come a new quandary for clinicians. Medical cannabis has been made widely available to patients and has largely outpaced the clinical evidence, leaving it unclear how and for which indications it should be used.
 

The many forms of medical cannabis

Cannabis is a genus of plants that includes marijuana (Cannabis sativa) and hemp. These plants contain over 100 compounds, including terpenes, flavonoids, and – most importantly for medicinal applications – cannabinoids.

The most abundant cannabinoid in marijuana is the psychotropic delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), which imparts the “high” sensation. The next most abundant cannabinoid is cannabidiol (CBD), which is the nonpsychotropic. THC and CBD are the most extensively studied cannabinoids, together and in isolation. Evidence suggests that other cannabinoids and terpenoids may also hold medical promise and that cannabis’ various compounds can work synergistically to produce a so-called entourage effect.

Patients walking into a typical medical cannabis dispensary will be faced with several plant-derived and synthetic options, which can differ considerably in terms of the ratios and amounts of THC and CBD they contain, as well in how they are consumed (i.e., via smoke, vapor, ingestion, topical administration, or oromucosal spray), all of which can alter their effects. Further complicating matters is the varying level of oversight each state and country has in how and whether they test for and accurately label products’ potency, cannabinoid content, and possible impurities.

Medically authorized, prescription cannabis products go through an official regulatory review process, and indications/contraindications have been established for them. To date, the Food and Drug Administration has approved one cannabis-derived drug product – Epidiolex (purified CBD) – for the treatment of seizures associated with Lennox-Gastaut syndrome or Dravet syndrome in patients aged 2 years and older. The FDA has also approved three synthetic cannabis-related drug products – Marinol, Syndros (or dronabinol, created from synthetic THC), and Cesamet (or nabilone, a synthetic cannabinoid similar to THC) – all of which are indicated for treatment-related nausea and anorexia associated with weight loss in AIDS patients.

Surveys of medical cannabis consumers indicate that most people cannot distinguish between THC and CBD, so the first role that physicians find themselves in when recommending this treatment may be in helping patients navigate the volume of options.
 

Promising treatment for pain

Chronic pain is the leading reason patients seek out medical cannabis. It is also the indication that most researchers agree has the strongest evidence to support its use.

“In my mind, the most promising immediate use for medical cannabis is with THC for pain,” Diana M. Martinez, MD, a professor of psychiatry at Columbia University, New York, who specializes in addiction research, said in a recent MDedge podcast. “THC could be added to the armamentarium of pain medications that we use today.”

In a 2015 systematic literature review, researchers assessed 28 randomized, controlled trials (RCTs) of the use of cannabinoids for chronic pain. They reported that a variety of formulations resulted in at least a 30% reduction in the odds of pain, compared with placebo. A meta-analysis of five RCTs involving patients with neuropathic pain found a 30% reduction in pain over placebo with inhaled, vaporized cannabis. Varying results have been reported in additional studies for this indication. The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine concluded that there was a substantial body of evidence that cannabis is an effective treatment for chronic pain in adults.

The ongoing opioid epidemic has lent these results additional relevance. Data indicate that patients with chronic pain who undergo treatment with medical cannabis can reduce their intake of opioids by more than 60%.

Seeing this firsthand has caused Mark Steven Wallace, MD, a pain management specialist and chair of the division of pain medicine at the University of California San Diego Health, to reconsider offering cannabis to his patients.

“I think it’s probably more efficacious, just from my personal experience, and it’s a much lower risk of abuse and dependence than the opioids,” he said.

Dr. Wallace advised that clinicians who treat pain consider the ratios of cannabinoids.

“This is anecdotal, but we do find that with the combination of the two, CBD reduces the psychoactive effects of the THC. The ratios we use during the daytime range around 20 mg of CBD to 1 mg of THC,” he said.

In a recent secondary analysis of an RCT involving patients with painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy, Dr. Wallace and colleagues showed that THC’s effects appear to reverse themselves at a certain level.

“As the THC level goes up, the pain reduces until you reach about 16 ng/mL; then it starts going in the opposite direction, and pain will start to increase,” he said. “Even recreational cannabis users have reported that they avoid high doses because it’s very aversive. Using cannabis is all about, start low and go slow.”
 

A mixed bag for neurologic indications

There are relatively limited data on the use of medical cannabis for other neurologic conditions, and results have varied. For uses other than pain management, the evidence that does exist is strongest regarding epilepsy, said Daniel Freedman, DO, assistant professor of neurology at the University of Texas at Austin. He noted “multiple high-quality RCTs showing that pharmaceutical-grade CBD can reduce seizures associated with two particular epilepsy syndromes: Dravet Syndrome and Lennox Gastaut.”

These findings led to the FDA’s 2018 approval of Epidiolex for these syndromes. In earlier years, interest in CBD for pediatric seizures was largely driven by anecdotal parental reports of its benefits. NASEM’s 2017 overview on medical cannabis found evidence from subsequent RCTs in this indication to be insufficient. Clinicians who prescribe CBD for this indication must be vigilant because it can interact with several commonly used antiepileptic drugs.

Cannabinoid treatments have also shown success in alleviating muscle spasticity resulting from multiple sclerosis, most prominently in the form of nabiximols (Sativex), a standardized oralmucosal spray containing approximately equal quantities of THC and CBD. Nabiximols is approved in Europe but not in the United States. Moderate evidence supports the efficacy of these and other treatments over placebo in reducing muscle spasticity. Patient ratings of its effects tend to be higher than clinician assessment.

Parkinson’s disease has not yet been approved as an indication for treatment with cannabis or cannabinoids, yet a growing body of preclinical data suggests these could influence the dopaminergic system, said Carsten Buhmann, MD, from the department of neurology at the University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf (Germany).

“In general, cannabinoids modulate basal-ganglia function on two levels which are especially relevant in Parkinson’s disease, i.e., the glutamatergic/dopaminergic synaptic neurotransmission and the corticostriatal plasticity,” he said. “Furthermore, activation of the endocannabinoid system might induce neuroprotective effects related to direct receptor-independent mechanisms, activation of anti-inflammatory cascades in glial cells via the cannabinoid receptor type 2, and antiglutamatergic antiexcitotoxic properties.”

Dr. Buhmann said that currently, clinical evidence is scarce, consisting of only four double-blind, placebo-controlled RCTs involving 49 patients. Various cannabinoids and methods of administering treatment were employed. Improvement was only observed in one of these RCTs, which found that the cannabinoid receptor agonist nabilone significantly reduced levodopa-induced dyskinesia for patients with Parkinson’s disease. Subjective data support a beneficial effect. In a nationwide survey of 1,348 respondents conducted by Dr. Buhmann and colleagues, the majority of medical cannabis users reported that it improved their symptoms (54% with oral CBD and 68% with inhaled THC-containing cannabis).

NASEM concluded that there was insufficient evidence to support the efficacy of medical cannabis for other neurologic conditions, including Tourette syndrome, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, Huntington disease, dystonia, or dementia. A 2020 position statement from the American Academy of Neurology cited the lack of sufficient peer-reviewed research as the reason it could not currently support the use of cannabis for neurologic disorders.

Yet, according to Dr. Freedman, who served as a coauthor of the AAN position statement, this hasn’t stymied research interest in the topic. He’s seen a substantial uptick in studies of CBD over the past 2 years. “The body of evidence grows, but I still see many claims being made without evidence. And no one seems to care about all the negative trials.”
 

Cannabis as a treatment for, and cause of, psychiatric disorders

Mental health problems – such as anxiety, depression, and PTSD – are among the most common reasons patients seek out medical cannabis. There is an understandable interest in using cannabis and cannabinoids to treat psychiatric disorders. Preclinical studies suggest that the endocannabinoid system plays a prominent role in modulating feelings of anxiety, mood, and fear. As with opioids and chronic pain management, there is hope that medical cannabis may provide a means of reducing prescription anxiolytics and their associated risks.

The authors of the first systematic review (BMC Psychiatry. 2020 Jan 16;20[1]:24) of the use of medical cannabis for major psychiatric disorders noted that the current evidence was “encouraging, albeit embryonic.”

Meta-analyses have indicated a small but positive association between cannabis use and anxiety, although this may reflect the fact that patients with anxiety sought out this treatment. Given the risks for substance use disorders among patients with anxiety, CBD may present a more viable option. Positive results have been shown as treatment for generalized social anxiety disorder.

Limited but encouraging results have also been reported regarding the alleviation of PTSD symptoms with both cannabis and CBD, although the body of high-quality evidence hasn’t notably progressed since 2017, when NASEM declared that the evidence was insufficient. Supportive evidence is similarly lacking regarding the treatment of depression. Longitudinal studies suggest that cannabis use, particularly heavy use, may increase the risk of developing this disorder. Because THC is psychoactive, it is advised that it be avoided by patients at risk for psychotic disorders. However, CBD has yielded limited benefits for patients with treatment-resistant schizophrenia and for young people at risk for psychosis.

The use of medical cannabis for psychiatric conditions requires a complex balancing act, inasmuch as these treatments may exacerbate the very problems they are intended to alleviate.

Marta Di Forti, MD, PhD, professor of psychiatric research at Kings College London, has been at the forefront of determining the mental health risks of continued cannabis use. In 2019, Dr. Di Forti developed the first and only Cannabis Clinic for Patients With Psychosis in London where she and her colleagues have continued to elucidate this connection.

Dr. Di Forti and colleagues have linked daily cannabis use to an increase in the risk of experiencing psychotic disorder, compared with never using it. That risk was further increased among users of high-potency cannabis (≥10% THC). The latter finding has troubling implications, because concentrations of THC have steadily risen since 1970. By contrast, CBD concentrations have remained generally stable. High-potency cannabis products are common in both recreational and medicinal settings.

“For somebody prescribing medicinal cannabis that has a ≥10% concentration of THC, I’d be particularly wary of the risk of psychosis,” said Dr. Di Forti. “If you’re expecting people to use a high content of THC daily to medicate pain or a chronic condition, you even more so need to be aware that this is a potential side effect.”

Dr. Di Forti noted that her findings come from a cohort of recreational users, most of whom were aged 18-35 years.

“There have actually not been studies developed from collecting data in this area from groups specifically using cannabis for medicinal rather than recreational purposes,” she said.

She added that she personally has no concerns about the use of medical cannabis but wants clinicians to be aware of the risk for psychosis, to structure their patient conversations to identify risk factors or family histories of psychosis, and to become knowledgeable in detecting the often subtle signs of its initial onset.

When cannabis-associated psychosis occurs, Dr. Di Forti said it is primarily treated with conventional means, such as antipsychotics and therapeutic interventions and by refraining from using cannabis. Achieving the latter goal can be a challenge for patients who are daily users of high-potency cannabis. Currently, there are no treatment options such as those offered to patients withdrawing from the use of alcohol or opioids. Dr. Di Forti and colleagues are currently researching a solution to that problem through the use of another medical cannabis, the oromucosal spray Sativex, which has been approved in the European Union.
 

The regulatory obstacles to clarifying cannabis’ role in medicine

That currently there is limited or no evidence to support the use of medical cannabis for the treatment of neuropsychiatric conditions points to the inherent difficulties in conducting high-level research in this area.

“There’s a tremendous shortage of reliable data, largely due to regulatory barriers,” said Dr. Martinez.

Since 1970, cannabis has been listed as a Schedule I drug that is illegal to prescribe (the Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018 removed hemp from such restrictions). The FDA has issued guidance for researchers who wish to investigate treatments using Cannabis sativa or its derivatives in which the THC content is greater than 0.3%. Such research requires regular interactions with several federal agencies, including the Drug Enforcement Administration.

“It’s impossible to do multicenter RCTs with large numbers of patients, because you can’t transport cannabis across state lines,” said Dr. Wallace.

Regulatory restrictions regarding medical cannabis vary considerably throughout the world (the European Monitoring Center for Drugs and Drug Addiction provides a useful breakdown of this on their website). The lack of consistency in regulatory oversight acts as an impediment for conducting large-scale international multicenter studies on the topic.

Dr. Buhmann noted that, in Germany, cannabis has been broadly approved for treatment-resistant conditions with severe symptoms that impair quality of life. In addition, it is easy to be reimbursed for the use of cannabis as a medical treatment. These factors serve as disincentives for the funding of high-quality studies.

“It’s likely that no pharmaceutical company will do an expensive RCT to get an approval for Parkinson’s disease because it is already possible to prescribe medical cannabis of any type of THC-containing cannabinoid, dose, or route of application,” Dr. Buhmann said.

In the face of such restrictions and barriers, researchers are turning to ambitious real-world data projects to better understand medical cannabis’ efficacy and safety. A notable example is ProjectTwenty21, which is supported by the Royal College of Psychiatrists. The project is collecting outcomes of the use of medical cannabis among 20,000 U.K. patients whose conventional treatments of chronic pain, anxiety disorder, epilepsy, multiple sclerosis, PTSD, substance use disorder, and Tourette syndrome failed.

Dr. Freedman noted that the continued lack of high-quality data creates a void that commercial interests fill with unfounded claims.

“The danger is that patients might abandon a medication or intervention backed by robust science in favor of something without any science or evidence behind it,” he said. “There is no reason not to expect the same level of data for claims about cannabis products as we would expect from pharmaceutical products.”

Getting to that point, however, will require that the authorities governing clinical trials begin to view cannabis as the research community does, as a possible treatment with potential value, rather than as an illicit drug that needs to be tamped down.

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

Although the healing properties of cannabis have been touted for millennia, research into its potential neuropsychiatric applications truly began to take off in the 1990s following the discovery of the cannabinoid system in the brain. This led to speculation that cannabis could play a therapeutic role in regulating dopamine, serotonin, and other neurotransmitters and offer a new means of treating various ailments.

LPETTET/Getty Images

At the same time, efforts to liberalize marijuana laws have successfully played out in several nations, including the United States, where, as of April 29, 36 states provide some access to cannabis. These dual tracks – medical and political – have made cannabis an increasingly accepted part of the cultural fabric.

Yet with this development has come a new quandary for clinicians. Medical cannabis has been made widely available to patients and has largely outpaced the clinical evidence, leaving it unclear how and for which indications it should be used.
 

The many forms of medical cannabis

Cannabis is a genus of plants that includes marijuana (Cannabis sativa) and hemp. These plants contain over 100 compounds, including terpenes, flavonoids, and – most importantly for medicinal applications – cannabinoids.

The most abundant cannabinoid in marijuana is the psychotropic delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), which imparts the “high” sensation. The next most abundant cannabinoid is cannabidiol (CBD), which is the nonpsychotropic. THC and CBD are the most extensively studied cannabinoids, together and in isolation. Evidence suggests that other cannabinoids and terpenoids may also hold medical promise and that cannabis’ various compounds can work synergistically to produce a so-called entourage effect.

Patients walking into a typical medical cannabis dispensary will be faced with several plant-derived and synthetic options, which can differ considerably in terms of the ratios and amounts of THC and CBD they contain, as well in how they are consumed (i.e., via smoke, vapor, ingestion, topical administration, or oromucosal spray), all of which can alter their effects. Further complicating matters is the varying level of oversight each state and country has in how and whether they test for and accurately label products’ potency, cannabinoid content, and possible impurities.

Medically authorized, prescription cannabis products go through an official regulatory review process, and indications/contraindications have been established for them. To date, the Food and Drug Administration has approved one cannabis-derived drug product – Epidiolex (purified CBD) – for the treatment of seizures associated with Lennox-Gastaut syndrome or Dravet syndrome in patients aged 2 years and older. The FDA has also approved three synthetic cannabis-related drug products – Marinol, Syndros (or dronabinol, created from synthetic THC), and Cesamet (or nabilone, a synthetic cannabinoid similar to THC) – all of which are indicated for treatment-related nausea and anorexia associated with weight loss in AIDS patients.

Surveys of medical cannabis consumers indicate that most people cannot distinguish between THC and CBD, so the first role that physicians find themselves in when recommending this treatment may be in helping patients navigate the volume of options.
 

Promising treatment for pain

Chronic pain is the leading reason patients seek out medical cannabis. It is also the indication that most researchers agree has the strongest evidence to support its use.

“In my mind, the most promising immediate use for medical cannabis is with THC for pain,” Diana M. Martinez, MD, a professor of psychiatry at Columbia University, New York, who specializes in addiction research, said in a recent MDedge podcast. “THC could be added to the armamentarium of pain medications that we use today.”

In a 2015 systematic literature review, researchers assessed 28 randomized, controlled trials (RCTs) of the use of cannabinoids for chronic pain. They reported that a variety of formulations resulted in at least a 30% reduction in the odds of pain, compared with placebo. A meta-analysis of five RCTs involving patients with neuropathic pain found a 30% reduction in pain over placebo with inhaled, vaporized cannabis. Varying results have been reported in additional studies for this indication. The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine concluded that there was a substantial body of evidence that cannabis is an effective treatment for chronic pain in adults.

The ongoing opioid epidemic has lent these results additional relevance. Data indicate that patients with chronic pain who undergo treatment with medical cannabis can reduce their intake of opioids by more than 60%.

Seeing this firsthand has caused Mark Steven Wallace, MD, a pain management specialist and chair of the division of pain medicine at the University of California San Diego Health, to reconsider offering cannabis to his patients.

“I think it’s probably more efficacious, just from my personal experience, and it’s a much lower risk of abuse and dependence than the opioids,” he said.

Dr. Wallace advised that clinicians who treat pain consider the ratios of cannabinoids.

“This is anecdotal, but we do find that with the combination of the two, CBD reduces the psychoactive effects of the THC. The ratios we use during the daytime range around 20 mg of CBD to 1 mg of THC,” he said.

In a recent secondary analysis of an RCT involving patients with painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy, Dr. Wallace and colleagues showed that THC’s effects appear to reverse themselves at a certain level.

“As the THC level goes up, the pain reduces until you reach about 16 ng/mL; then it starts going in the opposite direction, and pain will start to increase,” he said. “Even recreational cannabis users have reported that they avoid high doses because it’s very aversive. Using cannabis is all about, start low and go slow.”
 

A mixed bag for neurologic indications

There are relatively limited data on the use of medical cannabis for other neurologic conditions, and results have varied. For uses other than pain management, the evidence that does exist is strongest regarding epilepsy, said Daniel Freedman, DO, assistant professor of neurology at the University of Texas at Austin. He noted “multiple high-quality RCTs showing that pharmaceutical-grade CBD can reduce seizures associated with two particular epilepsy syndromes: Dravet Syndrome and Lennox Gastaut.”

These findings led to the FDA’s 2018 approval of Epidiolex for these syndromes. In earlier years, interest in CBD for pediatric seizures was largely driven by anecdotal parental reports of its benefits. NASEM’s 2017 overview on medical cannabis found evidence from subsequent RCTs in this indication to be insufficient. Clinicians who prescribe CBD for this indication must be vigilant because it can interact with several commonly used antiepileptic drugs.

Cannabinoid treatments have also shown success in alleviating muscle spasticity resulting from multiple sclerosis, most prominently in the form of nabiximols (Sativex), a standardized oralmucosal spray containing approximately equal quantities of THC and CBD. Nabiximols is approved in Europe but not in the United States. Moderate evidence supports the efficacy of these and other treatments over placebo in reducing muscle spasticity. Patient ratings of its effects tend to be higher than clinician assessment.

Parkinson’s disease has not yet been approved as an indication for treatment with cannabis or cannabinoids, yet a growing body of preclinical data suggests these could influence the dopaminergic system, said Carsten Buhmann, MD, from the department of neurology at the University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf (Germany).

“In general, cannabinoids modulate basal-ganglia function on two levels which are especially relevant in Parkinson’s disease, i.e., the glutamatergic/dopaminergic synaptic neurotransmission and the corticostriatal plasticity,” he said. “Furthermore, activation of the endocannabinoid system might induce neuroprotective effects related to direct receptor-independent mechanisms, activation of anti-inflammatory cascades in glial cells via the cannabinoid receptor type 2, and antiglutamatergic antiexcitotoxic properties.”

Dr. Buhmann said that currently, clinical evidence is scarce, consisting of only four double-blind, placebo-controlled RCTs involving 49 patients. Various cannabinoids and methods of administering treatment were employed. Improvement was only observed in one of these RCTs, which found that the cannabinoid receptor agonist nabilone significantly reduced levodopa-induced dyskinesia for patients with Parkinson’s disease. Subjective data support a beneficial effect. In a nationwide survey of 1,348 respondents conducted by Dr. Buhmann and colleagues, the majority of medical cannabis users reported that it improved their symptoms (54% with oral CBD and 68% with inhaled THC-containing cannabis).

NASEM concluded that there was insufficient evidence to support the efficacy of medical cannabis for other neurologic conditions, including Tourette syndrome, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, Huntington disease, dystonia, or dementia. A 2020 position statement from the American Academy of Neurology cited the lack of sufficient peer-reviewed research as the reason it could not currently support the use of cannabis for neurologic disorders.

Yet, according to Dr. Freedman, who served as a coauthor of the AAN position statement, this hasn’t stymied research interest in the topic. He’s seen a substantial uptick in studies of CBD over the past 2 years. “The body of evidence grows, but I still see many claims being made without evidence. And no one seems to care about all the negative trials.”
 

Cannabis as a treatment for, and cause of, psychiatric disorders

Mental health problems – such as anxiety, depression, and PTSD – are among the most common reasons patients seek out medical cannabis. There is an understandable interest in using cannabis and cannabinoids to treat psychiatric disorders. Preclinical studies suggest that the endocannabinoid system plays a prominent role in modulating feelings of anxiety, mood, and fear. As with opioids and chronic pain management, there is hope that medical cannabis may provide a means of reducing prescription anxiolytics and their associated risks.

The authors of the first systematic review (BMC Psychiatry. 2020 Jan 16;20[1]:24) of the use of medical cannabis for major psychiatric disorders noted that the current evidence was “encouraging, albeit embryonic.”

Meta-analyses have indicated a small but positive association between cannabis use and anxiety, although this may reflect the fact that patients with anxiety sought out this treatment. Given the risks for substance use disorders among patients with anxiety, CBD may present a more viable option. Positive results have been shown as treatment for generalized social anxiety disorder.

Limited but encouraging results have also been reported regarding the alleviation of PTSD symptoms with both cannabis and CBD, although the body of high-quality evidence hasn’t notably progressed since 2017, when NASEM declared that the evidence was insufficient. Supportive evidence is similarly lacking regarding the treatment of depression. Longitudinal studies suggest that cannabis use, particularly heavy use, may increase the risk of developing this disorder. Because THC is psychoactive, it is advised that it be avoided by patients at risk for psychotic disorders. However, CBD has yielded limited benefits for patients with treatment-resistant schizophrenia and for young people at risk for psychosis.

The use of medical cannabis for psychiatric conditions requires a complex balancing act, inasmuch as these treatments may exacerbate the very problems they are intended to alleviate.

Marta Di Forti, MD, PhD, professor of psychiatric research at Kings College London, has been at the forefront of determining the mental health risks of continued cannabis use. In 2019, Dr. Di Forti developed the first and only Cannabis Clinic for Patients With Psychosis in London where she and her colleagues have continued to elucidate this connection.

Dr. Di Forti and colleagues have linked daily cannabis use to an increase in the risk of experiencing psychotic disorder, compared with never using it. That risk was further increased among users of high-potency cannabis (≥10% THC). The latter finding has troubling implications, because concentrations of THC have steadily risen since 1970. By contrast, CBD concentrations have remained generally stable. High-potency cannabis products are common in both recreational and medicinal settings.

“For somebody prescribing medicinal cannabis that has a ≥10% concentration of THC, I’d be particularly wary of the risk of psychosis,” said Dr. Di Forti. “If you’re expecting people to use a high content of THC daily to medicate pain or a chronic condition, you even more so need to be aware that this is a potential side effect.”

Dr. Di Forti noted that her findings come from a cohort of recreational users, most of whom were aged 18-35 years.

“There have actually not been studies developed from collecting data in this area from groups specifically using cannabis for medicinal rather than recreational purposes,” she said.

She added that she personally has no concerns about the use of medical cannabis but wants clinicians to be aware of the risk for psychosis, to structure their patient conversations to identify risk factors or family histories of psychosis, and to become knowledgeable in detecting the often subtle signs of its initial onset.

When cannabis-associated psychosis occurs, Dr. Di Forti said it is primarily treated with conventional means, such as antipsychotics and therapeutic interventions and by refraining from using cannabis. Achieving the latter goal can be a challenge for patients who are daily users of high-potency cannabis. Currently, there are no treatment options such as those offered to patients withdrawing from the use of alcohol or opioids. Dr. Di Forti and colleagues are currently researching a solution to that problem through the use of another medical cannabis, the oromucosal spray Sativex, which has been approved in the European Union.
 

The regulatory obstacles to clarifying cannabis’ role in medicine

That currently there is limited or no evidence to support the use of medical cannabis for the treatment of neuropsychiatric conditions points to the inherent difficulties in conducting high-level research in this area.

“There’s a tremendous shortage of reliable data, largely due to regulatory barriers,” said Dr. Martinez.

Since 1970, cannabis has been listed as a Schedule I drug that is illegal to prescribe (the Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018 removed hemp from such restrictions). The FDA has issued guidance for researchers who wish to investigate treatments using Cannabis sativa or its derivatives in which the THC content is greater than 0.3%. Such research requires regular interactions with several federal agencies, including the Drug Enforcement Administration.

“It’s impossible to do multicenter RCTs with large numbers of patients, because you can’t transport cannabis across state lines,” said Dr. Wallace.

Regulatory restrictions regarding medical cannabis vary considerably throughout the world (the European Monitoring Center for Drugs and Drug Addiction provides a useful breakdown of this on their website). The lack of consistency in regulatory oversight acts as an impediment for conducting large-scale international multicenter studies on the topic.

Dr. Buhmann noted that, in Germany, cannabis has been broadly approved for treatment-resistant conditions with severe symptoms that impair quality of life. In addition, it is easy to be reimbursed for the use of cannabis as a medical treatment. These factors serve as disincentives for the funding of high-quality studies.

“It’s likely that no pharmaceutical company will do an expensive RCT to get an approval for Parkinson’s disease because it is already possible to prescribe medical cannabis of any type of THC-containing cannabinoid, dose, or route of application,” Dr. Buhmann said.

In the face of such restrictions and barriers, researchers are turning to ambitious real-world data projects to better understand medical cannabis’ efficacy and safety. A notable example is ProjectTwenty21, which is supported by the Royal College of Psychiatrists. The project is collecting outcomes of the use of medical cannabis among 20,000 U.K. patients whose conventional treatments of chronic pain, anxiety disorder, epilepsy, multiple sclerosis, PTSD, substance use disorder, and Tourette syndrome failed.

Dr. Freedman noted that the continued lack of high-quality data creates a void that commercial interests fill with unfounded claims.

“The danger is that patients might abandon a medication or intervention backed by robust science in favor of something without any science or evidence behind it,” he said. “There is no reason not to expect the same level of data for claims about cannabis products as we would expect from pharmaceutical products.”

Getting to that point, however, will require that the authorities governing clinical trials begin to view cannabis as the research community does, as a possible treatment with potential value, rather than as an illicit drug that needs to be tamped down.

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

Although the healing properties of cannabis have been touted for millennia, research into its potential neuropsychiatric applications truly began to take off in the 1990s following the discovery of the cannabinoid system in the brain. This led to speculation that cannabis could play a therapeutic role in regulating dopamine, serotonin, and other neurotransmitters and offer a new means of treating various ailments.

LPETTET/Getty Images

At the same time, efforts to liberalize marijuana laws have successfully played out in several nations, including the United States, where, as of April 29, 36 states provide some access to cannabis. These dual tracks – medical and political – have made cannabis an increasingly accepted part of the cultural fabric.

Yet with this development has come a new quandary for clinicians. Medical cannabis has been made widely available to patients and has largely outpaced the clinical evidence, leaving it unclear how and for which indications it should be used.
 

The many forms of medical cannabis

Cannabis is a genus of plants that includes marijuana (Cannabis sativa) and hemp. These plants contain over 100 compounds, including terpenes, flavonoids, and – most importantly for medicinal applications – cannabinoids.

The most abundant cannabinoid in marijuana is the psychotropic delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), which imparts the “high” sensation. The next most abundant cannabinoid is cannabidiol (CBD), which is the nonpsychotropic. THC and CBD are the most extensively studied cannabinoids, together and in isolation. Evidence suggests that other cannabinoids and terpenoids may also hold medical promise and that cannabis’ various compounds can work synergistically to produce a so-called entourage effect.

Patients walking into a typical medical cannabis dispensary will be faced with several plant-derived and synthetic options, which can differ considerably in terms of the ratios and amounts of THC and CBD they contain, as well in how they are consumed (i.e., via smoke, vapor, ingestion, topical administration, or oromucosal spray), all of which can alter their effects. Further complicating matters is the varying level of oversight each state and country has in how and whether they test for and accurately label products’ potency, cannabinoid content, and possible impurities.

Medically authorized, prescription cannabis products go through an official regulatory review process, and indications/contraindications have been established for them. To date, the Food and Drug Administration has approved one cannabis-derived drug product – Epidiolex (purified CBD) – for the treatment of seizures associated with Lennox-Gastaut syndrome or Dravet syndrome in patients aged 2 years and older. The FDA has also approved three synthetic cannabis-related drug products – Marinol, Syndros (or dronabinol, created from synthetic THC), and Cesamet (or nabilone, a synthetic cannabinoid similar to THC) – all of which are indicated for treatment-related nausea and anorexia associated with weight loss in AIDS patients.

Surveys of medical cannabis consumers indicate that most people cannot distinguish between THC and CBD, so the first role that physicians find themselves in when recommending this treatment may be in helping patients navigate the volume of options.
 

Promising treatment for pain

Chronic pain is the leading reason patients seek out medical cannabis. It is also the indication that most researchers agree has the strongest evidence to support its use.

“In my mind, the most promising immediate use for medical cannabis is with THC for pain,” Diana M. Martinez, MD, a professor of psychiatry at Columbia University, New York, who specializes in addiction research, said in a recent MDedge podcast. “THC could be added to the armamentarium of pain medications that we use today.”

In a 2015 systematic literature review, researchers assessed 28 randomized, controlled trials (RCTs) of the use of cannabinoids for chronic pain. They reported that a variety of formulations resulted in at least a 30% reduction in the odds of pain, compared with placebo. A meta-analysis of five RCTs involving patients with neuropathic pain found a 30% reduction in pain over placebo with inhaled, vaporized cannabis. Varying results have been reported in additional studies for this indication. The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine concluded that there was a substantial body of evidence that cannabis is an effective treatment for chronic pain in adults.

The ongoing opioid epidemic has lent these results additional relevance. Data indicate that patients with chronic pain who undergo treatment with medical cannabis can reduce their intake of opioids by more than 60%.

Seeing this firsthand has caused Mark Steven Wallace, MD, a pain management specialist and chair of the division of pain medicine at the University of California San Diego Health, to reconsider offering cannabis to his patients.

“I think it’s probably more efficacious, just from my personal experience, and it’s a much lower risk of abuse and dependence than the opioids,” he said.

Dr. Wallace advised that clinicians who treat pain consider the ratios of cannabinoids.

“This is anecdotal, but we do find that with the combination of the two, CBD reduces the psychoactive effects of the THC. The ratios we use during the daytime range around 20 mg of CBD to 1 mg of THC,” he said.

In a recent secondary analysis of an RCT involving patients with painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy, Dr. Wallace and colleagues showed that THC’s effects appear to reverse themselves at a certain level.

“As the THC level goes up, the pain reduces until you reach about 16 ng/mL; then it starts going in the opposite direction, and pain will start to increase,” he said. “Even recreational cannabis users have reported that they avoid high doses because it’s very aversive. Using cannabis is all about, start low and go slow.”
 

A mixed bag for neurologic indications

There are relatively limited data on the use of medical cannabis for other neurologic conditions, and results have varied. For uses other than pain management, the evidence that does exist is strongest regarding epilepsy, said Daniel Freedman, DO, assistant professor of neurology at the University of Texas at Austin. He noted “multiple high-quality RCTs showing that pharmaceutical-grade CBD can reduce seizures associated with two particular epilepsy syndromes: Dravet Syndrome and Lennox Gastaut.”

These findings led to the FDA’s 2018 approval of Epidiolex for these syndromes. In earlier years, interest in CBD for pediatric seizures was largely driven by anecdotal parental reports of its benefits. NASEM’s 2017 overview on medical cannabis found evidence from subsequent RCTs in this indication to be insufficient. Clinicians who prescribe CBD for this indication must be vigilant because it can interact with several commonly used antiepileptic drugs.

Cannabinoid treatments have also shown success in alleviating muscle spasticity resulting from multiple sclerosis, most prominently in the form of nabiximols (Sativex), a standardized oralmucosal spray containing approximately equal quantities of THC and CBD. Nabiximols is approved in Europe but not in the United States. Moderate evidence supports the efficacy of these and other treatments over placebo in reducing muscle spasticity. Patient ratings of its effects tend to be higher than clinician assessment.

Parkinson’s disease has not yet been approved as an indication for treatment with cannabis or cannabinoids, yet a growing body of preclinical data suggests these could influence the dopaminergic system, said Carsten Buhmann, MD, from the department of neurology at the University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf (Germany).

“In general, cannabinoids modulate basal-ganglia function on two levels which are especially relevant in Parkinson’s disease, i.e., the glutamatergic/dopaminergic synaptic neurotransmission and the corticostriatal plasticity,” he said. “Furthermore, activation of the endocannabinoid system might induce neuroprotective effects related to direct receptor-independent mechanisms, activation of anti-inflammatory cascades in glial cells via the cannabinoid receptor type 2, and antiglutamatergic antiexcitotoxic properties.”

Dr. Buhmann said that currently, clinical evidence is scarce, consisting of only four double-blind, placebo-controlled RCTs involving 49 patients. Various cannabinoids and methods of administering treatment were employed. Improvement was only observed in one of these RCTs, which found that the cannabinoid receptor agonist nabilone significantly reduced levodopa-induced dyskinesia for patients with Parkinson’s disease. Subjective data support a beneficial effect. In a nationwide survey of 1,348 respondents conducted by Dr. Buhmann and colleagues, the majority of medical cannabis users reported that it improved their symptoms (54% with oral CBD and 68% with inhaled THC-containing cannabis).

NASEM concluded that there was insufficient evidence to support the efficacy of medical cannabis for other neurologic conditions, including Tourette syndrome, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, Huntington disease, dystonia, or dementia. A 2020 position statement from the American Academy of Neurology cited the lack of sufficient peer-reviewed research as the reason it could not currently support the use of cannabis for neurologic disorders.

Yet, according to Dr. Freedman, who served as a coauthor of the AAN position statement, this hasn’t stymied research interest in the topic. He’s seen a substantial uptick in studies of CBD over the past 2 years. “The body of evidence grows, but I still see many claims being made without evidence. And no one seems to care about all the negative trials.”
 

Cannabis as a treatment for, and cause of, psychiatric disorders

Mental health problems – such as anxiety, depression, and PTSD – are among the most common reasons patients seek out medical cannabis. There is an understandable interest in using cannabis and cannabinoids to treat psychiatric disorders. Preclinical studies suggest that the endocannabinoid system plays a prominent role in modulating feelings of anxiety, mood, and fear. As with opioids and chronic pain management, there is hope that medical cannabis may provide a means of reducing prescription anxiolytics and their associated risks.

The authors of the first systematic review (BMC Psychiatry. 2020 Jan 16;20[1]:24) of the use of medical cannabis for major psychiatric disorders noted that the current evidence was “encouraging, albeit embryonic.”

Meta-analyses have indicated a small but positive association between cannabis use and anxiety, although this may reflect the fact that patients with anxiety sought out this treatment. Given the risks for substance use disorders among patients with anxiety, CBD may present a more viable option. Positive results have been shown as treatment for generalized social anxiety disorder.

Limited but encouraging results have also been reported regarding the alleviation of PTSD symptoms with both cannabis and CBD, although the body of high-quality evidence hasn’t notably progressed since 2017, when NASEM declared that the evidence was insufficient. Supportive evidence is similarly lacking regarding the treatment of depression. Longitudinal studies suggest that cannabis use, particularly heavy use, may increase the risk of developing this disorder. Because THC is psychoactive, it is advised that it be avoided by patients at risk for psychotic disorders. However, CBD has yielded limited benefits for patients with treatment-resistant schizophrenia and for young people at risk for psychosis.

The use of medical cannabis for psychiatric conditions requires a complex balancing act, inasmuch as these treatments may exacerbate the very problems they are intended to alleviate.

Marta Di Forti, MD, PhD, professor of psychiatric research at Kings College London, has been at the forefront of determining the mental health risks of continued cannabis use. In 2019, Dr. Di Forti developed the first and only Cannabis Clinic for Patients With Psychosis in London where she and her colleagues have continued to elucidate this connection.

Dr. Di Forti and colleagues have linked daily cannabis use to an increase in the risk of experiencing psychotic disorder, compared with never using it. That risk was further increased among users of high-potency cannabis (≥10% THC). The latter finding has troubling implications, because concentrations of THC have steadily risen since 1970. By contrast, CBD concentrations have remained generally stable. High-potency cannabis products are common in both recreational and medicinal settings.

“For somebody prescribing medicinal cannabis that has a ≥10% concentration of THC, I’d be particularly wary of the risk of psychosis,” said Dr. Di Forti. “If you’re expecting people to use a high content of THC daily to medicate pain or a chronic condition, you even more so need to be aware that this is a potential side effect.”

Dr. Di Forti noted that her findings come from a cohort of recreational users, most of whom were aged 18-35 years.

“There have actually not been studies developed from collecting data in this area from groups specifically using cannabis for medicinal rather than recreational purposes,” she said.

She added that she personally has no concerns about the use of medical cannabis but wants clinicians to be aware of the risk for psychosis, to structure their patient conversations to identify risk factors or family histories of psychosis, and to become knowledgeable in detecting the often subtle signs of its initial onset.

When cannabis-associated psychosis occurs, Dr. Di Forti said it is primarily treated with conventional means, such as antipsychotics and therapeutic interventions and by refraining from using cannabis. Achieving the latter goal can be a challenge for patients who are daily users of high-potency cannabis. Currently, there are no treatment options such as those offered to patients withdrawing from the use of alcohol or opioids. Dr. Di Forti and colleagues are currently researching a solution to that problem through the use of another medical cannabis, the oromucosal spray Sativex, which has been approved in the European Union.
 

The regulatory obstacles to clarifying cannabis’ role in medicine

That currently there is limited or no evidence to support the use of medical cannabis for the treatment of neuropsychiatric conditions points to the inherent difficulties in conducting high-level research in this area.

“There’s a tremendous shortage of reliable data, largely due to regulatory barriers,” said Dr. Martinez.

Since 1970, cannabis has been listed as a Schedule I drug that is illegal to prescribe (the Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018 removed hemp from such restrictions). The FDA has issued guidance for researchers who wish to investigate treatments using Cannabis sativa or its derivatives in which the THC content is greater than 0.3%. Such research requires regular interactions with several federal agencies, including the Drug Enforcement Administration.

“It’s impossible to do multicenter RCTs with large numbers of patients, because you can’t transport cannabis across state lines,” said Dr. Wallace.

Regulatory restrictions regarding medical cannabis vary considerably throughout the world (the European Monitoring Center for Drugs and Drug Addiction provides a useful breakdown of this on their website). The lack of consistency in regulatory oversight acts as an impediment for conducting large-scale international multicenter studies on the topic.

Dr. Buhmann noted that, in Germany, cannabis has been broadly approved for treatment-resistant conditions with severe symptoms that impair quality of life. In addition, it is easy to be reimbursed for the use of cannabis as a medical treatment. These factors serve as disincentives for the funding of high-quality studies.

“It’s likely that no pharmaceutical company will do an expensive RCT to get an approval for Parkinson’s disease because it is already possible to prescribe medical cannabis of any type of THC-containing cannabinoid, dose, or route of application,” Dr. Buhmann said.

In the face of such restrictions and barriers, researchers are turning to ambitious real-world data projects to better understand medical cannabis’ efficacy and safety. A notable example is ProjectTwenty21, which is supported by the Royal College of Psychiatrists. The project is collecting outcomes of the use of medical cannabis among 20,000 U.K. patients whose conventional treatments of chronic pain, anxiety disorder, epilepsy, multiple sclerosis, PTSD, substance use disorder, and Tourette syndrome failed.

Dr. Freedman noted that the continued lack of high-quality data creates a void that commercial interests fill with unfounded claims.

“The danger is that patients might abandon a medication or intervention backed by robust science in favor of something without any science or evidence behind it,” he said. “There is no reason not to expect the same level of data for claims about cannabis products as we would expect from pharmaceutical products.”

Getting to that point, however, will require that the authorities governing clinical trials begin to view cannabis as the research community does, as a possible treatment with potential value, rather than as an illicit drug that needs to be tamped down.

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

Second-line treatment with sintilimab improved survival, when compared with docetaxel, in patients with advanced/metastatic squamous non–small cell lung cancer (sqNSCLC) in a phase 3 trial.

Sintilimab improved both overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS), according to Yuankai Shi, MD, of the Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences & Peking Union Medical College in Beijing.

Dr. Shi presented these findings, from the ORIENT-3 study, at the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2021: Week 1 (Abstract CT041).

ORIENT-3 enrolled and randomized 290 patients with stage IIIB/IIIC or IV sqNSCLC and disease progression during or after first-line platimum-based chemotherapy. They were randomized 1:1 to receive sintilimab at 200 mg or docetaxel at 75 mg/m²intravenously every 3 weeks until disease progression or intolerable toxicity.

The median age was 60 years in the sintilimab arm and 61 years in the docetaxel arm. A majority of patients were men (94% in the sintilimab arm and 90% in the docetaxel arm), most were current or former smokers (90% and 80%, respectively), and more than three-quarters had an ECOG performance status of 1 (76% and 77%, respectively). More than half of patients had a PD-L1 tumor proportion score (TPS) of 1% or greater (57% and 47%, respectively), and 81% of patients in both arms had stage IV disease.

Results: Survival and safety

Patients in the sintilimab arm received a median of 8.0 cycles of therapy (range, 1-45), and those in the docetaxel arm received a median of 2.0 cycles of therapy (range, 1-15).

At a median follow-up of 23.56 months, the median OS was significantly longer in the sintilimab arm than in the docetaxel arm – 11.79 months and 8.25 months, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.74; P = .02489). OS benefits were generally consistent across subgroups.

The secondary endpoints of PFS and objective response rate also favored sintilimab, Dr. Shi reported.

The median PFS was 4.30 months in the sintilimab arm and 2.79 months in the docetaxel arm (HR, 0.52; P < .00001). Confirmed objective response rates were 25.5% and 2.2%, respectively; the median duration of response was 12.45 months and 4.14 months, respectively; and disease control rates were 65.5% and 37.8%, respectively.

“Sintilimab had a favorable safety profile over docetaxel, with a lower frequency of grade 3 or higher treatment-related adverse events, with no new safety signals observed,” Dr. Shi said.

Treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) occurred in 84.7% of patients receiving sintilimab and 83.1% of those receiving docetaxel. Hypothyroidism was the most common TRAE in the sintilimab arm (18.1%), and alopecia was the most common TRAE in the docetaxel arm (34.6%).

Grade 3 or higher TRAEs were less frequent in the sintilimab arm than in the docetaxel arm (18.1% vs. 36.2%). Rates of discontinuation because of TRAEs were 12.5% and 5.4% in the sintilimab and docetaxel arms, respectively. TRAEs leading to death occurred in five patients in the sintilimab arm and one in the docetaxel arm.

Use in the real world

Noting sintilimab’s significant OS and PFS benefits as well as superior response rate and duration of response, Dr. Shi concluded, “Sintilimab might provide an alternative second-line treatment option for advanced and metastatic sqNSCLC.”

AACR moderator Marina Garassino, MD, of the University of Chicago, commented on the potential utility of sintilimab and tislelizumab, another checkpoint inhibitor that was evaluated in NSCLC in the RATIONALE 303 trial (AACR 2021, Abstract CT039). Dr. Garassino observed that both drugs have demonstrated superiority to docetaxel as second-line therapy in NSCLC.

Although there have been no head-to-head trials, sintilimab and tislelizumab appear to be very similar to the already approved immune checkpoint inhibitors, which are currently being used as first-line treatment.

“That similarity would make them inappropriate for second-line treatment, except in countries where immune checkpoint inhibitors are not yet approved for first-line therapy,” Dr. Garassino noted.

When asked to comment on the higher treatment-related death rate observed with sintilimab, Dr. Garassino said, “We need to remember that these drugs were developed in China with a population that may have a side effect profile differing from that of a Western population. Also, we are very familiar with this class of drugs and know how to treat their side effects. Similar drugs but different populations and different trials, so it’s very hard to judge.”

Dr. Garassino speculated that with the “super expensive” price tags on the new checkpoint inhibitors, having additional agents that could provide choice and drive prices down would be welcome.

ORIENT-3 was funded by Innovent Biologics and Eli Lilly. Dr. Shi disclosed consultancy for Innovent Biologics. Dr. Garassino disclosed relationships with Eli Lilly, AstraZeneca, Novartis, and several other companies, not including Innovent Biologics.

Second-line treatment with sintilimab improved survival, when compared with docetaxel, in patients with advanced/metastatic squamous non–small cell lung cancer (sqNSCLC) in a phase 3 trial.

Sintilimab improved both overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS), according to Yuankai Shi, MD, of the Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences & Peking Union Medical College in Beijing.

Dr. Shi presented these findings, from the ORIENT-3 study, at the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2021: Week 1 (Abstract CT041).

ORIENT-3 enrolled and randomized 290 patients with stage IIIB/IIIC or IV sqNSCLC and disease progression during or after first-line platimum-based chemotherapy. They were randomized 1:1 to receive sintilimab at 200 mg or docetaxel at 75 mg/m²intravenously every 3 weeks until disease progression or intolerable toxicity.

The median age was 60 years in the sintilimab arm and 61 years in the docetaxel arm. A majority of patients were men (94% in the sintilimab arm and 90% in the docetaxel arm), most were current or former smokers (90% and 80%, respectively), and more than three-quarters had an ECOG performance status of 1 (76% and 77%, respectively). More than half of patients had a PD-L1 tumor proportion score (TPS) of 1% or greater (57% and 47%, respectively), and 81% of patients in both arms had stage IV disease.

Results: Survival and safety

Patients in the sintilimab arm received a median of 8.0 cycles of therapy (range, 1-45), and those in the docetaxel arm received a median of 2.0 cycles of therapy (range, 1-15).

At a median follow-up of 23.56 months, the median OS was significantly longer in the sintilimab arm than in the docetaxel arm – 11.79 months and 8.25 months, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.74; P = .02489). OS benefits were generally consistent across subgroups.

The secondary endpoints of PFS and objective response rate also favored sintilimab, Dr. Shi reported.

The median PFS was 4.30 months in the sintilimab arm and 2.79 months in the docetaxel arm (HR, 0.52; P < .00001). Confirmed objective response rates were 25.5% and 2.2%, respectively; the median duration of response was 12.45 months and 4.14 months, respectively; and disease control rates were 65.5% and 37.8%, respectively.

“Sintilimab had a favorable safety profile over docetaxel, with a lower frequency of grade 3 or higher treatment-related adverse events, with no new safety signals observed,” Dr. Shi said.

Treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) occurred in 84.7% of patients receiving sintilimab and 83.1% of those receiving docetaxel. Hypothyroidism was the most common TRAE in the sintilimab arm (18.1%), and alopecia was the most common TRAE in the docetaxel arm (34.6%).

Grade 3 or higher TRAEs were less frequent in the sintilimab arm than in the docetaxel arm (18.1% vs. 36.2%). Rates of discontinuation because of TRAEs were 12.5% and 5.4% in the sintilimab and docetaxel arms, respectively. TRAEs leading to death occurred in five patients in the sintilimab arm and one in the docetaxel arm.

Use in the real world

Noting sintilimab’s significant OS and PFS benefits as well as superior response rate and duration of response, Dr. Shi concluded, “Sintilimab might provide an alternative second-line treatment option for advanced and metastatic sqNSCLC.”

AACR moderator Marina Garassino, MD, of the University of Chicago, commented on the potential utility of sintilimab and tislelizumab, another checkpoint inhibitor that was evaluated in NSCLC in the RATIONALE 303 trial (AACR 2021, Abstract CT039). Dr. Garassino observed that both drugs have demonstrated superiority to docetaxel as second-line therapy in NSCLC.

Although there have been no head-to-head trials, sintilimab and tislelizumab appear to be very similar to the already approved immune checkpoint inhibitors, which are currently being used as first-line treatment.

“That similarity would make them inappropriate for second-line treatment, except in countries where immune checkpoint inhibitors are not yet approved for first-line therapy,” Dr. Garassino noted.

When asked to comment on the higher treatment-related death rate observed with sintilimab, Dr. Garassino said, “We need to remember that these drugs were developed in China with a population that may have a side effect profile differing from that of a Western population. Also, we are very familiar with this class of drugs and know how to treat their side effects. Similar drugs but different populations and different trials, so it’s very hard to judge.”

Dr. Garassino speculated that with the “super expensive” price tags on the new checkpoint inhibitors, having additional agents that could provide choice and drive prices down would be welcome.

ORIENT-3 was funded by Innovent Biologics and Eli Lilly. Dr. Shi disclosed consultancy for Innovent Biologics. Dr. Garassino disclosed relationships with Eli Lilly, AstraZeneca, Novartis, and several other companies, not including Innovent Biologics.

Second-line treatment with sintilimab improved survival, when compared with docetaxel, in patients with advanced/metastatic squamous non–small cell lung cancer (sqNSCLC) in a phase 3 trial.

Sintilimab improved both overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS), according to Yuankai Shi, MD, of the Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences & Peking Union Medical College in Beijing.

Dr. Shi presented these findings, from the ORIENT-3 study, at the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2021: Week 1 (Abstract CT041).

ORIENT-3 enrolled and randomized 290 patients with stage IIIB/IIIC or IV sqNSCLC and disease progression during or after first-line platimum-based chemotherapy. They were randomized 1:1 to receive sintilimab at 200 mg or docetaxel at 75 mg/m²intravenously every 3 weeks until disease progression or intolerable toxicity.

The median age was 60 years in the sintilimab arm and 61 years in the docetaxel arm. A majority of patients were men (94% in the sintilimab arm and 90% in the docetaxel arm), most were current or former smokers (90% and 80%, respectively), and more than three-quarters had an ECOG performance status of 1 (76% and 77%, respectively). More than half of patients had a PD-L1 tumor proportion score (TPS) of 1% or greater (57% and 47%, respectively), and 81% of patients in both arms had stage IV disease.

Results: Survival and safety

Patients in the sintilimab arm received a median of 8.0 cycles of therapy (range, 1-45), and those in the docetaxel arm received a median of 2.0 cycles of therapy (range, 1-15).

At a median follow-up of 23.56 months, the median OS was significantly longer in the sintilimab arm than in the docetaxel arm – 11.79 months and 8.25 months, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.74; P = .02489). OS benefits were generally consistent across subgroups.

The secondary endpoints of PFS and objective response rate also favored sintilimab, Dr. Shi reported.

The median PFS was 4.30 months in the sintilimab arm and 2.79 months in the docetaxel arm (HR, 0.52; P < .00001). Confirmed objective response rates were 25.5% and 2.2%, respectively; the median duration of response was 12.45 months and 4.14 months, respectively; and disease control rates were 65.5% and 37.8%, respectively.

“Sintilimab had a favorable safety profile over docetaxel, with a lower frequency of grade 3 or higher treatment-related adverse events, with no new safety signals observed,” Dr. Shi said.

Treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) occurred in 84.7% of patients receiving sintilimab and 83.1% of those receiving docetaxel. Hypothyroidism was the most common TRAE in the sintilimab arm (18.1%), and alopecia was the most common TRAE in the docetaxel arm (34.6%).

Grade 3 or higher TRAEs were less frequent in the sintilimab arm than in the docetaxel arm (18.1% vs. 36.2%). Rates of discontinuation because of TRAEs were 12.5% and 5.4% in the sintilimab and docetaxel arms, respectively. TRAEs leading to death occurred in five patients in the sintilimab arm and one in the docetaxel arm.

Use in the real world

Noting sintilimab’s significant OS and PFS benefits as well as superior response rate and duration of response, Dr. Shi concluded, “Sintilimab might provide an alternative second-line treatment option for advanced and metastatic sqNSCLC.”

AACR moderator Marina Garassino, MD, of the University of Chicago, commented on the potential utility of sintilimab and tislelizumab, another checkpoint inhibitor that was evaluated in NSCLC in the RATIONALE 303 trial (AACR 2021, Abstract CT039). Dr. Garassino observed that both drugs have demonstrated superiority to docetaxel as second-line therapy in NSCLC.

Although there have been no head-to-head trials, sintilimab and tislelizumab appear to be very similar to the already approved immune checkpoint inhibitors, which are currently being used as first-line treatment.

“That similarity would make them inappropriate for second-line treatment, except in countries where immune checkpoint inhibitors are not yet approved for first-line therapy,” Dr. Garassino noted.

When asked to comment on the higher treatment-related death rate observed with sintilimab, Dr. Garassino said, “We need to remember that these drugs were developed in China with a population that may have a side effect profile differing from that of a Western population. Also, we are very familiar with this class of drugs and know how to treat their side effects. Similar drugs but different populations and different trials, so it’s very hard to judge.”

Dr. Garassino speculated that with the “super expensive” price tags on the new checkpoint inhibitors, having additional agents that could provide choice and drive prices down would be welcome.

ORIENT-3 was funded by Innovent Biologics and Eli Lilly. Dr. Shi disclosed consultancy for Innovent Biologics. Dr. Garassino disclosed relationships with Eli Lilly, AstraZeneca, Novartis, and several other companies, not including Innovent Biologics.

Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla, DVM, PhD, says an oral drug the company is developing to treat COVID-19 symptoms could be available to the public by the end of the year.

“If all goes well, and we implement the same speed that we are, and if regulators do the same, and they are, I hope that (it will be available) by the end of the year,” Dr. Bourla said on CNBC’s Squawk Box.

So far, the only antiviral drug authorized for use with COVID-19 is remdesivir, which is produced by Gilead Sciences and must be administered by injection in a health care setting.

An oral drug like the one Pfizer is developing could be taken at home and might keep people out of the hospital.

“Particular attention is on the oral because it provides several advantages,” Dr. Bourla said. “One of them is that you don’t need to go to the hospital to get the treatment, which is the case with all the injectables so far. You could get it at home, and that could be a game-changer.”

The drug might be effective against the emerging variants, he said. Pfizer is also working on an injectable antiviral drug.

Pfizer, with its European partner BioNTech, developed the first coronavirus vaccine authorized for use in the United States and Europe. The Pfizer pill under development would not be a vaccine to protect people from the virus but a drug to treat people who catch the virus.

The company announced in late March that it was starting clinical trials on the oral drug.

In a news release, the company said the oral drug would work by blocking protease, a critical enzyme that the virus needs to replicate. Protease inhibitors are used in medicines to treat HIV and hepatitis C.

A coronavirus vaccine that could be taken as a pill may enter clinical trials in the second quarter of 2021. The oral vaccine is being developed by Oravax Medical, a new joint venture of the Israeli-American company Oramed and the Indian company Premas Biotech. So far, all coronavirus vaccines are injectable.

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

Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla, DVM, PhD, says an oral drug the company is developing to treat COVID-19 symptoms could be available to the public by the end of the year.

“If all goes well, and we implement the same speed that we are, and if regulators do the same, and they are, I hope that (it will be available) by the end of the year,” Dr. Bourla said on CNBC’s Squawk Box.

So far, the only antiviral drug authorized for use with COVID-19 is remdesivir, which is produced by Gilead Sciences and must be administered by injection in a health care setting.

An oral drug like the one Pfizer is developing could be taken at home and might keep people out of the hospital.

“Particular attention is on the oral because it provides several advantages,” Dr. Bourla said. “One of them is that you don’t need to go to the hospital to get the treatment, which is the case with all the injectables so far. You could get it at home, and that could be a game-changer.”

The drug might be effective against the emerging variants, he said. Pfizer is also working on an injectable antiviral drug.

Pfizer, with its European partner BioNTech, developed the first coronavirus vaccine authorized for use in the United States and Europe. The Pfizer pill under development would not be a vaccine to protect people from the virus but a drug to treat people who catch the virus.

The company announced in late March that it was starting clinical trials on the oral drug.

In a news release, the company said the oral drug would work by blocking protease, a critical enzyme that the virus needs to replicate. Protease inhibitors are used in medicines to treat HIV and hepatitis C.

A coronavirus vaccine that could be taken as a pill may enter clinical trials in the second quarter of 2021. The oral vaccine is being developed by Oravax Medical, a new joint venture of the Israeli-American company Oramed and the Indian company Premas Biotech. So far, all coronavirus vaccines are injectable.

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

Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla, DVM, PhD, says an oral drug the company is developing to treat COVID-19 symptoms could be available to the public by the end of the year.

“If all goes well, and we implement the same speed that we are, and if regulators do the same, and they are, I hope that (it will be available) by the end of the year,” Dr. Bourla said on CNBC’s Squawk Box.

So far, the only antiviral drug authorized for use with COVID-19 is remdesivir, which is produced by Gilead Sciences and must be administered by injection in a health care setting.

An oral drug like the one Pfizer is developing could be taken at home and might keep people out of the hospital.

“Particular attention is on the oral because it provides several advantages,” Dr. Bourla said. “One of them is that you don’t need to go to the hospital to get the treatment, which is the case with all the injectables so far. You could get it at home, and that could be a game-changer.”

The drug might be effective against the emerging variants, he said. Pfizer is also working on an injectable antiviral drug.

Pfizer, with its European partner BioNTech, developed the first coronavirus vaccine authorized for use in the United States and Europe. The Pfizer pill under development would not be a vaccine to protect people from the virus but a drug to treat people who catch the virus.

The company announced in late March that it was starting clinical trials on the oral drug.

In a news release, the company said the oral drug would work by blocking protease, a critical enzyme that the virus needs to replicate. Protease inhibitors are used in medicines to treat HIV and hepatitis C.

A coronavirus vaccine that could be taken as a pill may enter clinical trials in the second quarter of 2021. The oral vaccine is being developed by Oravax Medical, a new joint venture of the Israeli-American company Oramed and the Indian company Premas Biotech. So far, all coronavirus vaccines are injectable.

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