Pharmacology

Adding 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA) to integrative psychotherapy may significantly improve symptoms and well-being for patients with severe posttraumatic stress disorder, including those with the dissociative subtype, new research suggests.

MAPP1 is the first phase 3 randomized controlled trial of MDMA-assisted therapy in this population. Participants who received the active treatment showed greater improvement in PTSD symptoms, mood, and empathy in comparison with participants who received placebo.

MDMA was “extremely effective, particularly for a subpopulation that ordinarily does not respond well to conventional treatment,” study coinvestigator Bessel van der Kolk, MD, professor of psychiatry at Boston University School of Medicine, told delegates attending the virtual European Psychiatric Association (EPA) 2021 Congress.
 

Growing interest

In recent years, there has been a great deal of interest in the potential of MDMA for the treatment of PTSD, particularly because failure rates with most available evidence-based treatments have been relatively high.

As previously reported by this news organization, in 2017, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved the trial design of Dr. van der Kolk’s and colleagues’ MAPP1 study after granting MDMA breakthrough designation.

The MAPP1 investigators assessed 90 patients with PTSD (mean age, 41 years; 77% White; 66% women) from 50 sites. For the majority of patients (84%), trauma history was developmental. “In other words, trauma [occurred] very early in life, usually at the hands of their own caregivers,” Dr. van der Kolk noted.

In addition, 18% of the patients were veterans, and 12% had combat exposure. The average duration of PTSD before enrollment was 18 years. All patients underwent screening and three preparatory psychotherapy sessions at enrollment.

Participants were randomly assigned to receive MDMA 80 mg or 120 mg (n = 46) or placebo (n = 44) followed by three integrative psychotherapy sessions lasting a total of 8 hours. A supplemental dose of 40 or 60 mg of MDMA could be administered from 1.5 to 2 hours after the first dose.

The patients stayed in the laboratory on the evening of the treatment session and attended a debriefing the next morning. The session was repeated a month later and again a month after that. In between, patients had telephone contact with the raters, who were blinded to the treatment received.

Follow-up assessments were conducted 2 months after the third treatment session and again at 12 months. The primary outcome measure was change in Clinician Administered PTSD Scale for DSM 5 (CAPS-5) score from baseline.
 

‘Dramatic improvement’

Results showed that both the MDMA and placebo groups experienced a statistically significant improvement in PTSD symptoms, “but MDMA had a dramatically significant improvement, with an effect size of over 0.9,” Dr. van der Kolk said.

The MDMA group also reported enhanced mood and well-being, increased responsiveness to emotional and sensory stimuli, a greater sense of closeness to other people, and a greater feeling of empathy.

Patients also reported having heightened openness, “and clearly the issue of empathy for themselves and others was a very large part of the process,” said Dr. van der Kolk.

“But for me, the most interesting part of the study is that the Adverse Childhood Experiences scale had no effect,” he noted. In other words, “the amount of childhood adverse experiences did not predict outcomes, which was very surprising because usually those patients are very treatment resistant.”

Dr. van der Kolk added that the dissociative subtype of PTSD was first described in the DSM-5 and that patients are “notoriously unresponsive to most unconventional treatments.”

In the current study, 13 patients met the criteria for the subtype, and investigators found they “did better than people with classical PTSD,” Dr. van der Kolk said. He added that this is a “very, very important finding.”
 

Carefully controlled

Overall, 82% of patients reported a significant improvement by the end of the study; 56% reported that they no longer had PTSD.

In addition, 67% of patients no longer met diagnostic criteria for PTSD. These included patients who had crossed over to active treatment from the placebo group.

Eleven patients (12%) experienced relapse by 12 months; in nine of the cases, this was due to the presence of additional stressors.

There were “very few adverse side effects” during the study, Dr. van der Kolk noted. In addition, “there were really no serious mental side effects,” despite the patients’ “opening up so much very painful material,” he added.

The most common adverse events among the MDMA group were muscle tightness (63%), decreased appetite (52%), nausea (30%), hyperhidrosis (20%), and feeling cold (20%). These effects were “quite small [and] the sort of side effects you would expect in response to an amphetamine substance like MDMA,” said Dr. van der Kolk.

“An important reason why we think the side effect profile is so good is because the study was extremely carefully done, very carefully controlled,” he added. “There was a great deal of support, [and] we paid an enormous amount of attention to creating a very safe context in which this drug was being used.”

However, he expressed concern that “as people see the very good results, they may skimp a little bit on the creation of the context and not have as careful a psychotherapy protocol as we had here.”
 

‘On the right track’

Commenting on the findings for this news organization, David Nutt, MD, PhD, Edmond J. Safra Professor of Neuropsychopharmacology, Imperial College London, said the results are proof that the investigators’ “earlier smaller trials of MDMA were on the right track.”

“This larger and multicenter trial shows that MDMA therapy can be broadened into newer research groups, which augurs well for the much larger rollout that will be required once it gets a license,” said Dr. Nutt, who was not involved with the research.

He added, “the prior evidence of the safety of MDMA has [now] been confirmed.”

The study represents an “important step in the path to the clinical use of MDMA for PTSD,” Dr. Nutt said.

The study was sponsored by the Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies. The investigators and Dr. Nutt have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Adding 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA) to integrative psychotherapy may significantly improve symptoms and well-being for patients with severe posttraumatic stress disorder, including those with the dissociative subtype, new research suggests.

MAPP1 is the first phase 3 randomized controlled trial of MDMA-assisted therapy in this population. Participants who received the active treatment showed greater improvement in PTSD symptoms, mood, and empathy in comparison with participants who received placebo.

MDMA was “extremely effective, particularly for a subpopulation that ordinarily does not respond well to conventional treatment,” study coinvestigator Bessel van der Kolk, MD, professor of psychiatry at Boston University School of Medicine, told delegates attending the virtual European Psychiatric Association (EPA) 2021 Congress.
 

Growing interest

In recent years, there has been a great deal of interest in the potential of MDMA for the treatment of PTSD, particularly because failure rates with most available evidence-based treatments have been relatively high.

As previously reported by this news organization, in 2017, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved the trial design of Dr. van der Kolk’s and colleagues’ MAPP1 study after granting MDMA breakthrough designation.

The MAPP1 investigators assessed 90 patients with PTSD (mean age, 41 years; 77% White; 66% women) from 50 sites. For the majority of patients (84%), trauma history was developmental. “In other words, trauma [occurred] very early in life, usually at the hands of their own caregivers,” Dr. van der Kolk noted.

In addition, 18% of the patients were veterans, and 12% had combat exposure. The average duration of PTSD before enrollment was 18 years. All patients underwent screening and three preparatory psychotherapy sessions at enrollment.

Participants were randomly assigned to receive MDMA 80 mg or 120 mg (n = 46) or placebo (n = 44) followed by three integrative psychotherapy sessions lasting a total of 8 hours. A supplemental dose of 40 or 60 mg of MDMA could be administered from 1.5 to 2 hours after the first dose.

The patients stayed in the laboratory on the evening of the treatment session and attended a debriefing the next morning. The session was repeated a month later and again a month after that. In between, patients had telephone contact with the raters, who were blinded to the treatment received.

Follow-up assessments were conducted 2 months after the third treatment session and again at 12 months. The primary outcome measure was change in Clinician Administered PTSD Scale for DSM 5 (CAPS-5) score from baseline.
 

‘Dramatic improvement’

Results showed that both the MDMA and placebo groups experienced a statistically significant improvement in PTSD symptoms, “but MDMA had a dramatically significant improvement, with an effect size of over 0.9,” Dr. van der Kolk said.

The MDMA group also reported enhanced mood and well-being, increased responsiveness to emotional and sensory stimuli, a greater sense of closeness to other people, and a greater feeling of empathy.

Patients also reported having heightened openness, “and clearly the issue of empathy for themselves and others was a very large part of the process,” said Dr. van der Kolk.

“But for me, the most interesting part of the study is that the Adverse Childhood Experiences scale had no effect,” he noted. In other words, “the amount of childhood adverse experiences did not predict outcomes, which was very surprising because usually those patients are very treatment resistant.”

Dr. van der Kolk added that the dissociative subtype of PTSD was first described in the DSM-5 and that patients are “notoriously unresponsive to most unconventional treatments.”

In the current study, 13 patients met the criteria for the subtype, and investigators found they “did better than people with classical PTSD,” Dr. van der Kolk said. He added that this is a “very, very important finding.”
 

Carefully controlled

Overall, 82% of patients reported a significant improvement by the end of the study; 56% reported that they no longer had PTSD.

In addition, 67% of patients no longer met diagnostic criteria for PTSD. These included patients who had crossed over to active treatment from the placebo group.

Eleven patients (12%) experienced relapse by 12 months; in nine of the cases, this was due to the presence of additional stressors.

There were “very few adverse side effects” during the study, Dr. van der Kolk noted. In addition, “there were really no serious mental side effects,” despite the patients’ “opening up so much very painful material,” he added.

The most common adverse events among the MDMA group were muscle tightness (63%), decreased appetite (52%), nausea (30%), hyperhidrosis (20%), and feeling cold (20%). These effects were “quite small [and] the sort of side effects you would expect in response to an amphetamine substance like MDMA,” said Dr. van der Kolk.

“An important reason why we think the side effect profile is so good is because the study was extremely carefully done, very carefully controlled,” he added. “There was a great deal of support, [and] we paid an enormous amount of attention to creating a very safe context in which this drug was being used.”

However, he expressed concern that “as people see the very good results, they may skimp a little bit on the creation of the context and not have as careful a psychotherapy protocol as we had here.”
 

‘On the right track’

Commenting on the findings for this news organization, David Nutt, MD, PhD, Edmond J. Safra Professor of Neuropsychopharmacology, Imperial College London, said the results are proof that the investigators’ “earlier smaller trials of MDMA were on the right track.”

“This larger and multicenter trial shows that MDMA therapy can be broadened into newer research groups, which augurs well for the much larger rollout that will be required once it gets a license,” said Dr. Nutt, who was not involved with the research.

He added, “the prior evidence of the safety of MDMA has [now] been confirmed.”

The study represents an “important step in the path to the clinical use of MDMA for PTSD,” Dr. Nutt said.

The study was sponsored by the Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies. The investigators and Dr. Nutt have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Adding 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA) to integrative psychotherapy may significantly improve symptoms and well-being for patients with severe posttraumatic stress disorder, including those with the dissociative subtype, new research suggests.

MAPP1 is the first phase 3 randomized controlled trial of MDMA-assisted therapy in this population. Participants who received the active treatment showed greater improvement in PTSD symptoms, mood, and empathy in comparison with participants who received placebo.

MDMA was “extremely effective, particularly for a subpopulation that ordinarily does not respond well to conventional treatment,” study coinvestigator Bessel van der Kolk, MD, professor of psychiatry at Boston University School of Medicine, told delegates attending the virtual European Psychiatric Association (EPA) 2021 Congress.
 

Growing interest

In recent years, there has been a great deal of interest in the potential of MDMA for the treatment of PTSD, particularly because failure rates with most available evidence-based treatments have been relatively high.

As previously reported by this news organization, in 2017, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved the trial design of Dr. van der Kolk’s and colleagues’ MAPP1 study after granting MDMA breakthrough designation.

The MAPP1 investigators assessed 90 patients with PTSD (mean age, 41 years; 77% White; 66% women) from 50 sites. For the majority of patients (84%), trauma history was developmental. “In other words, trauma [occurred] very early in life, usually at the hands of their own caregivers,” Dr. van der Kolk noted.

In addition, 18% of the patients were veterans, and 12% had combat exposure. The average duration of PTSD before enrollment was 18 years. All patients underwent screening and three preparatory psychotherapy sessions at enrollment.

Participants were randomly assigned to receive MDMA 80 mg or 120 mg (n = 46) or placebo (n = 44) followed by three integrative psychotherapy sessions lasting a total of 8 hours. A supplemental dose of 40 or 60 mg of MDMA could be administered from 1.5 to 2 hours after the first dose.

The patients stayed in the laboratory on the evening of the treatment session and attended a debriefing the next morning. The session was repeated a month later and again a month after that. In between, patients had telephone contact with the raters, who were blinded to the treatment received.

Follow-up assessments were conducted 2 months after the third treatment session and again at 12 months. The primary outcome measure was change in Clinician Administered PTSD Scale for DSM 5 (CAPS-5) score from baseline.
 

‘Dramatic improvement’

Results showed that both the MDMA and placebo groups experienced a statistically significant improvement in PTSD symptoms, “but MDMA had a dramatically significant improvement, with an effect size of over 0.9,” Dr. van der Kolk said.

The MDMA group also reported enhanced mood and well-being, increased responsiveness to emotional and sensory stimuli, a greater sense of closeness to other people, and a greater feeling of empathy.

Patients also reported having heightened openness, “and clearly the issue of empathy for themselves and others was a very large part of the process,” said Dr. van der Kolk.

“But for me, the most interesting part of the study is that the Adverse Childhood Experiences scale had no effect,” he noted. In other words, “the amount of childhood adverse experiences did not predict outcomes, which was very surprising because usually those patients are very treatment resistant.”

Dr. van der Kolk added that the dissociative subtype of PTSD was first described in the DSM-5 and that patients are “notoriously unresponsive to most unconventional treatments.”

In the current study, 13 patients met the criteria for the subtype, and investigators found they “did better than people with classical PTSD,” Dr. van der Kolk said. He added that this is a “very, very important finding.”
 

Carefully controlled

Overall, 82% of patients reported a significant improvement by the end of the study; 56% reported that they no longer had PTSD.

In addition, 67% of patients no longer met diagnostic criteria for PTSD. These included patients who had crossed over to active treatment from the placebo group.

Eleven patients (12%) experienced relapse by 12 months; in nine of the cases, this was due to the presence of additional stressors.

There were “very few adverse side effects” during the study, Dr. van der Kolk noted. In addition, “there were really no serious mental side effects,” despite the patients’ “opening up so much very painful material,” he added.

The most common adverse events among the MDMA group were muscle tightness (63%), decreased appetite (52%), nausea (30%), hyperhidrosis (20%), and feeling cold (20%). These effects were “quite small [and] the sort of side effects you would expect in response to an amphetamine substance like MDMA,” said Dr. van der Kolk.

“An important reason why we think the side effect profile is so good is because the study was extremely carefully done, very carefully controlled,” he added. “There was a great deal of support, [and] we paid an enormous amount of attention to creating a very safe context in which this drug was being used.”

However, he expressed concern that “as people see the very good results, they may skimp a little bit on the creation of the context and not have as careful a psychotherapy protocol as we had here.”
 

‘On the right track’

Commenting on the findings for this news organization, David Nutt, MD, PhD, Edmond J. Safra Professor of Neuropsychopharmacology, Imperial College London, said the results are proof that the investigators’ “earlier smaller trials of MDMA were on the right track.”

“This larger and multicenter trial shows that MDMA therapy can be broadened into newer research groups, which augurs well for the much larger rollout that will be required once it gets a license,” said Dr. Nutt, who was not involved with the research.

He added, “the prior evidence of the safety of MDMA has [now] been confirmed.”

The study represents an “important step in the path to the clinical use of MDMA for PTSD,” Dr. Nutt said.

The study was sponsored by the Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies. The investigators and Dr. Nutt have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

An antibiotic course of 5 days is usually just as effective as longer courses but with fewer side effects and decreased overall antibiotic exposure for a number of common bacterial conditions, according to new clinical guidelines published by the American College of Physicians.

The guidelines focus on treatment of uncomplicated cases involving pneumonia, urinary tract infections (UTIs), cellulitis, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) exacerbations, and acute bronchitis. The goal of the guidelines is to continue improving antibiotic stewardship given the increasing threat of antibiotic resistance and the adverse effects of antibiotics.

“Any use of antibiotics (including necessary use) has downstream effects outside of treating infection,” Dawn Nolt, MD, MPH, a professor of pediatric infection disease at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, said in an interview. Dr. Nolt was not involved in developing these guidelines. “Undesirable outcomes include allergic reactions, diarrhea, and antibiotic-resistant bacteria. When we reduce unnecessary antibiotic, we reduce undesirable outcomes,” she said.

According to background information in the paper, 1 in 10 patients receives an antibiotic prescription during visits, yet nearly a third of these (30%) are unnecessary and last too long, especially for sinusitis and bronchitis. Meanwhile, overuse of antibiotics, particularly broad-spectrum ones, leads to resistance and adverse effects in up to 20% of patients.

“Prescribing practices can vary based on the type of provider, the setting where the antibiotic is being prescribed, what geographic area you are looking at, the medical reason for which the antibiotic is being prescribed, the actual germ being targeted, and the type of patient,” Dr. Nolt said. “But this variability can be reduced when prescribing providers are aware and follow best practice standards as through this article.”

The new ACP guidelines are a distillation of recommendations from preexisting infectious disease organizations, Dr. Nolt said, but aimed specifically at those practicing internal medicine.

“We define appropriate antibiotic use as prescribing the right antibiotic at the right dose for the right duration for a specific condition,” Rachael A. Lee, MD, MSPH, of the University of Alabama at Birmingham, and colleagues wrote in the article detailing the new guidelines. “Despite evidence and guidelines supporting shorter durations of antibiotic use, many physicians do not prescribe short-course therapy, frequently defaulting to 10-day courses regardless of the condition.”

The reasons for this default response vary. Though some clinicians prescribe longer courses specifically to prevent antibiotic resistance, no evidence shows that continuing to take antibiotics after symptoms have resolved actually reduces likelihood of resistance, the authors noted.

“In fact, resistance is a documented side effect of prolonged antibiotic use due to natural selection pressure,” they wrote.

Another common reason is habit.

“This was the ‘conventional wisdom’ for so long, just trying to make sure all bacteria causing the infection were completely eradicated, with no stragglers that had been exposed to the antibiotic but were not gone and now could evolve into resistant organisms,” Jacqueline W. Fincher, MD, a primary care physician and president of the ACP, said in an interview. “While antibiotic stewardship has been very important for over a decade, we now have more recent head-to-head studies/data showing that, in these four conditions, shorter courses of treatment are just as efficacious with less side effects and adverse events.”

The researchers reviewed all existing clinical guidelines related to bronchitis with COPD exacerbations, community-acquired pneumonia, UTIs, and cellulitis, as well as any other relevant studies in the literature. Although they did not conduct a formal systematic review, they compiled the guidelines specifically for all internists, family physicians and other clinicians caring for patients with these conditions.

“Although most patients with these infections will be seen in the outpatient setting, these best-practice advice statements also apply to patients who present in the inpatient setting,” the authors wrote. They also note the importance of ensuring the patient has the correct diagnosis and appropriate corresponding antibiotic prescription. “If a patient is not improving with appropriate antibiotics, it is important for the clinician to reassess for other causes of symptoms rather than defaulting to a longer duration of antibiotic therapy,” they wrote, calling a longer course “the exception and not the rule.”
 

Acute bronchitis with COPD exacerbations

Antibiotic treatment for COPD exacerbations and acute uncomplicated bronchitis with signs of a bacterial infection should last no longer than 5 days. The authors define this condition as an acute respiratory infection with a normal chest x-ray, most often caused by a virus. Although patients with bronchitis do not automatically need antibiotics if there’s no evidence of pneumonia, the authors did advise antibiotics in cases involving COPD and a high likelihood of bacterial infection. Clinicians should base their choice of antibiotics on the most common bacterial etiology: Haemophilus influenzae, Streptococcus pneumoniae, and Moraxella catarrhalis. Ideal candidates for therapy may include aminopenicillin with clavulanic acid, a macrolide, or a tetracycline.

Community-acquired pneumonia

The initial course of antibiotics should be at least 5 days for pneumonia and only extended after considering validated evidence of the patient’s clinical stability, such as resuming normal vital signs, mental activity, and the ability to eat. Multiple randomized, controlled trials have shown no improved benefit from longer courses, though longer courses are linked to increased adverse events and mortality.

Again, antibiotics used should “cover common pathogens, such as S. pneumoniae, H. influenzae, Mycoplasma pneumoniae, and Staphylococcus aureus, and atypical pathogens, such as Legionella species,” the authors wrote. Options include “amoxicillin, doxycycline, or a macrolide for healthy adults or a beta-lactam with a macrolide or a respiratory fluoroquinolone in patients with comorbidities.”
 

UTIs: Uncomplicated cystitis and pyelonephritis

For women’s bacterial cystitis – 75% of which is caused by Escherichia coli – the guidelines recommend nitrofurantoin for 5 days, trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole for 3 days, or fosfomycin as a single dose. For uncomplicated pyelonephritis in both men and women, clinicians can consider fluoroquinolones for 5-7 days or trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole for 14 days, depending on antibiotic susceptibility.

This recommendation does not include UTIs in women who are pregnant or UTIs with other functional abnormalities present, such as obstruction. The authors also intentionally left out acute bacterial prostatitis because of its complexity and how long it can take to treat.
 

Cellulitis

MRSA, which has been increasing in prevalence, is a leading cause of skin and soft-tissue infections, such as necrotizing infections, cellulitis, and erysipelas. Unless the patient has penetrating trauma, evidence of MRSA infection elsewhere, injection drug use, nasal colonization of MRSA, or systemic inflammatory response syndrome, the guidelines recommend a 5- to 6-day course of cephalosporin, penicillin, or clindamycin, extended only if the infection has not improved in 5 days. Further research can narrow down the most appropriate treatment course.

This guidance does not apply to purulent cellulitis, such as conditions with abscesses, furuncles, or carbuncles that typically require incision and drainage.
 

Continuing to get the message out

Dr. Fincher emphasized the importance of continuing to disseminate messaging for clinicians about reducing unnecessary antibiotic use.

“In medicine we are constantly bombarded with new information. It is those patients and disease states that we see and treat every day that are especially important for us as physicians and other clinicians to keep our skills and knowledge base up to date when it comes to use of antibiotics,” Dr. Fincher said in an interview. “We just need to continue to educate and push out the data, guidelines, and recommendations.”

Dr. Nolt added that it’s important to emphasize how to translate these national recommendations into local practices since local guidance can also raise awareness and encourage local compliance.

Other strategies for reducing overuse of antibiotics “include restriction on antibiotics available at health care systems (formulary restriction), not allowing use of antibiotics unless there is discussion about the patient’s case (preauthorization), and reviewing cases of patients on antibiotics and advising on next steps (prospective audit and feedback),” she said.

The research was funded by the ACP. Dr. Lee has received personal fees from this news organization and Prime Education. Dr. Fincher owns stock in Johnson & Johnson and Procter and Gamble. Dr. Nolt and the article’s coauthors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

An antibiotic course of 5 days is usually just as effective as longer courses but with fewer side effects and decreased overall antibiotic exposure for a number of common bacterial conditions, according to new clinical guidelines published by the American College of Physicians.

The guidelines focus on treatment of uncomplicated cases involving pneumonia, urinary tract infections (UTIs), cellulitis, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) exacerbations, and acute bronchitis. The goal of the guidelines is to continue improving antibiotic stewardship given the increasing threat of antibiotic resistance and the adverse effects of antibiotics.

“Any use of antibiotics (including necessary use) has downstream effects outside of treating infection,” Dawn Nolt, MD, MPH, a professor of pediatric infection disease at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, said in an interview. Dr. Nolt was not involved in developing these guidelines. “Undesirable outcomes include allergic reactions, diarrhea, and antibiotic-resistant bacteria. When we reduce unnecessary antibiotic, we reduce undesirable outcomes,” she said.

According to background information in the paper, 1 in 10 patients receives an antibiotic prescription during visits, yet nearly a third of these (30%) are unnecessary and last too long, especially for sinusitis and bronchitis. Meanwhile, overuse of antibiotics, particularly broad-spectrum ones, leads to resistance and adverse effects in up to 20% of patients.

“Prescribing practices can vary based on the type of provider, the setting where the antibiotic is being prescribed, what geographic area you are looking at, the medical reason for which the antibiotic is being prescribed, the actual germ being targeted, and the type of patient,” Dr. Nolt said. “But this variability can be reduced when prescribing providers are aware and follow best practice standards as through this article.”

The new ACP guidelines are a distillation of recommendations from preexisting infectious disease organizations, Dr. Nolt said, but aimed specifically at those practicing internal medicine.

“We define appropriate antibiotic use as prescribing the right antibiotic at the right dose for the right duration for a specific condition,” Rachael A. Lee, MD, MSPH, of the University of Alabama at Birmingham, and colleagues wrote in the article detailing the new guidelines. “Despite evidence and guidelines supporting shorter durations of antibiotic use, many physicians do not prescribe short-course therapy, frequently defaulting to 10-day courses regardless of the condition.”

The reasons for this default response vary. Though some clinicians prescribe longer courses specifically to prevent antibiotic resistance, no evidence shows that continuing to take antibiotics after symptoms have resolved actually reduces likelihood of resistance, the authors noted.

“In fact, resistance is a documented side effect of prolonged antibiotic use due to natural selection pressure,” they wrote.

Another common reason is habit.

“This was the ‘conventional wisdom’ for so long, just trying to make sure all bacteria causing the infection were completely eradicated, with no stragglers that had been exposed to the antibiotic but were not gone and now could evolve into resistant organisms,” Jacqueline W. Fincher, MD, a primary care physician and president of the ACP, said in an interview. “While antibiotic stewardship has been very important for over a decade, we now have more recent head-to-head studies/data showing that, in these four conditions, shorter courses of treatment are just as efficacious with less side effects and adverse events.”

The researchers reviewed all existing clinical guidelines related to bronchitis with COPD exacerbations, community-acquired pneumonia, UTIs, and cellulitis, as well as any other relevant studies in the literature. Although they did not conduct a formal systematic review, they compiled the guidelines specifically for all internists, family physicians and other clinicians caring for patients with these conditions.

“Although most patients with these infections will be seen in the outpatient setting, these best-practice advice statements also apply to patients who present in the inpatient setting,” the authors wrote. They also note the importance of ensuring the patient has the correct diagnosis and appropriate corresponding antibiotic prescription. “If a patient is not improving with appropriate antibiotics, it is important for the clinician to reassess for other causes of symptoms rather than defaulting to a longer duration of antibiotic therapy,” they wrote, calling a longer course “the exception and not the rule.”
 

Acute bronchitis with COPD exacerbations

Antibiotic treatment for COPD exacerbations and acute uncomplicated bronchitis with signs of a bacterial infection should last no longer than 5 days. The authors define this condition as an acute respiratory infection with a normal chest x-ray, most often caused by a virus. Although patients with bronchitis do not automatically need antibiotics if there’s no evidence of pneumonia, the authors did advise antibiotics in cases involving COPD and a high likelihood of bacterial infection. Clinicians should base their choice of antibiotics on the most common bacterial etiology: Haemophilus influenzae, Streptococcus pneumoniae, and Moraxella catarrhalis. Ideal candidates for therapy may include aminopenicillin with clavulanic acid, a macrolide, or a tetracycline.

Community-acquired pneumonia

The initial course of antibiotics should be at least 5 days for pneumonia and only extended after considering validated evidence of the patient’s clinical stability, such as resuming normal vital signs, mental activity, and the ability to eat. Multiple randomized, controlled trials have shown no improved benefit from longer courses, though longer courses are linked to increased adverse events and mortality.

Again, antibiotics used should “cover common pathogens, such as S. pneumoniae, H. influenzae, Mycoplasma pneumoniae, and Staphylococcus aureus, and atypical pathogens, such as Legionella species,” the authors wrote. Options include “amoxicillin, doxycycline, or a macrolide for healthy adults or a beta-lactam with a macrolide or a respiratory fluoroquinolone in patients with comorbidities.”
 

UTIs: Uncomplicated cystitis and pyelonephritis

For women’s bacterial cystitis – 75% of which is caused by Escherichia coli – the guidelines recommend nitrofurantoin for 5 days, trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole for 3 days, or fosfomycin as a single dose. For uncomplicated pyelonephritis in both men and women, clinicians can consider fluoroquinolones for 5-7 days or trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole for 14 days, depending on antibiotic susceptibility.

This recommendation does not include UTIs in women who are pregnant or UTIs with other functional abnormalities present, such as obstruction. The authors also intentionally left out acute bacterial prostatitis because of its complexity and how long it can take to treat.
 

Cellulitis

MRSA, which has been increasing in prevalence, is a leading cause of skin and soft-tissue infections, such as necrotizing infections, cellulitis, and erysipelas. Unless the patient has penetrating trauma, evidence of MRSA infection elsewhere, injection drug use, nasal colonization of MRSA, or systemic inflammatory response syndrome, the guidelines recommend a 5- to 6-day course of cephalosporin, penicillin, or clindamycin, extended only if the infection has not improved in 5 days. Further research can narrow down the most appropriate treatment course.

This guidance does not apply to purulent cellulitis, such as conditions with abscesses, furuncles, or carbuncles that typically require incision and drainage.
 

Continuing to get the message out

Dr. Fincher emphasized the importance of continuing to disseminate messaging for clinicians about reducing unnecessary antibiotic use.

“In medicine we are constantly bombarded with new information. It is those patients and disease states that we see and treat every day that are especially important for us as physicians and other clinicians to keep our skills and knowledge base up to date when it comes to use of antibiotics,” Dr. Fincher said in an interview. “We just need to continue to educate and push out the data, guidelines, and recommendations.”

Dr. Nolt added that it’s important to emphasize how to translate these national recommendations into local practices since local guidance can also raise awareness and encourage local compliance.

Other strategies for reducing overuse of antibiotics “include restriction on antibiotics available at health care systems (formulary restriction), not allowing use of antibiotics unless there is discussion about the patient’s case (preauthorization), and reviewing cases of patients on antibiotics and advising on next steps (prospective audit and feedback),” she said.

The research was funded by the ACP. Dr. Lee has received personal fees from this news organization and Prime Education. Dr. Fincher owns stock in Johnson & Johnson and Procter and Gamble. Dr. Nolt and the article’s coauthors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

An antibiotic course of 5 days is usually just as effective as longer courses but with fewer side effects and decreased overall antibiotic exposure for a number of common bacterial conditions, according to new clinical guidelines published by the American College of Physicians.

The guidelines focus on treatment of uncomplicated cases involving pneumonia, urinary tract infections (UTIs), cellulitis, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) exacerbations, and acute bronchitis. The goal of the guidelines is to continue improving antibiotic stewardship given the increasing threat of antibiotic resistance and the adverse effects of antibiotics.

“Any use of antibiotics (including necessary use) has downstream effects outside of treating infection,” Dawn Nolt, MD, MPH, a professor of pediatric infection disease at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, said in an interview. Dr. Nolt was not involved in developing these guidelines. “Undesirable outcomes include allergic reactions, diarrhea, and antibiotic-resistant bacteria. When we reduce unnecessary antibiotic, we reduce undesirable outcomes,” she said.

According to background information in the paper, 1 in 10 patients receives an antibiotic prescription during visits, yet nearly a third of these (30%) are unnecessary and last too long, especially for sinusitis and bronchitis. Meanwhile, overuse of antibiotics, particularly broad-spectrum ones, leads to resistance and adverse effects in up to 20% of patients.

“Prescribing practices can vary based on the type of provider, the setting where the antibiotic is being prescribed, what geographic area you are looking at, the medical reason for which the antibiotic is being prescribed, the actual germ being targeted, and the type of patient,” Dr. Nolt said. “But this variability can be reduced when prescribing providers are aware and follow best practice standards as through this article.”

The new ACP guidelines are a distillation of recommendations from preexisting infectious disease organizations, Dr. Nolt said, but aimed specifically at those practicing internal medicine.

“We define appropriate antibiotic use as prescribing the right antibiotic at the right dose for the right duration for a specific condition,” Rachael A. Lee, MD, MSPH, of the University of Alabama at Birmingham, and colleagues wrote in the article detailing the new guidelines. “Despite evidence and guidelines supporting shorter durations of antibiotic use, many physicians do not prescribe short-course therapy, frequently defaulting to 10-day courses regardless of the condition.”

The reasons for this default response vary. Though some clinicians prescribe longer courses specifically to prevent antibiotic resistance, no evidence shows that continuing to take antibiotics after symptoms have resolved actually reduces likelihood of resistance, the authors noted.

“In fact, resistance is a documented side effect of prolonged antibiotic use due to natural selection pressure,” they wrote.

Another common reason is habit.

“This was the ‘conventional wisdom’ for so long, just trying to make sure all bacteria causing the infection were completely eradicated, with no stragglers that had been exposed to the antibiotic but were not gone and now could evolve into resistant organisms,” Jacqueline W. Fincher, MD, a primary care physician and president of the ACP, said in an interview. “While antibiotic stewardship has been very important for over a decade, we now have more recent head-to-head studies/data showing that, in these four conditions, shorter courses of treatment are just as efficacious with less side effects and adverse events.”

The researchers reviewed all existing clinical guidelines related to bronchitis with COPD exacerbations, community-acquired pneumonia, UTIs, and cellulitis, as well as any other relevant studies in the literature. Although they did not conduct a formal systematic review, they compiled the guidelines specifically for all internists, family physicians and other clinicians caring for patients with these conditions.

“Although most patients with these infections will be seen in the outpatient setting, these best-practice advice statements also apply to patients who present in the inpatient setting,” the authors wrote. They also note the importance of ensuring the patient has the correct diagnosis and appropriate corresponding antibiotic prescription. “If a patient is not improving with appropriate antibiotics, it is important for the clinician to reassess for other causes of symptoms rather than defaulting to a longer duration of antibiotic therapy,” they wrote, calling a longer course “the exception and not the rule.”
 

Acute bronchitis with COPD exacerbations

Antibiotic treatment for COPD exacerbations and acute uncomplicated bronchitis with signs of a bacterial infection should last no longer than 5 days. The authors define this condition as an acute respiratory infection with a normal chest x-ray, most often caused by a virus. Although patients with bronchitis do not automatically need antibiotics if there’s no evidence of pneumonia, the authors did advise antibiotics in cases involving COPD and a high likelihood of bacterial infection. Clinicians should base their choice of antibiotics on the most common bacterial etiology: Haemophilus influenzae, Streptococcus pneumoniae, and Moraxella catarrhalis. Ideal candidates for therapy may include aminopenicillin with clavulanic acid, a macrolide, or a tetracycline.

Community-acquired pneumonia

The initial course of antibiotics should be at least 5 days for pneumonia and only extended after considering validated evidence of the patient’s clinical stability, such as resuming normal vital signs, mental activity, and the ability to eat. Multiple randomized, controlled trials have shown no improved benefit from longer courses, though longer courses are linked to increased adverse events and mortality.

Again, antibiotics used should “cover common pathogens, such as S. pneumoniae, H. influenzae, Mycoplasma pneumoniae, and Staphylococcus aureus, and atypical pathogens, such as Legionella species,” the authors wrote. Options include “amoxicillin, doxycycline, or a macrolide for healthy adults or a beta-lactam with a macrolide or a respiratory fluoroquinolone in patients with comorbidities.”
 

UTIs: Uncomplicated cystitis and pyelonephritis

For women’s bacterial cystitis – 75% of which is caused by Escherichia coli – the guidelines recommend nitrofurantoin for 5 days, trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole for 3 days, or fosfomycin as a single dose. For uncomplicated pyelonephritis in both men and women, clinicians can consider fluoroquinolones for 5-7 days or trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole for 14 days, depending on antibiotic susceptibility.

This recommendation does not include UTIs in women who are pregnant or UTIs with other functional abnormalities present, such as obstruction. The authors also intentionally left out acute bacterial prostatitis because of its complexity and how long it can take to treat.
 

Cellulitis

MRSA, which has been increasing in prevalence, is a leading cause of skin and soft-tissue infections, such as necrotizing infections, cellulitis, and erysipelas. Unless the patient has penetrating trauma, evidence of MRSA infection elsewhere, injection drug use, nasal colonization of MRSA, or systemic inflammatory response syndrome, the guidelines recommend a 5- to 6-day course of cephalosporin, penicillin, or clindamycin, extended only if the infection has not improved in 5 days. Further research can narrow down the most appropriate treatment course.

This guidance does not apply to purulent cellulitis, such as conditions with abscesses, furuncles, or carbuncles that typically require incision and drainage.
 

Continuing to get the message out

Dr. Fincher emphasized the importance of continuing to disseminate messaging for clinicians about reducing unnecessary antibiotic use.

“In medicine we are constantly bombarded with new information. It is those patients and disease states that we see and treat every day that are especially important for us as physicians and other clinicians to keep our skills and knowledge base up to date when it comes to use of antibiotics,” Dr. Fincher said in an interview. “We just need to continue to educate and push out the data, guidelines, and recommendations.”

Dr. Nolt added that it’s important to emphasize how to translate these national recommendations into local practices since local guidance can also raise awareness and encourage local compliance.

Other strategies for reducing overuse of antibiotics “include restriction on antibiotics available at health care systems (formulary restriction), not allowing use of antibiotics unless there is discussion about the patient’s case (preauthorization), and reviewing cases of patients on antibiotics and advising on next steps (prospective audit and feedback),” she said.

The research was funded by the ACP. Dr. Lee has received personal fees from this news organization and Prime Education. Dr. Fincher owns stock in Johnson & Johnson and Procter and Gamble. Dr. Nolt and the article’s coauthors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Patients being treated with infliximab had weakened immune responses to the first dose of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (Oxford/AstraZeneca) and BNT162b2 (Pfizer/BioNTech) vaccines, compared with patients on vedolizumab (Entyvio), although a very significant number of patients from both groups seroconverted after their second dose, according to a new U.K. study of patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD).

NoSystem images/Getty Images

“Antibody testing and adapted vaccine schedules should be considered to protect these at-risk patients,” Nicholas A. Kennedy, PhD, MBBS, of the University of Exeter (England) and colleagues wrote in a preprint published March 29 on MedRxiv.

Infliximab is an anti–tumor necrosis factor (anti-TNF) monoclonal antibody that’s approved to treat adult and pediatric Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis, as well as rheumatoid arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, psoriatic arthritis, and plaque psoriasis, whereas vedolizumab, a gut selective anti-integrin alpha4beta7 monoclonal antibody that is not associated with impaired systemic immune responses, is approved to treat Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis in adults.

A previous study from Kennedy and colleagues revealed that IBD patients on infliximab showed a weakened COVID-19 antibody response compared with patients on vedolizumab. To determine if treatment with anti-TNF drugs impacted the efficacy of the first shot of these two-dose COVID-19 vaccines, the researchers used data from the CLARITY IBD study to assess 865 infliximab- and 428 vedolizumab-treated participants without evidence of prior SARS-CoV-2 infection who had received uninterrupted biologic therapy since being recruited between Sept. 22 and Dec. 23, 2020.

In the 3-10 weeks after initial vaccination, geometric mean concentrations for SARS-CoV-2 anti-spike protein receptor-binding protein antibodies were lower in patients on infliximab, compared with patients on vedolizumab for both the Pfizer (6.0 U/mL [5.9] versus 28.8 U/mL [5.4], P < .0001) and AstraZeneca (4.7 U/mL [4.9] versus 13.8 U/mL [5.9]; P < .0001) vaccines. The researchers’ multivariable models reinforced those findings, with antibody concentrations lower in infliximab-treated patients for both the Pfizer (fold change, 0.29; 95% confidence interval, 0.21-0.40; P < .0001) and AstraZeneca (FC, 0.39; 95% CI, 0.30-0.51; P < .0001) vaccines.

After second doses of the two-dose Pfizer vaccine, 85% of patients on infliximab and 86% of patients on vedolizumab seroconverted (P = .68); similarly high seroconversion rates were seen in patients who had been infected with SARS-CoV-2 prior to receiving either vaccine. Several patient characteristics were associated with lower antibody concentrations regardless of vaccine type: being 60 years or older, use of immunomodulators, having Crohn’s disease, and being a smoker. Alternatively, non-White ethnicity was associated with higher antibody concentrations.

Evidence has ‘unclear clinical significance’

“These data, which require peer review, do not change my opinion on the safety and efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines in patients taking TNF inhibitors such as infliximab as monotherapy for the treatment of psoriatic disease,” Joel M. Gelfand MD, director of the psoriasis and phototherapy treatment center at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said in an interview.

Courtesy Dr. Joel M. Gelfand

“First, two peer-reviewed studies found good antibody response in patients on TNF inhibitors receiving COVID-19 vaccines (doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2021-220289; 10.1136/annrheumdis-2021-220272). Second, antibody responses were robust in the small cohort that received the second dose of a COVID-19 vaccine. We already know that, for the two messenger RNA-based vaccines available under emergency use authorization in the U.S., a second dose is required for optimal efficacy. Thus, evidence of a reduced antibody response after just one dose is of unclear clinical significance. Third, antibody responses are only a surrogate marker, and a low antibody response doesn’t necessarily mean the patient will not be protected by the vaccine.”
 

Focus on the second dose of a two-dose regimen

“Tell me about the response in people who got both doses of a vaccine that you’re supposed to get both doses of,” Jeffrey Curtis, MD, professor of medicine in the division of clinical immunology and rheumatology at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, said in an interview. “The number of patients in that subset was small [n = 27] but in my opinion that’s the most clinically relevant analysis and the one that patients and clinicians want answered.”

Courtesy UAB Photo

He also emphasized the uncertainty around what ‘protection’ means in these early days of studying COVID-19 vaccine responses. “You can define seroprotection or seroconversion as some absolute level of an antibody response, but if you want to say ‘Mrs. Smith, your antibody level was X,’ on whatever arbitrary scale with whoever’s arbitrary lab test, nobody actually knows that Mrs. Smith is now protected from SARS-CoV-2, or how protected,” he said.

“What is not terribly controversial is: If you can’t detect antibodies, the vaccine didn’t ‘take,’ if you will. But if I tell you that the mean antibody level was X with one drug and then 2X with another drug, does that mean that you’re twice as protected? We don’t know that. I’m fearful that people are looking at these studies and thinking that more is better. It might be, but we don’t know that to be true.”
 

Debating the cause of weakened immune responses

“The biological plausibility of being on an anti-TNF affecting your immune reaction to a messenger RNA or even a replication-deficient viral vector vaccine doesn’t make sense,” David T. Rubin, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Chicago and chair of the National Scientific Advisory Committee of the Crohn’s and Colitis Foundation, said in an interview.

“I’m sure immunologists may differ with me on this, but given what we have come to appreciate about these vaccine mechanisms, this finding doesn’t make intuitive sense. So we need to make sure that, when this happens, we look to the next studies and try to understand, was there any other confounder that may have resulted in these findings that was not adequately adjusted for or addressed in some other way?

“When you have a study of this size, you argue, ‘Because it’s so large, any effect that was seen must be real,’ ” he added. “Alternatively, to have a study of this size, by its very nature you are limited in being able to control for certain other factors or differences between the groups.”

That said, he commended the authors for their study and acknowledged the potential questions it raises about the single-shot Johnson & Johnson vaccine. “If you only get one and you’re on infliximab, this study implies that maybe that’s not enough,” he said. “Despite the fact that Johnson & Johnson was approved as a single dose, it may be necessary to think about it as the first of two, or maybe it’s not the preferred vaccine in this group of patients.”

The study was supported by the Royal Devon and Exeter and Hull University Hospital Foundation NHS Trusts and unrestricted educational grants from Biogen (Switzerland), Celltrion Healthcare (South Korea), Galapagos NV (Belgium), and F. Hoffmann-La Roche (Switzerland). The authors acknowledged numerous potential conflicts of interest, including receiving grants, personal fees, and nonfinancial support from various pharmaceutical companies.

Patients being treated with infliximab had weakened immune responses to the first dose of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (Oxford/AstraZeneca) and BNT162b2 (Pfizer/BioNTech) vaccines, compared with patients on vedolizumab (Entyvio), although a very significant number of patients from both groups seroconverted after their second dose, according to a new U.K. study of patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD).

NoSystem images/Getty Images

“Antibody testing and adapted vaccine schedules should be considered to protect these at-risk patients,” Nicholas A. Kennedy, PhD, MBBS, of the University of Exeter (England) and colleagues wrote in a preprint published March 29 on MedRxiv.

Infliximab is an anti–tumor necrosis factor (anti-TNF) monoclonal antibody that’s approved to treat adult and pediatric Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis, as well as rheumatoid arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, psoriatic arthritis, and plaque psoriasis, whereas vedolizumab, a gut selective anti-integrin alpha4beta7 monoclonal antibody that is not associated with impaired systemic immune responses, is approved to treat Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis in adults.

A previous study from Kennedy and colleagues revealed that IBD patients on infliximab showed a weakened COVID-19 antibody response compared with patients on vedolizumab. To determine if treatment with anti-TNF drugs impacted the efficacy of the first shot of these two-dose COVID-19 vaccines, the researchers used data from the CLARITY IBD study to assess 865 infliximab- and 428 vedolizumab-treated participants without evidence of prior SARS-CoV-2 infection who had received uninterrupted biologic therapy since being recruited between Sept. 22 and Dec. 23, 2020.

In the 3-10 weeks after initial vaccination, geometric mean concentrations for SARS-CoV-2 anti-spike protein receptor-binding protein antibodies were lower in patients on infliximab, compared with patients on vedolizumab for both the Pfizer (6.0 U/mL [5.9] versus 28.8 U/mL [5.4], P < .0001) and AstraZeneca (4.7 U/mL [4.9] versus 13.8 U/mL [5.9]; P < .0001) vaccines. The researchers’ multivariable models reinforced those findings, with antibody concentrations lower in infliximab-treated patients for both the Pfizer (fold change, 0.29; 95% confidence interval, 0.21-0.40; P < .0001) and AstraZeneca (FC, 0.39; 95% CI, 0.30-0.51; P < .0001) vaccines.

After second doses of the two-dose Pfizer vaccine, 85% of patients on infliximab and 86% of patients on vedolizumab seroconverted (P = .68); similarly high seroconversion rates were seen in patients who had been infected with SARS-CoV-2 prior to receiving either vaccine. Several patient characteristics were associated with lower antibody concentrations regardless of vaccine type: being 60 years or older, use of immunomodulators, having Crohn’s disease, and being a smoker. Alternatively, non-White ethnicity was associated with higher antibody concentrations.

Evidence has ‘unclear clinical significance’

“These data, which require peer review, do not change my opinion on the safety and efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines in patients taking TNF inhibitors such as infliximab as monotherapy for the treatment of psoriatic disease,” Joel M. Gelfand MD, director of the psoriasis and phototherapy treatment center at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said in an interview.

Courtesy Dr. Joel M. Gelfand

“First, two peer-reviewed studies found good antibody response in patients on TNF inhibitors receiving COVID-19 vaccines (doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2021-220289; 10.1136/annrheumdis-2021-220272). Second, antibody responses were robust in the small cohort that received the second dose of a COVID-19 vaccine. We already know that, for the two messenger RNA-based vaccines available under emergency use authorization in the U.S., a second dose is required for optimal efficacy. Thus, evidence of a reduced antibody response after just one dose is of unclear clinical significance. Third, antibody responses are only a surrogate marker, and a low antibody response doesn’t necessarily mean the patient will not be protected by the vaccine.”
 

Focus on the second dose of a two-dose regimen

“Tell me about the response in people who got both doses of a vaccine that you’re supposed to get both doses of,” Jeffrey Curtis, MD, professor of medicine in the division of clinical immunology and rheumatology at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, said in an interview. “The number of patients in that subset was small [n = 27] but in my opinion that’s the most clinically relevant analysis and the one that patients and clinicians want answered.”

Courtesy UAB Photo

He also emphasized the uncertainty around what ‘protection’ means in these early days of studying COVID-19 vaccine responses. “You can define seroprotection or seroconversion as some absolute level of an antibody response, but if you want to say ‘Mrs. Smith, your antibody level was X,’ on whatever arbitrary scale with whoever’s arbitrary lab test, nobody actually knows that Mrs. Smith is now protected from SARS-CoV-2, or how protected,” he said.

“What is not terribly controversial is: If you can’t detect antibodies, the vaccine didn’t ‘take,’ if you will. But if I tell you that the mean antibody level was X with one drug and then 2X with another drug, does that mean that you’re twice as protected? We don’t know that. I’m fearful that people are looking at these studies and thinking that more is better. It might be, but we don’t know that to be true.”
 

Debating the cause of weakened immune responses

“The biological plausibility of being on an anti-TNF affecting your immune reaction to a messenger RNA or even a replication-deficient viral vector vaccine doesn’t make sense,” David T. Rubin, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Chicago and chair of the National Scientific Advisory Committee of the Crohn’s and Colitis Foundation, said in an interview.

“I’m sure immunologists may differ with me on this, but given what we have come to appreciate about these vaccine mechanisms, this finding doesn’t make intuitive sense. So we need to make sure that, when this happens, we look to the next studies and try to understand, was there any other confounder that may have resulted in these findings that was not adequately adjusted for or addressed in some other way?

“When you have a study of this size, you argue, ‘Because it’s so large, any effect that was seen must be real,’ ” he added. “Alternatively, to have a study of this size, by its very nature you are limited in being able to control for certain other factors or differences between the groups.”

That said, he commended the authors for their study and acknowledged the potential questions it raises about the single-shot Johnson & Johnson vaccine. “If you only get one and you’re on infliximab, this study implies that maybe that’s not enough,” he said. “Despite the fact that Johnson & Johnson was approved as a single dose, it may be necessary to think about it as the first of two, or maybe it’s not the preferred vaccine in this group of patients.”

The study was supported by the Royal Devon and Exeter and Hull University Hospital Foundation NHS Trusts and unrestricted educational grants from Biogen (Switzerland), Celltrion Healthcare (South Korea), Galapagos NV (Belgium), and F. Hoffmann-La Roche (Switzerland). The authors acknowledged numerous potential conflicts of interest, including receiving grants, personal fees, and nonfinancial support from various pharmaceutical companies.

Patients being treated with infliximab had weakened immune responses to the first dose of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (Oxford/AstraZeneca) and BNT162b2 (Pfizer/BioNTech) vaccines, compared with patients on vedolizumab (Entyvio), although a very significant number of patients from both groups seroconverted after their second dose, according to a new U.K. study of patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD).

NoSystem images/Getty Images

“Antibody testing and adapted vaccine schedules should be considered to protect these at-risk patients,” Nicholas A. Kennedy, PhD, MBBS, of the University of Exeter (England) and colleagues wrote in a preprint published March 29 on MedRxiv.

Infliximab is an anti–tumor necrosis factor (anti-TNF) monoclonal antibody that’s approved to treat adult and pediatric Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis, as well as rheumatoid arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, psoriatic arthritis, and plaque psoriasis, whereas vedolizumab, a gut selective anti-integrin alpha4beta7 monoclonal antibody that is not associated with impaired systemic immune responses, is approved to treat Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis in adults.

A previous study from Kennedy and colleagues revealed that IBD patients on infliximab showed a weakened COVID-19 antibody response compared with patients on vedolizumab. To determine if treatment with anti-TNF drugs impacted the efficacy of the first shot of these two-dose COVID-19 vaccines, the researchers used data from the CLARITY IBD study to assess 865 infliximab- and 428 vedolizumab-treated participants without evidence of prior SARS-CoV-2 infection who had received uninterrupted biologic therapy since being recruited between Sept. 22 and Dec. 23, 2020.

In the 3-10 weeks after initial vaccination, geometric mean concentrations for SARS-CoV-2 anti-spike protein receptor-binding protein antibodies were lower in patients on infliximab, compared with patients on vedolizumab for both the Pfizer (6.0 U/mL [5.9] versus 28.8 U/mL [5.4], P < .0001) and AstraZeneca (4.7 U/mL [4.9] versus 13.8 U/mL [5.9]; P < .0001) vaccines. The researchers’ multivariable models reinforced those findings, with antibody concentrations lower in infliximab-treated patients for both the Pfizer (fold change, 0.29; 95% confidence interval, 0.21-0.40; P < .0001) and AstraZeneca (FC, 0.39; 95% CI, 0.30-0.51; P < .0001) vaccines.

After second doses of the two-dose Pfizer vaccine, 85% of patients on infliximab and 86% of patients on vedolizumab seroconverted (P = .68); similarly high seroconversion rates were seen in patients who had been infected with SARS-CoV-2 prior to receiving either vaccine. Several patient characteristics were associated with lower antibody concentrations regardless of vaccine type: being 60 years or older, use of immunomodulators, having Crohn’s disease, and being a smoker. Alternatively, non-White ethnicity was associated with higher antibody concentrations.

Evidence has ‘unclear clinical significance’

“These data, which require peer review, do not change my opinion on the safety and efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines in patients taking TNF inhibitors such as infliximab as monotherapy for the treatment of psoriatic disease,” Joel M. Gelfand MD, director of the psoriasis and phototherapy treatment center at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said in an interview.

Courtesy Dr. Joel M. Gelfand

“First, two peer-reviewed studies found good antibody response in patients on TNF inhibitors receiving COVID-19 vaccines (doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2021-220289; 10.1136/annrheumdis-2021-220272). Second, antibody responses were robust in the small cohort that received the second dose of a COVID-19 vaccine. We already know that, for the two messenger RNA-based vaccines available under emergency use authorization in the U.S., a second dose is required for optimal efficacy. Thus, evidence of a reduced antibody response after just one dose is of unclear clinical significance. Third, antibody responses are only a surrogate marker, and a low antibody response doesn’t necessarily mean the patient will not be protected by the vaccine.”
 

Focus on the second dose of a two-dose regimen

“Tell me about the response in people who got both doses of a vaccine that you’re supposed to get both doses of,” Jeffrey Curtis, MD, professor of medicine in the division of clinical immunology and rheumatology at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, said in an interview. “The number of patients in that subset was small [n = 27] but in my opinion that’s the most clinically relevant analysis and the one that patients and clinicians want answered.”

Courtesy UAB Photo

He also emphasized the uncertainty around what ‘protection’ means in these early days of studying COVID-19 vaccine responses. “You can define seroprotection or seroconversion as some absolute level of an antibody response, but if you want to say ‘Mrs. Smith, your antibody level was X,’ on whatever arbitrary scale with whoever’s arbitrary lab test, nobody actually knows that Mrs. Smith is now protected from SARS-CoV-2, or how protected,” he said.

“What is not terribly controversial is: If you can’t detect antibodies, the vaccine didn’t ‘take,’ if you will. But if I tell you that the mean antibody level was X with one drug and then 2X with another drug, does that mean that you’re twice as protected? We don’t know that. I’m fearful that people are looking at these studies and thinking that more is better. It might be, but we don’t know that to be true.”
 

Debating the cause of weakened immune responses

“The biological plausibility of being on an anti-TNF affecting your immune reaction to a messenger RNA or even a replication-deficient viral vector vaccine doesn’t make sense,” David T. Rubin, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Chicago and chair of the National Scientific Advisory Committee of the Crohn’s and Colitis Foundation, said in an interview.

“I’m sure immunologists may differ with me on this, but given what we have come to appreciate about these vaccine mechanisms, this finding doesn’t make intuitive sense. So we need to make sure that, when this happens, we look to the next studies and try to understand, was there any other confounder that may have resulted in these findings that was not adequately adjusted for or addressed in some other way?

“When you have a study of this size, you argue, ‘Because it’s so large, any effect that was seen must be real,’ ” he added. “Alternatively, to have a study of this size, by its very nature you are limited in being able to control for certain other factors or differences between the groups.”

That said, he commended the authors for their study and acknowledged the potential questions it raises about the single-shot Johnson & Johnson vaccine. “If you only get one and you’re on infliximab, this study implies that maybe that’s not enough,” he said. “Despite the fact that Johnson & Johnson was approved as a single dose, it may be necessary to think about it as the first of two, or maybe it’s not the preferred vaccine in this group of patients.”

The study was supported by the Royal Devon and Exeter and Hull University Hospital Foundation NHS Trusts and unrestricted educational grants from Biogen (Switzerland), Celltrion Healthcare (South Korea), Galapagos NV (Belgium), and F. Hoffmann-La Roche (Switzerland). The authors acknowledged numerous potential conflicts of interest, including receiving grants, personal fees, and nonfinancial support from various pharmaceutical companies.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved dasiglucagon (Zegalogue 0.6 mg/0.6 mL, Zealand Pharma) autoinjector and prefilled syringe for the treatment of severe hypoglycemia in people with diabetes aged 6 years and older.

Olivier Le Moal/Getty Images

The product has a shelf-life of 36 months at refrigerated temperatures and is stable for up to 12 months at room temperature.

“This approval will help enable appropriate children and adults with diabetes to be able to address sudden and severe hypoglycemia, which can quickly progress from a mild event to an emergency,” Jeremy Pettus, MD, assistant professor of medicine at the University of California, San Diego, said in a company statement.

The approval marks the latest step in the development of newer glucagon formulations that are easier to use in hypoglycemic emergencies than the traditional formulation that requires several steps for reconstitution.

The first intranasal glucagon (Baqsimi, Eli Lilly) was approved in the United States in July 2019 for people with diabetes age 4 years and older.

In September 2019, the FDA approved another prefilled glucagon rescue pen (Gvoke HypoPen, Xeris Pharmaceuticals) for the treatment of severe hypoglycemia in adult and pediatric patients age 2 years and older with diabetes.

Dasiglucagon is currently in phase 3 trials as a subcutaneous infusion for treating congenital hyperinsulinemia, and in phase 2 trials as part of a bihormonal artificial pancreas pump system.

The FDA approval was based on results from three randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 studies of dasiglucagon in children age 6-17 years and adults with type 1 diabetes.

The primary endpoint was time to achieving an increase in blood glucose of 20 mg/dL or greater from time of administration without additional intervention within 45 minutes. That endpoint was achieved in all three studies, with a median time to blood glucose recovery of 10 minutes overall, with 99% of adults recovering within 15 minutes.

The most common adverse events reported in 2% or more of study participants were nausea, vomiting, headache, and injection-site pain in both children and adults. Diarrhea was also reported in adults.  

Full launch is expected in late June 2021.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved dasiglucagon (Zegalogue 0.6 mg/0.6 mL, Zealand Pharma) autoinjector and prefilled syringe for the treatment of severe hypoglycemia in people with diabetes aged 6 years and older.

Olivier Le Moal/Getty Images

The product has a shelf-life of 36 months at refrigerated temperatures and is stable for up to 12 months at room temperature.

“This approval will help enable appropriate children and adults with diabetes to be able to address sudden and severe hypoglycemia, which can quickly progress from a mild event to an emergency,” Jeremy Pettus, MD, assistant professor of medicine at the University of California, San Diego, said in a company statement.

The approval marks the latest step in the development of newer glucagon formulations that are easier to use in hypoglycemic emergencies than the traditional formulation that requires several steps for reconstitution.

The first intranasal glucagon (Baqsimi, Eli Lilly) was approved in the United States in July 2019 for people with diabetes age 4 years and older.

In September 2019, the FDA approved another prefilled glucagon rescue pen (Gvoke HypoPen, Xeris Pharmaceuticals) for the treatment of severe hypoglycemia in adult and pediatric patients age 2 years and older with diabetes.

Dasiglucagon is currently in phase 3 trials as a subcutaneous infusion for treating congenital hyperinsulinemia, and in phase 2 trials as part of a bihormonal artificial pancreas pump system.

The FDA approval was based on results from three randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 studies of dasiglucagon in children age 6-17 years and adults with type 1 diabetes.

The primary endpoint was time to achieving an increase in blood glucose of 20 mg/dL or greater from time of administration without additional intervention within 45 minutes. That endpoint was achieved in all three studies, with a median time to blood glucose recovery of 10 minutes overall, with 99% of adults recovering within 15 minutes.

The most common adverse events reported in 2% or more of study participants were nausea, vomiting, headache, and injection-site pain in both children and adults. Diarrhea was also reported in adults.  

Full launch is expected in late June 2021.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved dasiglucagon (Zegalogue 0.6 mg/0.6 mL, Zealand Pharma) autoinjector and prefilled syringe for the treatment of severe hypoglycemia in people with diabetes aged 6 years and older.

Olivier Le Moal/Getty Images

The product has a shelf-life of 36 months at refrigerated temperatures and is stable for up to 12 months at room temperature.

“This approval will help enable appropriate children and adults with diabetes to be able to address sudden and severe hypoglycemia, which can quickly progress from a mild event to an emergency,” Jeremy Pettus, MD, assistant professor of medicine at the University of California, San Diego, said in a company statement.

The approval marks the latest step in the development of newer glucagon formulations that are easier to use in hypoglycemic emergencies than the traditional formulation that requires several steps for reconstitution.

The first intranasal glucagon (Baqsimi, Eli Lilly) was approved in the United States in July 2019 for people with diabetes age 4 years and older.

In September 2019, the FDA approved another prefilled glucagon rescue pen (Gvoke HypoPen, Xeris Pharmaceuticals) for the treatment of severe hypoglycemia in adult and pediatric patients age 2 years and older with diabetes.

Dasiglucagon is currently in phase 3 trials as a subcutaneous infusion for treating congenital hyperinsulinemia, and in phase 2 trials as part of a bihormonal artificial pancreas pump system.

The FDA approval was based on results from three randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 studies of dasiglucagon in children age 6-17 years and adults with type 1 diabetes.

The primary endpoint was time to achieving an increase in blood glucose of 20 mg/dL or greater from time of administration without additional intervention within 45 minutes. That endpoint was achieved in all three studies, with a median time to blood glucose recovery of 10 minutes overall, with 99% of adults recovering within 15 minutes.

The most common adverse events reported in 2% or more of study participants were nausea, vomiting, headache, and injection-site pain in both children and adults. Diarrhea was also reported in adults.  

Full launch is expected in late June 2021.

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

More than 10 years after the withdrawal of the weight-loss drug Mediator (benfluorex) from the market in France, the Paris Court issued its judgment on March 29, 2021, against Servier Laboratories and the French National Agency for the Safety of Medicines and Health Products (ANSM).

Servier Laboratories was convicted of “aggravated deception” and fined 2.7 million euros (approximately $3.2 million) but were found not guilty of fraud. ANSM will also have to pay a fine.

Mediator was brought to the market in 1976 for the treatment of hyperlipidemia and for overweight patients with type 2 diabetes but was used off label as an appetite suppressant. It was taken by 5 million people and was only removed from the market in France in 2009 because of its toxic effects.

Mediator was taken off the market in Spain 6 years earlier, and in Switzerland 12 years earlier, and more than 30 years before in Belgium. It was never marketed in the United States.

The number of deaths because of heart valve damage related to the drug in France has been estimated at 220-300 in the short term (2.5 years) and 1,300-1,800 in the long term. In addition, the drug has been responsible for 3,100-4,200 hospital admissions for valvular insufficiency and pulmonary arterial hypertension.

“Despite knowing the risks for very many years ... [Servier Laboratories] never took the necessary measures and thus deceived” consumers of Mediator, declared the president of the criminal court, Sylvie Daunois.

Servier has “weakened confidence in the health system,” she added.

“I am very happy that ‘aggravated deception,’ the heart of the case, has been recognized and condemned,” Irène Frachon, MD, a pulmonologist at Brest (France) University Hospital and whistleblower on the Mediator scandal, said in an interview.

However, Dr. Frachon continued: “The major problem, putting a toxic agent on the market for years, is a given. But the weakness of the sentences gives a mixed message.

“The judgment is too cautious in its punishments,” she added, pointing out that, “in the case of contaminated blood, there were prison sentences.”
 

Servier deceived doctors and patients

The French trial in September 2019 was extraordinary, with about 100 witnesses, nearly 400 lawyers, and 5,000 victims.

On June 23, 2020, the prosecutor, Aude Le Guilcher, requested at the end of her indictment that the six companies of the Servier group be fined, notably for “deception, homicide, involuntary injuries, and fraud,” to the tune of 20.3 million euros (approximately $23.8 million).

Against the former No. 2 of Servier, Jean-Philippe Seta, Ms. Le Guilcher requested 5 years in prison, with 2 years suspended, and a 200,000 euro (approximately $235,000) fine.

The same sum was requested against ANSM for homicide and unintentional injuries.

In the end, Mr. Seta, the former right hand of Jacques Servier, who died in 2004, was sentenced to 4 years in prison, suspended. For their part, ANSM was fined 303,000 euros(approximately $350,000).

It is now clearly established that Servier Laboratories knowingly concealed the similarity of Mediator to the fenfluramine family of compounds, which was banned in 1990 because of adverse effects.

The group also deceived doctors who prescribed the drug and patients who took it by hiding its toxicity.
 

Mediator should never have been authorized for use

In terms of the fraud charges, the prosecutor estimated that the losses incurred by the primary health insurance industry were in the region of several hundred million euros.

She argued that Mediator should never have been reimbursed, as “it should never have benefited from market authorization, which it received solely due to the fraudulent actions of the company.”

But because of the statute of limitations, this argument was not heard, explained Dr. Frachon, “and the same is true of conflicts of interest, where limitations led to them being discharged.

“We understand the legal difficulties, but it’s a shame in terms of the signal sent.”

“I hope the medical world will learn the lesson and not continue with ‘business as usual’ with people who are delinquents. I think it will be essential to restore public confidence,” concluded Dr. Frachon.

No conflicts of interest or funding were declared.

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

More than 10 years after the withdrawal of the weight-loss drug Mediator (benfluorex) from the market in France, the Paris Court issued its judgment on March 29, 2021, against Servier Laboratories and the French National Agency for the Safety of Medicines and Health Products (ANSM).

Servier Laboratories was convicted of “aggravated deception” and fined 2.7 million euros (approximately $3.2 million) but were found not guilty of fraud. ANSM will also have to pay a fine.

Mediator was brought to the market in 1976 for the treatment of hyperlipidemia and for overweight patients with type 2 diabetes but was used off label as an appetite suppressant. It was taken by 5 million people and was only removed from the market in France in 2009 because of its toxic effects.

Mediator was taken off the market in Spain 6 years earlier, and in Switzerland 12 years earlier, and more than 30 years before in Belgium. It was never marketed in the United States.

The number of deaths because of heart valve damage related to the drug in France has been estimated at 220-300 in the short term (2.5 years) and 1,300-1,800 in the long term. In addition, the drug has been responsible for 3,100-4,200 hospital admissions for valvular insufficiency and pulmonary arterial hypertension.

“Despite knowing the risks for very many years ... [Servier Laboratories] never took the necessary measures and thus deceived” consumers of Mediator, declared the president of the criminal court, Sylvie Daunois.

Servier has “weakened confidence in the health system,” she added.

“I am very happy that ‘aggravated deception,’ the heart of the case, has been recognized and condemned,” Irène Frachon, MD, a pulmonologist at Brest (France) University Hospital and whistleblower on the Mediator scandal, said in an interview.

However, Dr. Frachon continued: “The major problem, putting a toxic agent on the market for years, is a given. But the weakness of the sentences gives a mixed message.

“The judgment is too cautious in its punishments,” she added, pointing out that, “in the case of contaminated blood, there were prison sentences.”
 

Servier deceived doctors and patients

The French trial in September 2019 was extraordinary, with about 100 witnesses, nearly 400 lawyers, and 5,000 victims.

On June 23, 2020, the prosecutor, Aude Le Guilcher, requested at the end of her indictment that the six companies of the Servier group be fined, notably for “deception, homicide, involuntary injuries, and fraud,” to the tune of 20.3 million euros (approximately $23.8 million).

Against the former No. 2 of Servier, Jean-Philippe Seta, Ms. Le Guilcher requested 5 years in prison, with 2 years suspended, and a 200,000 euro (approximately $235,000) fine.

The same sum was requested against ANSM for homicide and unintentional injuries.

In the end, Mr. Seta, the former right hand of Jacques Servier, who died in 2004, was sentenced to 4 years in prison, suspended. For their part, ANSM was fined 303,000 euros(approximately $350,000).

It is now clearly established that Servier Laboratories knowingly concealed the similarity of Mediator to the fenfluramine family of compounds, which was banned in 1990 because of adverse effects.

The group also deceived doctors who prescribed the drug and patients who took it by hiding its toxicity.
 

Mediator should never have been authorized for use

In terms of the fraud charges, the prosecutor estimated that the losses incurred by the primary health insurance industry were in the region of several hundred million euros.

She argued that Mediator should never have been reimbursed, as “it should never have benefited from market authorization, which it received solely due to the fraudulent actions of the company.”

But because of the statute of limitations, this argument was not heard, explained Dr. Frachon, “and the same is true of conflicts of interest, where limitations led to them being discharged.

“We understand the legal difficulties, but it’s a shame in terms of the signal sent.”

“I hope the medical world will learn the lesson and not continue with ‘business as usual’ with people who are delinquents. I think it will be essential to restore public confidence,” concluded Dr. Frachon.

No conflicts of interest or funding were declared.

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

More than 10 years after the withdrawal of the weight-loss drug Mediator (benfluorex) from the market in France, the Paris Court issued its judgment on March 29, 2021, against Servier Laboratories and the French National Agency for the Safety of Medicines and Health Products (ANSM).

Servier Laboratories was convicted of “aggravated deception” and fined 2.7 million euros (approximately $3.2 million) but were found not guilty of fraud. ANSM will also have to pay a fine.

Mediator was brought to the market in 1976 for the treatment of hyperlipidemia and for overweight patients with type 2 diabetes but was used off label as an appetite suppressant. It was taken by 5 million people and was only removed from the market in France in 2009 because of its toxic effects.

Mediator was taken off the market in Spain 6 years earlier, and in Switzerland 12 years earlier, and more than 30 years before in Belgium. It was never marketed in the United States.

The number of deaths because of heart valve damage related to the drug in France has been estimated at 220-300 in the short term (2.5 years) and 1,300-1,800 in the long term. In addition, the drug has been responsible for 3,100-4,200 hospital admissions for valvular insufficiency and pulmonary arterial hypertension.

“Despite knowing the risks for very many years ... [Servier Laboratories] never took the necessary measures and thus deceived” consumers of Mediator, declared the president of the criminal court, Sylvie Daunois.

Servier has “weakened confidence in the health system,” she added.

“I am very happy that ‘aggravated deception,’ the heart of the case, has been recognized and condemned,” Irène Frachon, MD, a pulmonologist at Brest (France) University Hospital and whistleblower on the Mediator scandal, said in an interview.

However, Dr. Frachon continued: “The major problem, putting a toxic agent on the market for years, is a given. But the weakness of the sentences gives a mixed message.

“The judgment is too cautious in its punishments,” she added, pointing out that, “in the case of contaminated blood, there were prison sentences.”
 

Servier deceived doctors and patients

The French trial in September 2019 was extraordinary, with about 100 witnesses, nearly 400 lawyers, and 5,000 victims.

On June 23, 2020, the prosecutor, Aude Le Guilcher, requested at the end of her indictment that the six companies of the Servier group be fined, notably for “deception, homicide, involuntary injuries, and fraud,” to the tune of 20.3 million euros (approximately $23.8 million).

Against the former No. 2 of Servier, Jean-Philippe Seta, Ms. Le Guilcher requested 5 years in prison, with 2 years suspended, and a 200,000 euro (approximately $235,000) fine.

The same sum was requested against ANSM for homicide and unintentional injuries.

In the end, Mr. Seta, the former right hand of Jacques Servier, who died in 2004, was sentenced to 4 years in prison, suspended. For their part, ANSM was fined 303,000 euros(approximately $350,000).

It is now clearly established that Servier Laboratories knowingly concealed the similarity of Mediator to the fenfluramine family of compounds, which was banned in 1990 because of adverse effects.

The group also deceived doctors who prescribed the drug and patients who took it by hiding its toxicity.
 

Mediator should never have been authorized for use

In terms of the fraud charges, the prosecutor estimated that the losses incurred by the primary health insurance industry were in the region of several hundred million euros.

She argued that Mediator should never have been reimbursed, as “it should never have benefited from market authorization, which it received solely due to the fraudulent actions of the company.”

But because of the statute of limitations, this argument was not heard, explained Dr. Frachon, “and the same is true of conflicts of interest, where limitations led to them being discharged.

“We understand the legal difficulties, but it’s a shame in terms of the signal sent.”

“I hope the medical world will learn the lesson and not continue with ‘business as usual’ with people who are delinquents. I think it will be essential to restore public confidence,” concluded Dr. Frachon.

No conflicts of interest or funding were declared.

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

For select older patients, it is safe to switch to a lower dose of lenalidomide maintenance therapy and discontinue dexamethasone after 9 months. The regimen is safe and yields outcomes similar to those of standard, continuous lenalidomide/dexamethasone (Rd), according to new findings.

At a median follow-up of 37 months, event-free survival was 10.4 months in the experimental arm in which dexamethasone therapy was stopped (Rd-R) versus 6.9 months for standard therapy. The tailored approach also resulted in fewer adverse effects.

The authors noted that there was no difference in progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival between the two groups.

“These results may be useful for the treatment of myeloma patients, since approximately one-third of patients not eligible for stem cell transplantation are intermediate fit, the population in our study,” said lead author Alessandra Larocca, MD, PhD, from the department of hematology-oncology of the University Hospital Città della Salute e della Scienza, Torino, Italy.

She said in an interview that they expect that these findings “may help to optimize the treatment of less-fit elderly patients by reducing the occurrence of adverse events and thus improving outcomes and preserving quality of life of these patients.”

This approach is a viable option for clinicians to consider for some patient subgroups. “This steroid-sparing approach can also be used in other combinations,” she said. “Ongoing trials are now evaluating steroid sparing in combination with monoclonal antibodies or the role of frailty-guided treatment.”

The study was published March 19, 2021, in Blood.
 

Curtailing steroids

Myeloma patients aged 75 years or older or who have comorbidities and functional impairments are an understudied population. They are more susceptible to adverse events that may negatively affect the duration of treatment and outcomes. Steroids are “scarcely tolerated” in the long term, even among younger patients, and “whether sparing dexamethasone is as effective as prolonged steroid exposure remains an open issue,” the authors wrote. There are still no clear data on the advantage of continuous steroid treatment as opposed to fixed-duration treatment for newly diagnosed patients.

In 2010, a study compared high-dose with low-dose dexamethasone. As expected, the rate of adverse events was lower among patients who received the low-dose steroid, but quite unexpectedly, deaths with high-dose dexamethasone were significantly higher than with low-dose dexamethasone.

The 1-year overall survival was 96% among patients who received the low dose of dexamethasone versus 87% with the standard high dose.

S. Vincent Rajkumar, MD, of the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., who was the lead author of the 2010 study, spoke with this new organization about the current study. “This is an important and practice-changing study,” he said. “We have already changed our practice and recommendations based on this study.”

He explained that, for transplant-ineligible patients, instead of initial therapy with bortezomib-lenalidomide-dexamethasone followed by Rd, they use lenalidomide alone without steroids.

“After 9 months of initial therapy, I now recommend we stop dexamethasone unless we are having problems controlling the myeloma, such as progressive disease,” Dr. Rajkumar said. “I congratulate the authors on a study that will improve the quality of life for our patients.”
 

Improved event-free survival

In this study, Dr. Larocca and colleagues investigated the efficacy and feasibility of a dose- and schedule-adjusted Rd regimen that was followed by maintenance Rd-R 10 mg/d and compared the regimen with continuous Rd in elderly, intermediate-fit patients who were newly diagnosed with multiple myeloma.

The primary endpoint was event-free survival, defined as progression/death from any cause, lenalidomide discontinuation, and any hematologic grade 4 or nonhematologic grade 3-4 adverse events.

The cohort consisted of 199 patients who were randomly assigned to receive either Rd-R (n = 101) or continuous Rd (n = 98). The median age was 75 years in the Rd-R arm and 76 years in the Rd arm; 52% of patients in the Rd-R group and 43% in the Rd group were classified as being intermediate fit not for age but for geriatric impairments.

With a median follow-up of 37 months, event-free survival was 10.4 months in the Rd-R arm versus 6.9 months in the Rd arm (hazard ratio, 0.70; P = .02). This benefit was maintained beyond nine cycles (median: 19.8 vs. 10.6 months for Rd-R vs. Rd; HR, 0.55; P = .03)

The median PFS was 20.2 months with Rd-R and 18.3 months with Rd (HR, 0.78; P = .16). The median overall survival was not reached. The 3-year overall survival was 74% with Rd-R and 63% with continuous Rd (HR, 0.62; P = .06). Among patients remaining on therapy after nine cycles, no difference in median PFS was observed between the two groups (24.3 vs. 18.7 months; HR, 0.73; P = .19).

Best response was similar for both groups, with an overall response rate of 78% versus 68% (P = .15). The very good partial response rate was 51% in the Rd-R arm versus 39% in the continuous Rd arm (P = .09).

Toxicities were similar between the two groups. Hematologic adverse events of at least grade 3 were reported in 26% of Rd-R patients versus 20% of Rd patients (P = .40). In both groups, the most frequent grade ≥3 hematologic toxicity was neutropenia (21% vs 18%). The most frequent grade ≥3 toxicities were nonhematologic. They occurred in 33% of Rd-R patients and 43% of Rd patients (P = .15). The most frequent nonhematologic toxicities were infections (10% vs. 12%), constitutional (3% vs. 12%), dermatologic (7% vs. 3%), and central nervous toxicities (2% vs. 6%).

The study was sponsored by Fondazione EMN Italy Onlus. Dr. Larocca has received honoraria from Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Janssen, and GlaxoSmithKline, and has served on the advisory boards for Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Janssen, and Takeda. Several coauthors also have disclosed relationships with industry. Dr. Rajkumar disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

For select older patients, it is safe to switch to a lower dose of lenalidomide maintenance therapy and discontinue dexamethasone after 9 months. The regimen is safe and yields outcomes similar to those of standard, continuous lenalidomide/dexamethasone (Rd), according to new findings.

At a median follow-up of 37 months, event-free survival was 10.4 months in the experimental arm in which dexamethasone therapy was stopped (Rd-R) versus 6.9 months for standard therapy. The tailored approach also resulted in fewer adverse effects.

The authors noted that there was no difference in progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival between the two groups.

“These results may be useful for the treatment of myeloma patients, since approximately one-third of patients not eligible for stem cell transplantation are intermediate fit, the population in our study,” said lead author Alessandra Larocca, MD, PhD, from the department of hematology-oncology of the University Hospital Città della Salute e della Scienza, Torino, Italy.

She said in an interview that they expect that these findings “may help to optimize the treatment of less-fit elderly patients by reducing the occurrence of adverse events and thus improving outcomes and preserving quality of life of these patients.”

This approach is a viable option for clinicians to consider for some patient subgroups. “This steroid-sparing approach can also be used in other combinations,” she said. “Ongoing trials are now evaluating steroid sparing in combination with monoclonal antibodies or the role of frailty-guided treatment.”

The study was published March 19, 2021, in Blood.
 

Curtailing steroids

Myeloma patients aged 75 years or older or who have comorbidities and functional impairments are an understudied population. They are more susceptible to adverse events that may negatively affect the duration of treatment and outcomes. Steroids are “scarcely tolerated” in the long term, even among younger patients, and “whether sparing dexamethasone is as effective as prolonged steroid exposure remains an open issue,” the authors wrote. There are still no clear data on the advantage of continuous steroid treatment as opposed to fixed-duration treatment for newly diagnosed patients.

In 2010, a study compared high-dose with low-dose dexamethasone. As expected, the rate of adverse events was lower among patients who received the low-dose steroid, but quite unexpectedly, deaths with high-dose dexamethasone were significantly higher than with low-dose dexamethasone.

The 1-year overall survival was 96% among patients who received the low dose of dexamethasone versus 87% with the standard high dose.

S. Vincent Rajkumar, MD, of the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., who was the lead author of the 2010 study, spoke with this new organization about the current study. “This is an important and practice-changing study,” he said. “We have already changed our practice and recommendations based on this study.”

He explained that, for transplant-ineligible patients, instead of initial therapy with bortezomib-lenalidomide-dexamethasone followed by Rd, they use lenalidomide alone without steroids.

“After 9 months of initial therapy, I now recommend we stop dexamethasone unless we are having problems controlling the myeloma, such as progressive disease,” Dr. Rajkumar said. “I congratulate the authors on a study that will improve the quality of life for our patients.”
 

Improved event-free survival

In this study, Dr. Larocca and colleagues investigated the efficacy and feasibility of a dose- and schedule-adjusted Rd regimen that was followed by maintenance Rd-R 10 mg/d and compared the regimen with continuous Rd in elderly, intermediate-fit patients who were newly diagnosed with multiple myeloma.

The primary endpoint was event-free survival, defined as progression/death from any cause, lenalidomide discontinuation, and any hematologic grade 4 or nonhematologic grade 3-4 adverse events.

The cohort consisted of 199 patients who were randomly assigned to receive either Rd-R (n = 101) or continuous Rd (n = 98). The median age was 75 years in the Rd-R arm and 76 years in the Rd arm; 52% of patients in the Rd-R group and 43% in the Rd group were classified as being intermediate fit not for age but for geriatric impairments.

With a median follow-up of 37 months, event-free survival was 10.4 months in the Rd-R arm versus 6.9 months in the Rd arm (hazard ratio, 0.70; P = .02). This benefit was maintained beyond nine cycles (median: 19.8 vs. 10.6 months for Rd-R vs. Rd; HR, 0.55; P = .03)

The median PFS was 20.2 months with Rd-R and 18.3 months with Rd (HR, 0.78; P = .16). The median overall survival was not reached. The 3-year overall survival was 74% with Rd-R and 63% with continuous Rd (HR, 0.62; P = .06). Among patients remaining on therapy after nine cycles, no difference in median PFS was observed between the two groups (24.3 vs. 18.7 months; HR, 0.73; P = .19).

Best response was similar for both groups, with an overall response rate of 78% versus 68% (P = .15). The very good partial response rate was 51% in the Rd-R arm versus 39% in the continuous Rd arm (P = .09).

Toxicities were similar between the two groups. Hematologic adverse events of at least grade 3 were reported in 26% of Rd-R patients versus 20% of Rd patients (P = .40). In both groups, the most frequent grade ≥3 hematologic toxicity was neutropenia (21% vs 18%). The most frequent grade ≥3 toxicities were nonhematologic. They occurred in 33% of Rd-R patients and 43% of Rd patients (P = .15). The most frequent nonhematologic toxicities were infections (10% vs. 12%), constitutional (3% vs. 12%), dermatologic (7% vs. 3%), and central nervous toxicities (2% vs. 6%).

The study was sponsored by Fondazione EMN Italy Onlus. Dr. Larocca has received honoraria from Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Janssen, and GlaxoSmithKline, and has served on the advisory boards for Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Janssen, and Takeda. Several coauthors also have disclosed relationships with industry. Dr. Rajkumar disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

For select older patients, it is safe to switch to a lower dose of lenalidomide maintenance therapy and discontinue dexamethasone after 9 months. The regimen is safe and yields outcomes similar to those of standard, continuous lenalidomide/dexamethasone (Rd), according to new findings.

At a median follow-up of 37 months, event-free survival was 10.4 months in the experimental arm in which dexamethasone therapy was stopped (Rd-R) versus 6.9 months for standard therapy. The tailored approach also resulted in fewer adverse effects.

The authors noted that there was no difference in progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival between the two groups.

“These results may be useful for the treatment of myeloma patients, since approximately one-third of patients not eligible for stem cell transplantation are intermediate fit, the population in our study,” said lead author Alessandra Larocca, MD, PhD, from the department of hematology-oncology of the University Hospital Città della Salute e della Scienza, Torino, Italy.

She said in an interview that they expect that these findings “may help to optimize the treatment of less-fit elderly patients by reducing the occurrence of adverse events and thus improving outcomes and preserving quality of life of these patients.”

This approach is a viable option for clinicians to consider for some patient subgroups. “This steroid-sparing approach can also be used in other combinations,” she said. “Ongoing trials are now evaluating steroid sparing in combination with monoclonal antibodies or the role of frailty-guided treatment.”

The study was published March 19, 2021, in Blood.
 

Curtailing steroids

Myeloma patients aged 75 years or older or who have comorbidities and functional impairments are an understudied population. They are more susceptible to adverse events that may negatively affect the duration of treatment and outcomes. Steroids are “scarcely tolerated” in the long term, even among younger patients, and “whether sparing dexamethasone is as effective as prolonged steroid exposure remains an open issue,” the authors wrote. There are still no clear data on the advantage of continuous steroid treatment as opposed to fixed-duration treatment for newly diagnosed patients.

In 2010, a study compared high-dose with low-dose dexamethasone. As expected, the rate of adverse events was lower among patients who received the low-dose steroid, but quite unexpectedly, deaths with high-dose dexamethasone were significantly higher than with low-dose dexamethasone.

The 1-year overall survival was 96% among patients who received the low dose of dexamethasone versus 87% with the standard high dose.

S. Vincent Rajkumar, MD, of the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., who was the lead author of the 2010 study, spoke with this new organization about the current study. “This is an important and practice-changing study,” he said. “We have already changed our practice and recommendations based on this study.”

He explained that, for transplant-ineligible patients, instead of initial therapy with bortezomib-lenalidomide-dexamethasone followed by Rd, they use lenalidomide alone without steroids.

“After 9 months of initial therapy, I now recommend we stop dexamethasone unless we are having problems controlling the myeloma, such as progressive disease,” Dr. Rajkumar said. “I congratulate the authors on a study that will improve the quality of life for our patients.”
 

Improved event-free survival

In this study, Dr. Larocca and colleagues investigated the efficacy and feasibility of a dose- and schedule-adjusted Rd regimen that was followed by maintenance Rd-R 10 mg/d and compared the regimen with continuous Rd in elderly, intermediate-fit patients who were newly diagnosed with multiple myeloma.

The primary endpoint was event-free survival, defined as progression/death from any cause, lenalidomide discontinuation, and any hematologic grade 4 or nonhematologic grade 3-4 adverse events.

The cohort consisted of 199 patients who were randomly assigned to receive either Rd-R (n = 101) or continuous Rd (n = 98). The median age was 75 years in the Rd-R arm and 76 years in the Rd arm; 52% of patients in the Rd-R group and 43% in the Rd group were classified as being intermediate fit not for age but for geriatric impairments.

With a median follow-up of 37 months, event-free survival was 10.4 months in the Rd-R arm versus 6.9 months in the Rd arm (hazard ratio, 0.70; P = .02). This benefit was maintained beyond nine cycles (median: 19.8 vs. 10.6 months for Rd-R vs. Rd; HR, 0.55; P = .03)

The median PFS was 20.2 months with Rd-R and 18.3 months with Rd (HR, 0.78; P = .16). The median overall survival was not reached. The 3-year overall survival was 74% with Rd-R and 63% with continuous Rd (HR, 0.62; P = .06). Among patients remaining on therapy after nine cycles, no difference in median PFS was observed between the two groups (24.3 vs. 18.7 months; HR, 0.73; P = .19).

Best response was similar for both groups, with an overall response rate of 78% versus 68% (P = .15). The very good partial response rate was 51% in the Rd-R arm versus 39% in the continuous Rd arm (P = .09).

Toxicities were similar between the two groups. Hematologic adverse events of at least grade 3 were reported in 26% of Rd-R patients versus 20% of Rd patients (P = .40). In both groups, the most frequent grade ≥3 hematologic toxicity was neutropenia (21% vs 18%). The most frequent grade ≥3 toxicities were nonhematologic. They occurred in 33% of Rd-R patients and 43% of Rd patients (P = .15). The most frequent nonhematologic toxicities were infections (10% vs. 12%), constitutional (3% vs. 12%), dermatologic (7% vs. 3%), and central nervous toxicities (2% vs. 6%).

The study was sponsored by Fondazione EMN Italy Onlus. Dr. Larocca has received honoraria from Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Janssen, and GlaxoSmithKline, and has served on the advisory boards for Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Janssen, and Takeda. Several coauthors also have disclosed relationships with industry. Dr. Rajkumar disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The National Psoriasis Foundation COVID-19 Task Force now recommends that certain patients on methotrexate consider stopping the drug for 2 weeks after receiving the Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 vaccine, Joel M. Gelfand, MD, said at Innovations in Dermatology: Virtual Spring Conference 2021.

Courtesy Dr. Joel M. Gelfand

The new guidance states: “Patients 60 or older who have at least one comorbidity associated with an increased risk for poor COVID-19 outcomes, and who are taking methotrexate with well-controlled psoriatic disease, may, in consultation with their prescriber, consider holding it for 2 weeks after receiving the Ad26.COV2.S [Johnson & Johnson] vaccine in order to potentially improve vaccine response.”

The key word here is “potentially.” There is no hard evidence that a 2-week hold on methotrexate after receiving the killed adenovirus vaccine will actually provide a clinically meaningful benefit. But it’s a hypothetical possibility. The rationale stems from a small randomized trial conducted in South Korea several years ago in which patients with rheumatoid arthritis were assigned to hold or continue their methotrexate for the first 2 weeks after receiving an inactivated-virus influenza vaccine. The antibody response to the vaccine was better in those who temporarily halted their methotrexate, explained Dr. Gelfand, cochair of the NPF COVID-19 Task Force and professor of dermatology and of epidemiology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

“If you have a patient on methotrexate who’s 60 or older and whose psoriasis is completely controlled and quiescent and the patient is concerned about how well the vaccine is going to work, this is a reasonable thing to consider in someone who’s at higher risk for poor outcomes if they get infected,” he said.

If the informed patient wants to continue on methotrexate without interruption, that’s fine, too, in light of the lack of compelling evidence on this issue, the dermatologist added at the conference, sponsored by MedscapeLIVE! and the producers of the Hawaii Dermatology Seminar and Caribbean Dermatology Symposium.

The NPF task force does not extend the recommendation to consider holding methotrexate in recipients of the mRNA-based Moderna and Pfizer vaccines because of their very different mechanisms of action. Nor is it recommended to hold biologic agents after receiving any of the available COVID-19 vaccines. Studies have shown no altered immunologic response to influenza or pneumococcal vaccines in patients who continued on tumor necrosis factor inhibitors or interleukin-17 inhibitors. The interleukin-23 inhibitors haven’t been studied in this regard.

The task force recommends that most psoriasis patients should continue on treatment throughout the pandemic, and newly diagnosed patients should commence appropriate therapy as if there was no pandemic.

“We’ve learned that many patients who stopped their treatment for psoriatic disease early in the pandemic came to regret that decision because their psoriasis flared and got worse and required reinstitution of therapy,” Dr. Gelfand said. “The current data is largely reassuring that if there is an effect of our therapies on the risk of COVID, it must be rather small and therefore unlikely to be clinically meaningful for our patients.”

Dr. Gelfand reported serving as a consultant to and recipient of institutional research grants from Pfizer and numerous other pharmaceutical companies.

MedscapeLIVE and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

bjancin@mdedge.com

The National Psoriasis Foundation COVID-19 Task Force now recommends that certain patients on methotrexate consider stopping the drug for 2 weeks after receiving the Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 vaccine, Joel M. Gelfand, MD, said at Innovations in Dermatology: Virtual Spring Conference 2021.

Courtesy Dr. Joel M. Gelfand

The new guidance states: “Patients 60 or older who have at least one comorbidity associated with an increased risk for poor COVID-19 outcomes, and who are taking methotrexate with well-controlled psoriatic disease, may, in consultation with their prescriber, consider holding it for 2 weeks after receiving the Ad26.COV2.S [Johnson & Johnson] vaccine in order to potentially improve vaccine response.”

The key word here is “potentially.” There is no hard evidence that a 2-week hold on methotrexate after receiving the killed adenovirus vaccine will actually provide a clinically meaningful benefit. But it’s a hypothetical possibility. The rationale stems from a small randomized trial conducted in South Korea several years ago in which patients with rheumatoid arthritis were assigned to hold or continue their methotrexate for the first 2 weeks after receiving an inactivated-virus influenza vaccine. The antibody response to the vaccine was better in those who temporarily halted their methotrexate, explained Dr. Gelfand, cochair of the NPF COVID-19 Task Force and professor of dermatology and of epidemiology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

“If you have a patient on methotrexate who’s 60 or older and whose psoriasis is completely controlled and quiescent and the patient is concerned about how well the vaccine is going to work, this is a reasonable thing to consider in someone who’s at higher risk for poor outcomes if they get infected,” he said.

If the informed patient wants to continue on methotrexate without interruption, that’s fine, too, in light of the lack of compelling evidence on this issue, the dermatologist added at the conference, sponsored by MedscapeLIVE! and the producers of the Hawaii Dermatology Seminar and Caribbean Dermatology Symposium.

The NPF task force does not extend the recommendation to consider holding methotrexate in recipients of the mRNA-based Moderna and Pfizer vaccines because of their very different mechanisms of action. Nor is it recommended to hold biologic agents after receiving any of the available COVID-19 vaccines. Studies have shown no altered immunologic response to influenza or pneumococcal vaccines in patients who continued on tumor necrosis factor inhibitors or interleukin-17 inhibitors. The interleukin-23 inhibitors haven’t been studied in this regard.

The task force recommends that most psoriasis patients should continue on treatment throughout the pandemic, and newly diagnosed patients should commence appropriate therapy as if there was no pandemic.

“We’ve learned that many patients who stopped their treatment for psoriatic disease early in the pandemic came to regret that decision because their psoriasis flared and got worse and required reinstitution of therapy,” Dr. Gelfand said. “The current data is largely reassuring that if there is an effect of our therapies on the risk of COVID, it must be rather small and therefore unlikely to be clinically meaningful for our patients.”

Dr. Gelfand reported serving as a consultant to and recipient of institutional research grants from Pfizer and numerous other pharmaceutical companies.

MedscapeLIVE and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

bjancin@mdedge.com

The National Psoriasis Foundation COVID-19 Task Force now recommends that certain patients on methotrexate consider stopping the drug for 2 weeks after receiving the Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 vaccine, Joel M. Gelfand, MD, said at Innovations in Dermatology: Virtual Spring Conference 2021.

Courtesy Dr. Joel M. Gelfand

The new guidance states: “Patients 60 or older who have at least one comorbidity associated with an increased risk for poor COVID-19 outcomes, and who are taking methotrexate with well-controlled psoriatic disease, may, in consultation with their prescriber, consider holding it for 2 weeks after receiving the Ad26.COV2.S [Johnson & Johnson] vaccine in order to potentially improve vaccine response.”

The key word here is “potentially.” There is no hard evidence that a 2-week hold on methotrexate after receiving the killed adenovirus vaccine will actually provide a clinically meaningful benefit. But it’s a hypothetical possibility. The rationale stems from a small randomized trial conducted in South Korea several years ago in which patients with rheumatoid arthritis were assigned to hold or continue their methotrexate for the first 2 weeks after receiving an inactivated-virus influenza vaccine. The antibody response to the vaccine was better in those who temporarily halted their methotrexate, explained Dr. Gelfand, cochair of the NPF COVID-19 Task Force and professor of dermatology and of epidemiology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

“If you have a patient on methotrexate who’s 60 or older and whose psoriasis is completely controlled and quiescent and the patient is concerned about how well the vaccine is going to work, this is a reasonable thing to consider in someone who’s at higher risk for poor outcomes if they get infected,” he said.

If the informed patient wants to continue on methotrexate without interruption, that’s fine, too, in light of the lack of compelling evidence on this issue, the dermatologist added at the conference, sponsored by MedscapeLIVE! and the producers of the Hawaii Dermatology Seminar and Caribbean Dermatology Symposium.

The NPF task force does not extend the recommendation to consider holding methotrexate in recipients of the mRNA-based Moderna and Pfizer vaccines because of their very different mechanisms of action. Nor is it recommended to hold biologic agents after receiving any of the available COVID-19 vaccines. Studies have shown no altered immunologic response to influenza or pneumococcal vaccines in patients who continued on tumor necrosis factor inhibitors or interleukin-17 inhibitors. The interleukin-23 inhibitors haven’t been studied in this regard.

The task force recommends that most psoriasis patients should continue on treatment throughout the pandemic, and newly diagnosed patients should commence appropriate therapy as if there was no pandemic.

“We’ve learned that many patients who stopped their treatment for psoriatic disease early in the pandemic came to regret that decision because their psoriasis flared and got worse and required reinstitution of therapy,” Dr. Gelfand said. “The current data is largely reassuring that if there is an effect of our therapies on the risk of COVID, it must be rather small and therefore unlikely to be clinically meaningful for our patients.”

Dr. Gelfand reported serving as a consultant to and recipient of institutional research grants from Pfizer and numerous other pharmaceutical companies.

MedscapeLIVE and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

bjancin@mdedge.com

Chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy, described as a “living drug,” is now available for patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma who have been treated with four or more prior lines of therapy.

The Food and Drug Administration said these patients represent an “unmet medical need” when it granted approval for the new product – idecabtagene vicleucel (ide-cel; Abecma), developed by bluebird bio and Bristol-Myers Squibb.

Ide-cel is the first CAR T-cell therapy to gain approval for use in multiple myeloma. It is also the first CAR T-cell therapy to target B-cell maturation antigen.

Previously approved CAR T-cell products target CD19 and have been approved for use in certain types of leukemia and lymphoma.

All the CAR T-cell therapies are customized treatments that are created specifically for each individual patient from their own blood. The patient’s own T cells are removed from the blood, are genetically modified and expanded, and are then infused back into the patient. These modified T cells then seek out and destroy blood cancer cells, and they continue to do so long term.

In some patients, this has led to eradication of disease that had previously progressed with every other treatment that had been tried – results that have been described as “absolutely remarkable” and “one-shot therapy that looks to be curative.”

However, this cell therapy comes with serious adverse effects, including neurologic toxicity and cytokine release syndrome (CRS), which can be life threatening. For this reason, all these products have a risk evaluation and mitigation strategy, and the use of CAR T-cell therapies is limited to designated centers.

In addition, these CAR T-cells products are phenomenally expensive; hospitals have reported heavy financial losses with their use, and patients have turned to crowdfunding to pay for these therapies.
 

‘Phenomenal’ results in MM

The FDA noted that approval of ide-cel for multiple myeloma is based on data from a multicenter study that involved 127 patients with relapsed/refractory disease who had received at least three prior lines of treatment.

The results from this trial were published Feb. 25 in the New England Journal of Medicine.

An expert not involved in the trial described the results as “phenomenal.”

Krina Patel, MD, an associate professor in the department of lymphoma/myeloma at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, said that “the response rate of 73% in a patient population with a median of six lines of therapy, and with one-third of those patients achieving a deep response of complete response or better, is phenomenal.

“We are very excited as a myeloma community for this study of idecabtagene vicleucel for relapsed/refractory patients,” Dr. Patel told this news organization at the time.

The lead investigator of the study, Nikhil Munshi, MD, of Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, commented: “The results of this trial represent a true turning point in the treatment of this disease. In my 30 years of treating myeloma, I have not seen any other therapy as effective in this group of patients.”

Both experts highlighted the poor prognosis for patients with relapsed/refractory disease. Recent decades have seen a flurry of new agents for myeloma, and there are now three main classes of agents: immunomodulatory agents, proteasome inhibitors, and anti-CD38 antibodies.

Nevertheless, in some patients, the disease continues to progress. For patients for whom treatments with all three classes of drugs have failed, the median progression-free survival is 3-4 months, and the median overall survival is 9 months.

In contrast, the results reported in the NEJM article showed that overall median progression-free survival was 8.8 months, but it was more than double that (20.2 months) for patients who achieved a complete or stringent complete response.

Estimated median overall survival was 19.4 months, and the overall survival was 78% at 12 months. The authors note that overall survival data are not yet mature.

The patients who were enrolled in the CAR T-cell trial had undergone many previous treatments. They had undergone a median of six prior drug therapies (range, 3-16), and most of the patients (120, 94%) had also undergone autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplant.

In addition, the majority of patients (84%) had disease that was triple refractory (to an immunomodulatory agent, a proteasome inhibitor, and an anti-CD38 antibody), 60% had disease that was penta-exposed (to bortezomib, carfilzomib, lenalidomide, pomalidomide, and daratumumab), and 26% had disease that was penta-refractory.

In the NEJM article, the authors report that about a third of patients had a complete response to CAR T-cell therapy.

At a median follow-up of 13.3 months, 94 of 128 patients (73%) showed a response to therapy (P < .001); 42 (33%) showed a complete or stringent complete response; and 67 patients (52%) showed a “very good partial response or better,” they write.

In the FDA announcement of the product approval, the figures for complete response were slightly lower. “Of those studied, 28% of patients showed complete response – or disappearance of all signs of multiple myeloma – to Abecma, and 65% of this group remained in complete response to the treatment for at least 12 months,” the agency noted.

The FDA also noted that treatment with Abecma can cause severe side effects. The label carries a boxed warning regarding CRS, hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis/macrophage activation syndrome, neurologic toxicity, and prolonged cytopenia, all of which can be fatal or life threatening.

The most common side effects of Abecma are CRS, infections, fatigue, musculoskeletal pain, and a weakened immune system. Side effects from treatment usually appear within the first 1-2 weeks after treatment, but some side effects may occur later.

The agency also noted that, to further evaluate the long-term safety of the drug, it is requiring the manufacturer to conduct a postmarketing observational study.

“The FDA remains committed to advancing novel treatment options for areas of unmet patient need,” said Peter Marks, MD, PhD, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research.

“While there is no cure for multiple myeloma, the long-term outlook can vary based on the individual’s age and the stage of the condition at the time of diagnosis. Today’s approval provides a new treatment option for patients who have this uncommon type of cancer.”

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

Chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy, described as a “living drug,” is now available for patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma who have been treated with four or more prior lines of therapy.

The Food and Drug Administration said these patients represent an “unmet medical need” when it granted approval for the new product – idecabtagene vicleucel (ide-cel; Abecma), developed by bluebird bio and Bristol-Myers Squibb.

Ide-cel is the first CAR T-cell therapy to gain approval for use in multiple myeloma. It is also the first CAR T-cell therapy to target B-cell maturation antigen.

Previously approved CAR T-cell products target CD19 and have been approved for use in certain types of leukemia and lymphoma.

All the CAR T-cell therapies are customized treatments that are created specifically for each individual patient from their own blood. The patient’s own T cells are removed from the blood, are genetically modified and expanded, and are then infused back into the patient. These modified T cells then seek out and destroy blood cancer cells, and they continue to do so long term.

In some patients, this has led to eradication of disease that had previously progressed with every other treatment that had been tried – results that have been described as “absolutely remarkable” and “one-shot therapy that looks to be curative.”

However, this cell therapy comes with serious adverse effects, including neurologic toxicity and cytokine release syndrome (CRS), which can be life threatening. For this reason, all these products have a risk evaluation and mitigation strategy, and the use of CAR T-cell therapies is limited to designated centers.

In addition, these CAR T-cells products are phenomenally expensive; hospitals have reported heavy financial losses with their use, and patients have turned to crowdfunding to pay for these therapies.
 

‘Phenomenal’ results in MM

The FDA noted that approval of ide-cel for multiple myeloma is based on data from a multicenter study that involved 127 patients with relapsed/refractory disease who had received at least three prior lines of treatment.

The results from this trial were published Feb. 25 in the New England Journal of Medicine.

An expert not involved in the trial described the results as “phenomenal.”

Krina Patel, MD, an associate professor in the department of lymphoma/myeloma at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, said that “the response rate of 73% in a patient population with a median of six lines of therapy, and with one-third of those patients achieving a deep response of complete response or better, is phenomenal.

“We are very excited as a myeloma community for this study of idecabtagene vicleucel for relapsed/refractory patients,” Dr. Patel told this news organization at the time.

The lead investigator of the study, Nikhil Munshi, MD, of Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, commented: “The results of this trial represent a true turning point in the treatment of this disease. In my 30 years of treating myeloma, I have not seen any other therapy as effective in this group of patients.”

Both experts highlighted the poor prognosis for patients with relapsed/refractory disease. Recent decades have seen a flurry of new agents for myeloma, and there are now three main classes of agents: immunomodulatory agents, proteasome inhibitors, and anti-CD38 antibodies.

Nevertheless, in some patients, the disease continues to progress. For patients for whom treatments with all three classes of drugs have failed, the median progression-free survival is 3-4 months, and the median overall survival is 9 months.

In contrast, the results reported in the NEJM article showed that overall median progression-free survival was 8.8 months, but it was more than double that (20.2 months) for patients who achieved a complete or stringent complete response.

Estimated median overall survival was 19.4 months, and the overall survival was 78% at 12 months. The authors note that overall survival data are not yet mature.

The patients who were enrolled in the CAR T-cell trial had undergone many previous treatments. They had undergone a median of six prior drug therapies (range, 3-16), and most of the patients (120, 94%) had also undergone autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplant.

In addition, the majority of patients (84%) had disease that was triple refractory (to an immunomodulatory agent, a proteasome inhibitor, and an anti-CD38 antibody), 60% had disease that was penta-exposed (to bortezomib, carfilzomib, lenalidomide, pomalidomide, and daratumumab), and 26% had disease that was penta-refractory.

In the NEJM article, the authors report that about a third of patients had a complete response to CAR T-cell therapy.

At a median follow-up of 13.3 months, 94 of 128 patients (73%) showed a response to therapy (P < .001); 42 (33%) showed a complete or stringent complete response; and 67 patients (52%) showed a “very good partial response or better,” they write.

In the FDA announcement of the product approval, the figures for complete response were slightly lower. “Of those studied, 28% of patients showed complete response – or disappearance of all signs of multiple myeloma – to Abecma, and 65% of this group remained in complete response to the treatment for at least 12 months,” the agency noted.

The FDA also noted that treatment with Abecma can cause severe side effects. The label carries a boxed warning regarding CRS, hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis/macrophage activation syndrome, neurologic toxicity, and prolonged cytopenia, all of which can be fatal or life threatening.

The most common side effects of Abecma are CRS, infections, fatigue, musculoskeletal pain, and a weakened immune system. Side effects from treatment usually appear within the first 1-2 weeks after treatment, but some side effects may occur later.

The agency also noted that, to further evaluate the long-term safety of the drug, it is requiring the manufacturer to conduct a postmarketing observational study.

“The FDA remains committed to advancing novel treatment options for areas of unmet patient need,” said Peter Marks, MD, PhD, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research.

“While there is no cure for multiple myeloma, the long-term outlook can vary based on the individual’s age and the stage of the condition at the time of diagnosis. Today’s approval provides a new treatment option for patients who have this uncommon type of cancer.”

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

Chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy, described as a “living drug,” is now available for patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma who have been treated with four or more prior lines of therapy.

The Food and Drug Administration said these patients represent an “unmet medical need” when it granted approval for the new product – idecabtagene vicleucel (ide-cel; Abecma), developed by bluebird bio and Bristol-Myers Squibb.

Ide-cel is the first CAR T-cell therapy to gain approval for use in multiple myeloma. It is also the first CAR T-cell therapy to target B-cell maturation antigen.

Previously approved CAR T-cell products target CD19 and have been approved for use in certain types of leukemia and lymphoma.

All the CAR T-cell therapies are customized treatments that are created specifically for each individual patient from their own blood. The patient’s own T cells are removed from the blood, are genetically modified and expanded, and are then infused back into the patient. These modified T cells then seek out and destroy blood cancer cells, and they continue to do so long term.

In some patients, this has led to eradication of disease that had previously progressed with every other treatment that had been tried – results that have been described as “absolutely remarkable” and “one-shot therapy that looks to be curative.”

However, this cell therapy comes with serious adverse effects, including neurologic toxicity and cytokine release syndrome (CRS), which can be life threatening. For this reason, all these products have a risk evaluation and mitigation strategy, and the use of CAR T-cell therapies is limited to designated centers.

In addition, these CAR T-cells products are phenomenally expensive; hospitals have reported heavy financial losses with their use, and patients have turned to crowdfunding to pay for these therapies.
 

‘Phenomenal’ results in MM

The FDA noted that approval of ide-cel for multiple myeloma is based on data from a multicenter study that involved 127 patients with relapsed/refractory disease who had received at least three prior lines of treatment.

The results from this trial were published Feb. 25 in the New England Journal of Medicine.

An expert not involved in the trial described the results as “phenomenal.”

Krina Patel, MD, an associate professor in the department of lymphoma/myeloma at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, said that “the response rate of 73% in a patient population with a median of six lines of therapy, and with one-third of those patients achieving a deep response of complete response or better, is phenomenal.

“We are very excited as a myeloma community for this study of idecabtagene vicleucel for relapsed/refractory patients,” Dr. Patel told this news organization at the time.

The lead investigator of the study, Nikhil Munshi, MD, of Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, commented: “The results of this trial represent a true turning point in the treatment of this disease. In my 30 years of treating myeloma, I have not seen any other therapy as effective in this group of patients.”

Both experts highlighted the poor prognosis for patients with relapsed/refractory disease. Recent decades have seen a flurry of new agents for myeloma, and there are now three main classes of agents: immunomodulatory agents, proteasome inhibitors, and anti-CD38 antibodies.

Nevertheless, in some patients, the disease continues to progress. For patients for whom treatments with all three classes of drugs have failed, the median progression-free survival is 3-4 months, and the median overall survival is 9 months.

In contrast, the results reported in the NEJM article showed that overall median progression-free survival was 8.8 months, but it was more than double that (20.2 months) for patients who achieved a complete or stringent complete response.

Estimated median overall survival was 19.4 months, and the overall survival was 78% at 12 months. The authors note that overall survival data are not yet mature.

The patients who were enrolled in the CAR T-cell trial had undergone many previous treatments. They had undergone a median of six prior drug therapies (range, 3-16), and most of the patients (120, 94%) had also undergone autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplant.

In addition, the majority of patients (84%) had disease that was triple refractory (to an immunomodulatory agent, a proteasome inhibitor, and an anti-CD38 antibody), 60% had disease that was penta-exposed (to bortezomib, carfilzomib, lenalidomide, pomalidomide, and daratumumab), and 26% had disease that was penta-refractory.

In the NEJM article, the authors report that about a third of patients had a complete response to CAR T-cell therapy.

At a median follow-up of 13.3 months, 94 of 128 patients (73%) showed a response to therapy (P < .001); 42 (33%) showed a complete or stringent complete response; and 67 patients (52%) showed a “very good partial response or better,” they write.

In the FDA announcement of the product approval, the figures for complete response were slightly lower. “Of those studied, 28% of patients showed complete response – or disappearance of all signs of multiple myeloma – to Abecma, and 65% of this group remained in complete response to the treatment for at least 12 months,” the agency noted.

The FDA also noted that treatment with Abecma can cause severe side effects. The label carries a boxed warning regarding CRS, hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis/macrophage activation syndrome, neurologic toxicity, and prolonged cytopenia, all of which can be fatal or life threatening.

The most common side effects of Abecma are CRS, infections, fatigue, musculoskeletal pain, and a weakened immune system. Side effects from treatment usually appear within the first 1-2 weeks after treatment, but some side effects may occur later.

The agency also noted that, to further evaluate the long-term safety of the drug, it is requiring the manufacturer to conduct a postmarketing observational study.

“The FDA remains committed to advancing novel treatment options for areas of unmet patient need,” said Peter Marks, MD, PhD, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research.

“While there is no cure for multiple myeloma, the long-term outlook can vary based on the individual’s age and the stage of the condition at the time of diagnosis. Today’s approval provides a new treatment option for patients who have this uncommon type of cancer.”

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

Amid a substantial expansion of therapies in several drug classes for the treatment of osteoporosis, there has been a notable increase in the prescription of denosumab for patients with a cancer-related indication.

ogichobanov/iStock/Getty Images Plus

In an analysis of claims data from January 2009 to March 2020, the bisphosphonate alendronate represented more than 50% of all prescriptions for bone-directed therapies, but growth in the use of the monoclonal antibody denosumab overall and in cancer-related indications particularly was steady throughout the study period.

“In the malignancy cohort, alendronate and zoledronic acid were each used in approximately 30% of individuals at the onset of the study, but use of both then declined,” Sara Cromer, MD, reported at the annual meeting of the Endocrine Society.

For malignancy-based prescriptions, denosumab surpassed either bisphosphonate by 2013 and then continued to rise.

Denosumab use “reached approximately 50% of all bone-directed medication use in the malignancy cohort” by the end of the study period, said Dr. Cromer, a clinical research fellow in endocrinology at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.

The claims data for this analysis was drawn from the Clinformatics Data Mart. The analysis was restricted to individuals aged older than 50 years who received a prescription for a bone-directed therapy. The 15.48 million prescriptions evaluated were drawn from 1.46 million unique individuals. The mean age was 69 years, and 89% of those prescribed a drug were women.
 

Oncologic indications one of two tracked cohorts

In the context of a large expansion of treatment options in several drug classes for osteoporosis, the objective of this claims analysis was to document trends in treatment choice, according to Dr. Cromer. She and her coinvestigators looked at prescriptions overall as well as in two cohorts defined by ICD codes. One included patients prescribed a prescription by an oncologist. The other included everyone else.

When all prescriptions for bone-directed therapy were evaluated over the study period, alendronate was the most commonly prescribed therapy, and its use increased over time. Prescriptions of zoledronic acid also rose, doubling over the study period, but use was very low in the beginning and it never climbed above 5%.

The proportion of prescriptions written for bisphosphonates other than alendronate and zoledronic acid “declined steadily” over the study period, Dr. Cromer reported.

Denosumab, a monoclonal antibody that targets a step in the process important to maturation of osteoclasts, was approved in 2010. It accounted for 10% of all prescriptions for osteoporosis by 2015 and 15% by 2018. It was still rising through the end of the study period.

In contrast, prescriptions of raloxifene, a selective estrogen receptor modulator, began to decline after 2013. In general, the rates of prescriptions for other agents, including some of the more recently approved drugs, such as teriparatide, abaloparatide, and romosozumab, changed very little over the study period. None of these therapies ever represented more than 2% of prescriptions.

When looking at the cohort of patients who received a bone-directed reason for a noncancer indication, the trends “paralleled those in the all-user analysis,” Dr. Cromer reported.
 

Denosumab use greater in privately insured

In the malignancy cohort, the decline in the use of bisphosphonates and the rise in the use of denosumab were most pronounced in patients who were privately insured. The increased use of denosumab over the study period “outpaced gains in use of other agents despite guidelines,” said Dr. Cromer, referring to the those issued by the Endocrine Society in 2019 .

In those guidelines, written for management of postmenopausal women at high risk of fractures, bisphosphonates are recommended for initial treatment while denosumab is recommended as an alternative. However, those guidelines do not provide specific recommendations for therapies directed at osteoporosis associated with cancer.

Guidelines for this population exist, including one published by the American Society of Clinical Oncology in 2019.

In the ASCO guidelines, oral bisphosphonates, intravenous bisphosphonates, and subcutaneous denosumab were all identified as “efficacious options,” according to Charles L. Shapiro, MD, director of breast cancer translational research, Mount Sinai Health System, New York.

Specifically, “all three of them work to reduce fractures and improve bone density in women with breast cancer in whom you are trying to prevent or treat osteoporosis,” Dr. Shapiro said in an interview.

There might be relative advantages for one therapy over another in specific subgroups defined by type of cancer or stage of cancer, but trials are not definitive for such outcomes as overall survival. Citing one comparative study associating denosumab with an 18% delay to first skeletal event in women with metastatic breast cancer, Dr. Shapiro observed, “I personally don’t consider an 18% delay [for this outcome] to be that clinically meaningful.”

Although major guidelines from ASCO have not so far favored denosumab over any bisphosphonate in routine care, Dr. Shapiro did not rule out the possibility that future studies will show differences.

Dr. Comer and Dr. Shapiro reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

Amid a substantial expansion of therapies in several drug classes for the treatment of osteoporosis, there has been a notable increase in the prescription of denosumab for patients with a cancer-related indication.

ogichobanov/iStock/Getty Images Plus

In an analysis of claims data from January 2009 to March 2020, the bisphosphonate alendronate represented more than 50% of all prescriptions for bone-directed therapies, but growth in the use of the monoclonal antibody denosumab overall and in cancer-related indications particularly was steady throughout the study period.

“In the malignancy cohort, alendronate and zoledronic acid were each used in approximately 30% of individuals at the onset of the study, but use of both then declined,” Sara Cromer, MD, reported at the annual meeting of the Endocrine Society.

For malignancy-based prescriptions, denosumab surpassed either bisphosphonate by 2013 and then continued to rise.

Denosumab use “reached approximately 50% of all bone-directed medication use in the malignancy cohort” by the end of the study period, said Dr. Cromer, a clinical research fellow in endocrinology at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.

The claims data for this analysis was drawn from the Clinformatics Data Mart. The analysis was restricted to individuals aged older than 50 years who received a prescription for a bone-directed therapy. The 15.48 million prescriptions evaluated were drawn from 1.46 million unique individuals. The mean age was 69 years, and 89% of those prescribed a drug were women.
 

Oncologic indications one of two tracked cohorts

In the context of a large expansion of treatment options in several drug classes for osteoporosis, the objective of this claims analysis was to document trends in treatment choice, according to Dr. Cromer. She and her coinvestigators looked at prescriptions overall as well as in two cohorts defined by ICD codes. One included patients prescribed a prescription by an oncologist. The other included everyone else.

When all prescriptions for bone-directed therapy were evaluated over the study period, alendronate was the most commonly prescribed therapy, and its use increased over time. Prescriptions of zoledronic acid also rose, doubling over the study period, but use was very low in the beginning and it never climbed above 5%.

The proportion of prescriptions written for bisphosphonates other than alendronate and zoledronic acid “declined steadily” over the study period, Dr. Cromer reported.

Denosumab, a monoclonal antibody that targets a step in the process important to maturation of osteoclasts, was approved in 2010. It accounted for 10% of all prescriptions for osteoporosis by 2015 and 15% by 2018. It was still rising through the end of the study period.

In contrast, prescriptions of raloxifene, a selective estrogen receptor modulator, began to decline after 2013. In general, the rates of prescriptions for other agents, including some of the more recently approved drugs, such as teriparatide, abaloparatide, and romosozumab, changed very little over the study period. None of these therapies ever represented more than 2% of prescriptions.

When looking at the cohort of patients who received a bone-directed reason for a noncancer indication, the trends “paralleled those in the all-user analysis,” Dr. Cromer reported.
 

Denosumab use greater in privately insured

In the malignancy cohort, the decline in the use of bisphosphonates and the rise in the use of denosumab were most pronounced in patients who were privately insured. The increased use of denosumab over the study period “outpaced gains in use of other agents despite guidelines,” said Dr. Cromer, referring to the those issued by the Endocrine Society in 2019 .

In those guidelines, written for management of postmenopausal women at high risk of fractures, bisphosphonates are recommended for initial treatment while denosumab is recommended as an alternative. However, those guidelines do not provide specific recommendations for therapies directed at osteoporosis associated with cancer.

Guidelines for this population exist, including one published by the American Society of Clinical Oncology in 2019.

In the ASCO guidelines, oral bisphosphonates, intravenous bisphosphonates, and subcutaneous denosumab were all identified as “efficacious options,” according to Charles L. Shapiro, MD, director of breast cancer translational research, Mount Sinai Health System, New York.

Specifically, “all three of them work to reduce fractures and improve bone density in women with breast cancer in whom you are trying to prevent or treat osteoporosis,” Dr. Shapiro said in an interview.

There might be relative advantages for one therapy over another in specific subgroups defined by type of cancer or stage of cancer, but trials are not definitive for such outcomes as overall survival. Citing one comparative study associating denosumab with an 18% delay to first skeletal event in women with metastatic breast cancer, Dr. Shapiro observed, “I personally don’t consider an 18% delay [for this outcome] to be that clinically meaningful.”

Although major guidelines from ASCO have not so far favored denosumab over any bisphosphonate in routine care, Dr. Shapiro did not rule out the possibility that future studies will show differences.

Dr. Comer and Dr. Shapiro reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

Amid a substantial expansion of therapies in several drug classes for the treatment of osteoporosis, there has been a notable increase in the prescription of denosumab for patients with a cancer-related indication.

ogichobanov/iStock/Getty Images Plus

In an analysis of claims data from January 2009 to March 2020, the bisphosphonate alendronate represented more than 50% of all prescriptions for bone-directed therapies, but growth in the use of the monoclonal antibody denosumab overall and in cancer-related indications particularly was steady throughout the study period.

“In the malignancy cohort, alendronate and zoledronic acid were each used in approximately 30% of individuals at the onset of the study, but use of both then declined,” Sara Cromer, MD, reported at the annual meeting of the Endocrine Society.

For malignancy-based prescriptions, denosumab surpassed either bisphosphonate by 2013 and then continued to rise.

Denosumab use “reached approximately 50% of all bone-directed medication use in the malignancy cohort” by the end of the study period, said Dr. Cromer, a clinical research fellow in endocrinology at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.

The claims data for this analysis was drawn from the Clinformatics Data Mart. The analysis was restricted to individuals aged older than 50 years who received a prescription for a bone-directed therapy. The 15.48 million prescriptions evaluated were drawn from 1.46 million unique individuals. The mean age was 69 years, and 89% of those prescribed a drug were women.
 

Oncologic indications one of two tracked cohorts

In the context of a large expansion of treatment options in several drug classes for osteoporosis, the objective of this claims analysis was to document trends in treatment choice, according to Dr. Cromer. She and her coinvestigators looked at prescriptions overall as well as in two cohorts defined by ICD codes. One included patients prescribed a prescription by an oncologist. The other included everyone else.

When all prescriptions for bone-directed therapy were evaluated over the study period, alendronate was the most commonly prescribed therapy, and its use increased over time. Prescriptions of zoledronic acid also rose, doubling over the study period, but use was very low in the beginning and it never climbed above 5%.

The proportion of prescriptions written for bisphosphonates other than alendronate and zoledronic acid “declined steadily” over the study period, Dr. Cromer reported.

Denosumab, a monoclonal antibody that targets a step in the process important to maturation of osteoclasts, was approved in 2010. It accounted for 10% of all prescriptions for osteoporosis by 2015 and 15% by 2018. It was still rising through the end of the study period.

In contrast, prescriptions of raloxifene, a selective estrogen receptor modulator, began to decline after 2013. In general, the rates of prescriptions for other agents, including some of the more recently approved drugs, such as teriparatide, abaloparatide, and romosozumab, changed very little over the study period. None of these therapies ever represented more than 2% of prescriptions.

When looking at the cohort of patients who received a bone-directed reason for a noncancer indication, the trends “paralleled those in the all-user analysis,” Dr. Cromer reported.
 

Denosumab use greater in privately insured

In the malignancy cohort, the decline in the use of bisphosphonates and the rise in the use of denosumab were most pronounced in patients who were privately insured. The increased use of denosumab over the study period “outpaced gains in use of other agents despite guidelines,” said Dr. Cromer, referring to the those issued by the Endocrine Society in 2019 .

In those guidelines, written for management of postmenopausal women at high risk of fractures, bisphosphonates are recommended for initial treatment while denosumab is recommended as an alternative. However, those guidelines do not provide specific recommendations for therapies directed at osteoporosis associated with cancer.

Guidelines for this population exist, including one published by the American Society of Clinical Oncology in 2019.

In the ASCO guidelines, oral bisphosphonates, intravenous bisphosphonates, and subcutaneous denosumab were all identified as “efficacious options,” according to Charles L. Shapiro, MD, director of breast cancer translational research, Mount Sinai Health System, New York.

Specifically, “all three of them work to reduce fractures and improve bone density in women with breast cancer in whom you are trying to prevent or treat osteoporosis,” Dr. Shapiro said in an interview.

There might be relative advantages for one therapy over another in specific subgroups defined by type of cancer or stage of cancer, but trials are not definitive for such outcomes as overall survival. Citing one comparative study associating denosumab with an 18% delay to first skeletal event in women with metastatic breast cancer, Dr. Shapiro observed, “I personally don’t consider an 18% delay [for this outcome] to be that clinically meaningful.”

Although major guidelines from ASCO have not so far favored denosumab over any bisphosphonate in routine care, Dr. Shapiro did not rule out the possibility that future studies will show differences.

Dr. Comer and Dr. Shapiro reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

Patients with hypothyroidism treated with the three most common pharmacologic strategies of levothyroxine (LT4) alone, LT4 in combination with triiodothyronine (T3), or desiccated thyroid extract showed no differences in thyroid symptoms or secondary outcomes in a double-blind, randomized study.

Sebastian Kaulitzki/Fotolia

“There are now proven good treatment options for the more than 1 in 10 patients with hypothyroidism who continue to experience symptoms of fatigue, mental fogginess, weight gain, and other symptoms despite taking levothyroxine,” first author Thanh Duc Hoang, DO, an endocrinologist at the Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, in Bethesda, Md., said in a press statement.

The findings were presented at the annual meeting of the Endocrine Society.

Commenting on the study, Alan P. Farwell, MD, said these new results are a valuable contribution to the understanding of treatment effects. “I think this is an interesting and important study and further studies are needed to clarify the optimal way to treat hypothyroidism,” said Dr. Farwell, who is director of endocrine clinics at Boston University.

Importantly, “the findings are different than studies where the patients are aware of what medication they are receiving,” he stressed in an interview, underscoring the importance of the double-blind design of the trial.

But Anne Cappola, MD, of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, pointed out that “the study was small and unlikely to have the statistical power to detect differences that could have been clinically important.”

Nevertheless, she too agreed that the double-blind study design is key: “My experience with patients is [the effects] are affected by patients’ perceptions about their thyroid medication. That is why studies designed so that patients do not know which treatment they are receiving are so important in this area.”
 

Randomized, double-blind comparison

Prior to the widespread availability of the current gold standard hypothyroidism treatment of LT4, the condition was typically treated with desiccated (animal) thyroid extract. And with many patients continuing to have a preference for this therapeutic approach, it is still commonly used.

Additionally, some patients treated with LT4 alone report greater improvements in symptoms with the addition of T3 – despite studies showing no benefits from the two together – leading to many clinicians commonly trying the combination approach.

To compare the efficacy of the three approaches in a prospective, double-blind, cross-over fashion, 75 patients received three therapeutic approaches each for 3 months: desiccated thyroid extract, an LT4/T3 combination, or LT4 alone.

After each 3-month treatment, patients completed a 36-point thyroid symptom questionnaire.

There was no significant differences in symptom relief, the primary outcome, between the three treatments (P = .32).

Overall, 45% of patients indicated they preferred desiccated thyroid as their first choice of treatment, 32% preferred LT4/T3 as their first choice, and 23% preferred LT4 alone.

For the secondary endpoints of weight, general health, depression (assessed using the Beck Depression Inventory), memory (Wechsler Memory Scale), lipids, and thyroid function, again, there were no significant differences between groups in any of the measures.
 

When switched to desiccated thyroid, many felt ‘much better’

A further exploratory analysis revealed that those who experienced symptoms while taking LT4 alone reported greater alleviation of symptoms with the other two treatments.

“As a whole group, there was no significant difference between the three treatment arms,” Dr. Hoang explained in an interview.

“However, with the subgroup analysis based on the scores of symptom questionnaires, we found that symptomatic patients on LT4 improved while being treated with LT4/T3 or desiccated thyroid,” he said.

Reports of improvements in switching to desiccated thyroid were notable, Dr. Hoang added. “Many patients when switched from LT4 to desiccated thyroid extract said they felt much better, [with] more energy, less mental fogginess, a better outlook, less flair of lupus symptoms, easier to lose weight, etc.”

The study also showed more patients with Hashimoto’s disease preferred desiccated thyroid extract and LT4/T3, compared with LT4 alone, however, the differences were not significant.
 

Treatment adjustments a helpful first step

Dr. Farwell noted that his approach when patients are still reporting symptoms despite LT4 treatment is to first try tweaking the dose.

“In my own practice, I prefer to adjust LT4 dosing first, and on occasion add T3, with a goal of getting both hormone levels in the upper half of the normal range,” he said. “I find that to be a better approach than desiccated thyroid extract. T3 should be taken twice a day due to its half-life.”

The approach is generally successful, he added. “Even those that come in asking for desiccated thyroid extract whom I am able to convince to try LT4/T3 end up being happy with their treatment in the end.

“The key is that you need to spend time discussing the options with patients and come to a consensus as to the therapy that will best resolve their symptoms and that they are most comfortable with,” he concluded.

In response to mounting evidence of different hypothyroidism treatment responses according to various subgroups of patients, experts recently called for the initiation of more thorough clinical trials on the issue of combination therapy, as recently reported by this news organization.

Dr. Hoang reported being a speaker for Acella Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Farwell and Dr. Cappola reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Patients with hypothyroidism treated with the three most common pharmacologic strategies of levothyroxine (LT4) alone, LT4 in combination with triiodothyronine (T3), or desiccated thyroid extract showed no differences in thyroid symptoms or secondary outcomes in a double-blind, randomized study.

Sebastian Kaulitzki/Fotolia

“There are now proven good treatment options for the more than 1 in 10 patients with hypothyroidism who continue to experience symptoms of fatigue, mental fogginess, weight gain, and other symptoms despite taking levothyroxine,” first author Thanh Duc Hoang, DO, an endocrinologist at the Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, in Bethesda, Md., said in a press statement.

The findings were presented at the annual meeting of the Endocrine Society.

Commenting on the study, Alan P. Farwell, MD, said these new results are a valuable contribution to the understanding of treatment effects. “I think this is an interesting and important study and further studies are needed to clarify the optimal way to treat hypothyroidism,” said Dr. Farwell, who is director of endocrine clinics at Boston University.

Importantly, “the findings are different than studies where the patients are aware of what medication they are receiving,” he stressed in an interview, underscoring the importance of the double-blind design of the trial.

But Anne Cappola, MD, of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, pointed out that “the study was small and unlikely to have the statistical power to detect differences that could have been clinically important.”

Nevertheless, she too agreed that the double-blind study design is key: “My experience with patients is [the effects] are affected by patients’ perceptions about their thyroid medication. That is why studies designed so that patients do not know which treatment they are receiving are so important in this area.”
 

Randomized, double-blind comparison

Prior to the widespread availability of the current gold standard hypothyroidism treatment of LT4, the condition was typically treated with desiccated (animal) thyroid extract. And with many patients continuing to have a preference for this therapeutic approach, it is still commonly used.

Additionally, some patients treated with LT4 alone report greater improvements in symptoms with the addition of T3 – despite studies showing no benefits from the two together – leading to many clinicians commonly trying the combination approach.

To compare the efficacy of the three approaches in a prospective, double-blind, cross-over fashion, 75 patients received three therapeutic approaches each for 3 months: desiccated thyroid extract, an LT4/T3 combination, or LT4 alone.

After each 3-month treatment, patients completed a 36-point thyroid symptom questionnaire.

There was no significant differences in symptom relief, the primary outcome, between the three treatments (P = .32).

Overall, 45% of patients indicated they preferred desiccated thyroid as their first choice of treatment, 32% preferred LT4/T3 as their first choice, and 23% preferred LT4 alone.

For the secondary endpoints of weight, general health, depression (assessed using the Beck Depression Inventory), memory (Wechsler Memory Scale), lipids, and thyroid function, again, there were no significant differences between groups in any of the measures.
 

When switched to desiccated thyroid, many felt ‘much better’

A further exploratory analysis revealed that those who experienced symptoms while taking LT4 alone reported greater alleviation of symptoms with the other two treatments.

“As a whole group, there was no significant difference between the three treatment arms,” Dr. Hoang explained in an interview.

“However, with the subgroup analysis based on the scores of symptom questionnaires, we found that symptomatic patients on LT4 improved while being treated with LT4/T3 or desiccated thyroid,” he said.

Reports of improvements in switching to desiccated thyroid were notable, Dr. Hoang added. “Many patients when switched from LT4 to desiccated thyroid extract said they felt much better, [with] more energy, less mental fogginess, a better outlook, less flair of lupus symptoms, easier to lose weight, etc.”

The study also showed more patients with Hashimoto’s disease preferred desiccated thyroid extract and LT4/T3, compared with LT4 alone, however, the differences were not significant.
 

Treatment adjustments a helpful first step

Dr. Farwell noted that his approach when patients are still reporting symptoms despite LT4 treatment is to first try tweaking the dose.

“In my own practice, I prefer to adjust LT4 dosing first, and on occasion add T3, with a goal of getting both hormone levels in the upper half of the normal range,” he said. “I find that to be a better approach than desiccated thyroid extract. T3 should be taken twice a day due to its half-life.”

The approach is generally successful, he added. “Even those that come in asking for desiccated thyroid extract whom I am able to convince to try LT4/T3 end up being happy with their treatment in the end.

“The key is that you need to spend time discussing the options with patients and come to a consensus as to the therapy that will best resolve their symptoms and that they are most comfortable with,” he concluded.

In response to mounting evidence of different hypothyroidism treatment responses according to various subgroups of patients, experts recently called for the initiation of more thorough clinical trials on the issue of combination therapy, as recently reported by this news organization.

Dr. Hoang reported being a speaker for Acella Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Farwell and Dr. Cappola reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Patients with hypothyroidism treated with the three most common pharmacologic strategies of levothyroxine (LT4) alone, LT4 in combination with triiodothyronine (T3), or desiccated thyroid extract showed no differences in thyroid symptoms or secondary outcomes in a double-blind, randomized study.

Sebastian Kaulitzki/Fotolia

“There are now proven good treatment options for the more than 1 in 10 patients with hypothyroidism who continue to experience symptoms of fatigue, mental fogginess, weight gain, and other symptoms despite taking levothyroxine,” first author Thanh Duc Hoang, DO, an endocrinologist at the Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, in Bethesda, Md., said in a press statement.

The findings were presented at the annual meeting of the Endocrine Society.

Commenting on the study, Alan P. Farwell, MD, said these new results are a valuable contribution to the understanding of treatment effects. “I think this is an interesting and important study and further studies are needed to clarify the optimal way to treat hypothyroidism,” said Dr. Farwell, who is director of endocrine clinics at Boston University.

Importantly, “the findings are different than studies where the patients are aware of what medication they are receiving,” he stressed in an interview, underscoring the importance of the double-blind design of the trial.

But Anne Cappola, MD, of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, pointed out that “the study was small and unlikely to have the statistical power to detect differences that could have been clinically important.”

Nevertheless, she too agreed that the double-blind study design is key: “My experience with patients is [the effects] are affected by patients’ perceptions about their thyroid medication. That is why studies designed so that patients do not know which treatment they are receiving are so important in this area.”
 

Randomized, double-blind comparison

Prior to the widespread availability of the current gold standard hypothyroidism treatment of LT4, the condition was typically treated with desiccated (animal) thyroid extract. And with many patients continuing to have a preference for this therapeutic approach, it is still commonly used.

Additionally, some patients treated with LT4 alone report greater improvements in symptoms with the addition of T3 – despite studies showing no benefits from the two together – leading to many clinicians commonly trying the combination approach.

To compare the efficacy of the three approaches in a prospective, double-blind, cross-over fashion, 75 patients received three therapeutic approaches each for 3 months: desiccated thyroid extract, an LT4/T3 combination, or LT4 alone.

After each 3-month treatment, patients completed a 36-point thyroid symptom questionnaire.

There was no significant differences in symptom relief, the primary outcome, between the three treatments (P = .32).

Overall, 45% of patients indicated they preferred desiccated thyroid as their first choice of treatment, 32% preferred LT4/T3 as their first choice, and 23% preferred LT4 alone.

For the secondary endpoints of weight, general health, depression (assessed using the Beck Depression Inventory), memory (Wechsler Memory Scale), lipids, and thyroid function, again, there were no significant differences between groups in any of the measures.
 

When switched to desiccated thyroid, many felt ‘much better’

A further exploratory analysis revealed that those who experienced symptoms while taking LT4 alone reported greater alleviation of symptoms with the other two treatments.

“As a whole group, there was no significant difference between the three treatment arms,” Dr. Hoang explained in an interview.

“However, with the subgroup analysis based on the scores of symptom questionnaires, we found that symptomatic patients on LT4 improved while being treated with LT4/T3 or desiccated thyroid,” he said.

Reports of improvements in switching to desiccated thyroid were notable, Dr. Hoang added. “Many patients when switched from LT4 to desiccated thyroid extract said they felt much better, [with] more energy, less mental fogginess, a better outlook, less flair of lupus symptoms, easier to lose weight, etc.”

The study also showed more patients with Hashimoto’s disease preferred desiccated thyroid extract and LT4/T3, compared with LT4 alone, however, the differences were not significant.
 

Treatment adjustments a helpful first step

Dr. Farwell noted that his approach when patients are still reporting symptoms despite LT4 treatment is to first try tweaking the dose.

“In my own practice, I prefer to adjust LT4 dosing first, and on occasion add T3, with a goal of getting both hormone levels in the upper half of the normal range,” he said. “I find that to be a better approach than desiccated thyroid extract. T3 should be taken twice a day due to its half-life.”

The approach is generally successful, he added. “Even those that come in asking for desiccated thyroid extract whom I am able to convince to try LT4/T3 end up being happy with their treatment in the end.

“The key is that you need to spend time discussing the options with patients and come to a consensus as to the therapy that will best resolve their symptoms and that they are most comfortable with,” he concluded.

In response to mounting evidence of different hypothyroidism treatment responses according to various subgroups of patients, experts recently called for the initiation of more thorough clinical trials on the issue of combination therapy, as recently reported by this news organization.

Dr. Hoang reported being a speaker for Acella Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Farwell and Dr. Cappola reported no relevant financial relationships.

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