Pharmacology

Researchers say women with type 2 diabetes treated with metformin had a reduced rate of the most common type of breast cancer, estrogen receptor (ER)–positive tumors, during a median follow-up of nearly 9 years in a prospective study of more than 44,000 individuals in the United States.

Conversely, the results also showed higher rates of ER-negative and triple-negative breast cancer among women with type 2 diabetes who received metformin, although case numbers were small.

“Our conclusion that having type 2 diabetes increases the risk of developing breast cancer but taking metformin may protect against developing ER-positive breast cancer – but not other types of breast cancer – is biologically plausible and supported by our results, even though some [endpoints] are not statistically significant,” senior author Dale P. Sandler, PhD, chief of the epidemiology branch, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, Research Triangle Park, N.C., said in an interview.

“Among our findings that are not statistically significant are several that helped us get a better picture of the relationships between type 2 diabetes, metformin treatment, and breast cancer risk,” Dr. Sandler added.

The results were published online Jan. 28 in Annals of Oncology by Yong-Moon Mark Park, MD, PhD, now an epidemiologist at the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences in Little Rock, and colleagues.

Sara P. Cate, MD, a breast cancer surgeon at Mount Sinai Medical Center in New York, who was not involved with the study, said: “Certainly, metformin helps with weight loss, which is linked with estrogen-driven breast cancers, so this may explain why fewer patients on metformin got this type of breast cancer.”
 

A tangled web ... with no clear conclusions yet

But in an accompanying editorial, Ana E. Lohmann, MD, PhD, and Pamela J. Goodwin, MD, say that, while this is “a large, well-designed prospective cohort study,” it tells a complicated story.

“The report by Park adds to the growing evidence linking type 2 diabetes and its treatment to breast cancer risk, but definitive conclusions regarding these associations are not yet possible,” they observe.

The “largely negative” results of the new study perhaps in part occurred because the cohort included only 277 women with type 2 diabetes diagnosed with incident breast cancer, note Dr. Lohmann, of London Health Sciences Centre, University of Western Ontario, and Dr. Goodwin, of Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto.

“Clearly, this is an important area, and additional research is needed to untangle the web of inter-related associations of type 2 diabetes, its treatment, and breast cancer risk,” they write.

Examination of the effects of metformin in studies such as the Canadian Cancer Trial Group MA.32, a phase 3 trial of over 3,500 women with hormone receptor–positive early-stage breast cancer who are being randomized to metformin or placebo for up to 5 years in addition to standard adjuvant therapy, will provide further insights, they observe. The trial is slated to be completed in February 2022.
 

Study followed women whose sisters had breast cancer 

The new data come from the Sister Study, which followed more than 50,000 women without a history of breast cancer who had sisters or half-sisters with a breast cancer diagnosis. The study, run by the NIEHS, enrolled women 35-74 years old from all 50 U.S. states and Puerto Rico in 2003-2009.

The current analysis excluded women with a history of any other type of cancer, missing data about diabetes, or an uncertain breast cancer diagnosis during the study, which left 44,541 available for study. At entry, 7% of the women had type 2 diabetes, and another 5% developed new-onset type 2 diabetes during follow-up.

Among those with diabetes, 61% received treatment with metformin either alone or with other antidiabetic drugs.

During a median follow-up of 8.6 years, 2,678 women received a diagnosis of primary breast cancer, either invasive or ductal carcinoma in situ.

In a series of multivariate analyses that adjusted for numerous potential confounders, the authors found that, overall, no association existed between diabetes and breast cancer incidence, with a hazard ratio of 0.99, compared with women without diabetes.

But, said Dr. Sandler, “there is a strong biological rationale to hypothesize that type 2 diabetes increases the risk for breast cancer, and results from earlier studies support this.”
 

Association of metformin and breast cancer

Women with type 2 diabetes who received metformin had a 14% lower rate of ER-positive breast cancer, compared with women with diabetes not taking metformin, a nonsignificant association.

Among women taking metformin for at least 10 years, the associated reduction in ER-positive breast cancer, compared with those who did not take it, was 38%, a difference that just missed significance, with a 95% confidence interval of 0.38-1.01.

In contrast, cases of ER-negative and triple-negative breast cancers increased in the women with diabetes taking metformin. The hazard ratio for ER-negative tumors showed a nonsignificant 25% relative increase in women taking metformin and a significant 74% increase in triple-negative cancers.

The editorialists note, however, that “the number of patients who were found to have triple-negative breast cancer was small [so] we cannot draw any practice-changing conclusions from it.”

In conclusion, Dr. Park and colleagues reiterate: “Our analysis is consistent with a potential protective effect of metformin and suggests that long-term use of metformin may reduce breast cancer risk associated with type 2 diabetes.”

The study received no commercial funding. Dr. Sandler, Dr. Park, Dr. Lohmann, Dr. Goodwin, and Dr. Cate have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Researchers say women with type 2 diabetes treated with metformin had a reduced rate of the most common type of breast cancer, estrogen receptor (ER)–positive tumors, during a median follow-up of nearly 9 years in a prospective study of more than 44,000 individuals in the United States.

Conversely, the results also showed higher rates of ER-negative and triple-negative breast cancer among women with type 2 diabetes who received metformin, although case numbers were small.

“Our conclusion that having type 2 diabetes increases the risk of developing breast cancer but taking metformin may protect against developing ER-positive breast cancer – but not other types of breast cancer – is biologically plausible and supported by our results, even though some [endpoints] are not statistically significant,” senior author Dale P. Sandler, PhD, chief of the epidemiology branch, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, Research Triangle Park, N.C., said in an interview.

“Among our findings that are not statistically significant are several that helped us get a better picture of the relationships between type 2 diabetes, metformin treatment, and breast cancer risk,” Dr. Sandler added.

The results were published online Jan. 28 in Annals of Oncology by Yong-Moon Mark Park, MD, PhD, now an epidemiologist at the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences in Little Rock, and colleagues.

Sara P. Cate, MD, a breast cancer surgeon at Mount Sinai Medical Center in New York, who was not involved with the study, said: “Certainly, metformin helps with weight loss, which is linked with estrogen-driven breast cancers, so this may explain why fewer patients on metformin got this type of breast cancer.”
 

A tangled web ... with no clear conclusions yet

But in an accompanying editorial, Ana E. Lohmann, MD, PhD, and Pamela J. Goodwin, MD, say that, while this is “a large, well-designed prospective cohort study,” it tells a complicated story.

“The report by Park adds to the growing evidence linking type 2 diabetes and its treatment to breast cancer risk, but definitive conclusions regarding these associations are not yet possible,” they observe.

The “largely negative” results of the new study perhaps in part occurred because the cohort included only 277 women with type 2 diabetes diagnosed with incident breast cancer, note Dr. Lohmann, of London Health Sciences Centre, University of Western Ontario, and Dr. Goodwin, of Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto.

“Clearly, this is an important area, and additional research is needed to untangle the web of inter-related associations of type 2 diabetes, its treatment, and breast cancer risk,” they write.

Examination of the effects of metformin in studies such as the Canadian Cancer Trial Group MA.32, a phase 3 trial of over 3,500 women with hormone receptor–positive early-stage breast cancer who are being randomized to metformin or placebo for up to 5 years in addition to standard adjuvant therapy, will provide further insights, they observe. The trial is slated to be completed in February 2022.
 

Study followed women whose sisters had breast cancer 

The new data come from the Sister Study, which followed more than 50,000 women without a history of breast cancer who had sisters or half-sisters with a breast cancer diagnosis. The study, run by the NIEHS, enrolled women 35-74 years old from all 50 U.S. states and Puerto Rico in 2003-2009.

The current analysis excluded women with a history of any other type of cancer, missing data about diabetes, or an uncertain breast cancer diagnosis during the study, which left 44,541 available for study. At entry, 7% of the women had type 2 diabetes, and another 5% developed new-onset type 2 diabetes during follow-up.

Among those with diabetes, 61% received treatment with metformin either alone or with other antidiabetic drugs.

During a median follow-up of 8.6 years, 2,678 women received a diagnosis of primary breast cancer, either invasive or ductal carcinoma in situ.

In a series of multivariate analyses that adjusted for numerous potential confounders, the authors found that, overall, no association existed between diabetes and breast cancer incidence, with a hazard ratio of 0.99, compared with women without diabetes.

But, said Dr. Sandler, “there is a strong biological rationale to hypothesize that type 2 diabetes increases the risk for breast cancer, and results from earlier studies support this.”
 

Association of metformin and breast cancer

Women with type 2 diabetes who received metformin had a 14% lower rate of ER-positive breast cancer, compared with women with diabetes not taking metformin, a nonsignificant association.

Among women taking metformin for at least 10 years, the associated reduction in ER-positive breast cancer, compared with those who did not take it, was 38%, a difference that just missed significance, with a 95% confidence interval of 0.38-1.01.

In contrast, cases of ER-negative and triple-negative breast cancers increased in the women with diabetes taking metformin. The hazard ratio for ER-negative tumors showed a nonsignificant 25% relative increase in women taking metformin and a significant 74% increase in triple-negative cancers.

The editorialists note, however, that “the number of patients who were found to have triple-negative breast cancer was small [so] we cannot draw any practice-changing conclusions from it.”

In conclusion, Dr. Park and colleagues reiterate: “Our analysis is consistent with a potential protective effect of metformin and suggests that long-term use of metformin may reduce breast cancer risk associated with type 2 diabetes.”

The study received no commercial funding. Dr. Sandler, Dr. Park, Dr. Lohmann, Dr. Goodwin, and Dr. Cate have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Researchers say women with type 2 diabetes treated with metformin had a reduced rate of the most common type of breast cancer, estrogen receptor (ER)–positive tumors, during a median follow-up of nearly 9 years in a prospective study of more than 44,000 individuals in the United States.

Conversely, the results also showed higher rates of ER-negative and triple-negative breast cancer among women with type 2 diabetes who received metformin, although case numbers were small.

“Our conclusion that having type 2 diabetes increases the risk of developing breast cancer but taking metformin may protect against developing ER-positive breast cancer – but not other types of breast cancer – is biologically plausible and supported by our results, even though some [endpoints] are not statistically significant,” senior author Dale P. Sandler, PhD, chief of the epidemiology branch, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, Research Triangle Park, N.C., said in an interview.

“Among our findings that are not statistically significant are several that helped us get a better picture of the relationships between type 2 diabetes, metformin treatment, and breast cancer risk,” Dr. Sandler added.

The results were published online Jan. 28 in Annals of Oncology by Yong-Moon Mark Park, MD, PhD, now an epidemiologist at the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences in Little Rock, and colleagues.

Sara P. Cate, MD, a breast cancer surgeon at Mount Sinai Medical Center in New York, who was not involved with the study, said: “Certainly, metformin helps with weight loss, which is linked with estrogen-driven breast cancers, so this may explain why fewer patients on metformin got this type of breast cancer.”
 

A tangled web ... with no clear conclusions yet

But in an accompanying editorial, Ana E. Lohmann, MD, PhD, and Pamela J. Goodwin, MD, say that, while this is “a large, well-designed prospective cohort study,” it tells a complicated story.

“The report by Park adds to the growing evidence linking type 2 diabetes and its treatment to breast cancer risk, but definitive conclusions regarding these associations are not yet possible,” they observe.

The “largely negative” results of the new study perhaps in part occurred because the cohort included only 277 women with type 2 diabetes diagnosed with incident breast cancer, note Dr. Lohmann, of London Health Sciences Centre, University of Western Ontario, and Dr. Goodwin, of Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto.

“Clearly, this is an important area, and additional research is needed to untangle the web of inter-related associations of type 2 diabetes, its treatment, and breast cancer risk,” they write.

Examination of the effects of metformin in studies such as the Canadian Cancer Trial Group MA.32, a phase 3 trial of over 3,500 women with hormone receptor–positive early-stage breast cancer who are being randomized to metformin or placebo for up to 5 years in addition to standard adjuvant therapy, will provide further insights, they observe. The trial is slated to be completed in February 2022.
 

Study followed women whose sisters had breast cancer 

The new data come from the Sister Study, which followed more than 50,000 women without a history of breast cancer who had sisters or half-sisters with a breast cancer diagnosis. The study, run by the NIEHS, enrolled women 35-74 years old from all 50 U.S. states and Puerto Rico in 2003-2009.

The current analysis excluded women with a history of any other type of cancer, missing data about diabetes, or an uncertain breast cancer diagnosis during the study, which left 44,541 available for study. At entry, 7% of the women had type 2 diabetes, and another 5% developed new-onset type 2 diabetes during follow-up.

Among those with diabetes, 61% received treatment with metformin either alone or with other antidiabetic drugs.

During a median follow-up of 8.6 years, 2,678 women received a diagnosis of primary breast cancer, either invasive or ductal carcinoma in situ.

In a series of multivariate analyses that adjusted for numerous potential confounders, the authors found that, overall, no association existed between diabetes and breast cancer incidence, with a hazard ratio of 0.99, compared with women without diabetes.

But, said Dr. Sandler, “there is a strong biological rationale to hypothesize that type 2 diabetes increases the risk for breast cancer, and results from earlier studies support this.”
 

Association of metformin and breast cancer

Women with type 2 diabetes who received metformin had a 14% lower rate of ER-positive breast cancer, compared with women with diabetes not taking metformin, a nonsignificant association.

Among women taking metformin for at least 10 years, the associated reduction in ER-positive breast cancer, compared with those who did not take it, was 38%, a difference that just missed significance, with a 95% confidence interval of 0.38-1.01.

In contrast, cases of ER-negative and triple-negative breast cancers increased in the women with diabetes taking metformin. The hazard ratio for ER-negative tumors showed a nonsignificant 25% relative increase in women taking metformin and a significant 74% increase in triple-negative cancers.

The editorialists note, however, that “the number of patients who were found to have triple-negative breast cancer was small [so] we cannot draw any practice-changing conclusions from it.”

In conclusion, Dr. Park and colleagues reiterate: “Our analysis is consistent with a potential protective effect of metformin and suggests that long-term use of metformin may reduce breast cancer risk associated with type 2 diabetes.”

The study received no commercial funding. Dr. Sandler, Dr. Park, Dr. Lohmann, Dr. Goodwin, and Dr. Cate have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has revised its emergency use authorization for COVID-19 convalescent plasma on the basis of the latest available data.

The revision states that only high-titer COVID-19 convalescent plasma can be used and only in hospitalized patients who are early in the disease course and those with impaired humoral immunity who cannot produce an adequate antibody response.

The revisions stem from new clinical trial data analyzed or reported since the original EUA was issued in August 2020. The original EUA did not have these restrictions.

“This and other changes to the EUA represent important updates to the use of convalescent plasma for the treatment of COVID-19 patients,” Peter Marks, MD, PhD, director, FDA Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, said in a statement announcing the revisions.

“COVID-19 convalescent plasma used according to the revised EUA may have efficacy, and its known and potential benefits outweigh its known and potential risks,” the FDA said.

The agency said it revoked use of low-titer COVID-19 convalescent plasma on the basis of new data from clinical trials, including randomized, controlled trials, that have failed to demonstrate that low-titer convalescent plasma may be effective in the treatment of hospitalized patients with COVID-19.

The FDA’s updated fact sheet for health care providers on the use of COVID-19 convalescent plasma also notes that transfusion of COVID-19 convalescent plasma late in the disease course, following respiratory failure requiring intubation and mechanical ventilation, hasn’t been found to have clinical benefit.

The revised EUA also includes several additional tests that can be used to manufacture COVID-19 convalescent plasma.

“With this update, nine tests are now included in the EUA for testing plasma donations for anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies as a manufacturing step to determine suitability before release,” the FDA said.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has revised its emergency use authorization for COVID-19 convalescent plasma on the basis of the latest available data.

The revision states that only high-titer COVID-19 convalescent plasma can be used and only in hospitalized patients who are early in the disease course and those with impaired humoral immunity who cannot produce an adequate antibody response.

The revisions stem from new clinical trial data analyzed or reported since the original EUA was issued in August 2020. The original EUA did not have these restrictions.

“This and other changes to the EUA represent important updates to the use of convalescent plasma for the treatment of COVID-19 patients,” Peter Marks, MD, PhD, director, FDA Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, said in a statement announcing the revisions.

“COVID-19 convalescent plasma used according to the revised EUA may have efficacy, and its known and potential benefits outweigh its known and potential risks,” the FDA said.

The agency said it revoked use of low-titer COVID-19 convalescent plasma on the basis of new data from clinical trials, including randomized, controlled trials, that have failed to demonstrate that low-titer convalescent plasma may be effective in the treatment of hospitalized patients with COVID-19.

The FDA’s updated fact sheet for health care providers on the use of COVID-19 convalescent plasma also notes that transfusion of COVID-19 convalescent plasma late in the disease course, following respiratory failure requiring intubation and mechanical ventilation, hasn’t been found to have clinical benefit.

The revised EUA also includes several additional tests that can be used to manufacture COVID-19 convalescent plasma.

“With this update, nine tests are now included in the EUA for testing plasma donations for anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies as a manufacturing step to determine suitability before release,” the FDA said.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has revised its emergency use authorization for COVID-19 convalescent plasma on the basis of the latest available data.

The revision states that only high-titer COVID-19 convalescent plasma can be used and only in hospitalized patients who are early in the disease course and those with impaired humoral immunity who cannot produce an adequate antibody response.

The revisions stem from new clinical trial data analyzed or reported since the original EUA was issued in August 2020. The original EUA did not have these restrictions.

“This and other changes to the EUA represent important updates to the use of convalescent plasma for the treatment of COVID-19 patients,” Peter Marks, MD, PhD, director, FDA Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, said in a statement announcing the revisions.

“COVID-19 convalescent plasma used according to the revised EUA may have efficacy, and its known and potential benefits outweigh its known and potential risks,” the FDA said.

The agency said it revoked use of low-titer COVID-19 convalescent plasma on the basis of new data from clinical trials, including randomized, controlled trials, that have failed to demonstrate that low-titer convalescent plasma may be effective in the treatment of hospitalized patients with COVID-19.

The FDA’s updated fact sheet for health care providers on the use of COVID-19 convalescent plasma also notes that transfusion of COVID-19 convalescent plasma late in the disease course, following respiratory failure requiring intubation and mechanical ventilation, hasn’t been found to have clinical benefit.

The revised EUA also includes several additional tests that can be used to manufacture COVID-19 convalescent plasma.

“With this update, nine tests are now included in the EUA for testing plasma donations for anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies as a manufacturing step to determine suitability before release,” the FDA said.

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

Monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) to treat COVID-19 are in ample supply, but scant evidence on their effectiveness, paltry reimbursement, and a lack of a planned infrastructure to administer them has led to major underutilization of these potentially useful therapies, according to a new report from The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine.

The 35-page report described missed opportunities to work with states and hospitals to establish trust with clinicians and patients and to set up an infusion infrastructure to funnel patients to sites. Though the therapies still need more study, they should be an option for the right patient at the right time, said the National Academies experts in their report, Rapid Expert Consultation on Allocating COVID-19 Monoclonal Antibody Therapies and Other Novel Therapeutics.

“No potentially eligible patient should be left uninformed, and no eligible patient should be denied access, if there are doses available and the patient and doctor agree it is a reasonable course,” they concluded. The report also noted that underuse, and in particular underuse by members of vulnerable and underserved communities “raises concerns about exacerbating already dramatic health disparities.”

The federal government has spent $375 million on Eli Lilly’s bamlanivimab and $450 million on Regeneron’s casirivimab plus imdevimab cocktail, and agreed last month to spend as much as $2.6 billion more on up to 1.25 million additional doses.

Some 785,000 doses of the two therapeutics have been produced and about a half million have been distributed to states. But about three quarters have gone unused. The U.S. Department of Health & Human Services has launched an online treatment locater to try to spur interest in the therapies.

But the federal government hasn’t addressed some of the basic barriers to use of the monoclonals, said the National Academies experts.

“Lack of awareness, interest, and confidence in COVID-19 mAb therapies among patients and providers are major issues,” they said in the report. Patients who have tested positive might not want to travel to an infusion site, while others might not have access to health care or only seek such treatments when it’s too late. Some who are eligible might not have the time, resources, or transportation to go to a site and sit through a 2-hour treatment.

In addition, “the supply and availability of infusion centers and personnel was identified as a greater constraint than the supply of COVID-19 mAbs,” said the report.
 

Cost a big impediment

While the federal government has covered the cost of the therapies, hospitals and patients inevitably incur related costs.

“The fragmented payment system in the United States has not provided adequate support to cover the spectrum of costs associated with COVID-19 mAb therapies,” said the report. That is compounded by chronic underfunding and restrictions on federally qualified health centers for community health, the report said.

Patients may have to pay for testing, office visits, follow-up appointments, transportation to and from the infusion site, and potentially a copay for the administration of the drug.

While Medicare pays hospitals $309 per infusion, that might not be enough, especially if a hospital or other site had to build out a new infusion center, the report shows. For clinicians, the administrative payment under Medicare Part B does “not cover the total practice cost to furnish infusion services, resulting in a substantial cost-reimbursement disparity,” the report states.

In addition, there are no specific codes for observing patients during the 2-hour procedure.

“The established Medicare payment rate for furnishing COVID-19 mAb therapies does not cover the cost associated with coordinating care for those patients, nor does it justify the risk and opportunity costs associated with investing in infrastructure modifications to safely integrate COVID-19 patients into existing facilities or building temporary infusion capacity,” the report concluded.
 

More data needed

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration issued emergency-use authorizations (EUAs) for the two monoclonal therapies based on phase 2 trial data, and that leaves a lot of uncertainty, noted the National Academies.

In trials, both therapies reduced COVID-19-related hospitalizations and emergency room visits within 28 days after treatment among patients at high risk of progression, compared with those who received placebo.

But clinicians aren’t certain about who should use the monoclonals, said the report. The underuse has in turn led to trouble collecting data – either through ongoing trials or in starting new trials.

The National Academies recommended allocating the monoclonal antibodies in a way that would give rise to better data collection to inform clinicians. Payers could support the development of a core data platform or registry, or Medicare could develop pilot trials, said the report.

Lilly and UnitedHealth Group are collaborating on a study in high-risk Medicare patients, according to Reuters. Patients who test positive will be given bamlanivimab at home.

“Building infusion capacity and developing the evidence base about the impact of COVID-19 mAbs on clinical outcomes other than hospitalization, including mortality, are the most promising strategies for increasing effective utilization moving forward,” stated the National Academies report.

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

Monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) to treat COVID-19 are in ample supply, but scant evidence on their effectiveness, paltry reimbursement, and a lack of a planned infrastructure to administer them has led to major underutilization of these potentially useful therapies, according to a new report from The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine.

The 35-page report described missed opportunities to work with states and hospitals to establish trust with clinicians and patients and to set up an infusion infrastructure to funnel patients to sites. Though the therapies still need more study, they should be an option for the right patient at the right time, said the National Academies experts in their report, Rapid Expert Consultation on Allocating COVID-19 Monoclonal Antibody Therapies and Other Novel Therapeutics.

“No potentially eligible patient should be left uninformed, and no eligible patient should be denied access, if there are doses available and the patient and doctor agree it is a reasonable course,” they concluded. The report also noted that underuse, and in particular underuse by members of vulnerable and underserved communities “raises concerns about exacerbating already dramatic health disparities.”

The federal government has spent $375 million on Eli Lilly’s bamlanivimab and $450 million on Regeneron’s casirivimab plus imdevimab cocktail, and agreed last month to spend as much as $2.6 billion more on up to 1.25 million additional doses.

Some 785,000 doses of the two therapeutics have been produced and about a half million have been distributed to states. But about three quarters have gone unused. The U.S. Department of Health & Human Services has launched an online treatment locater to try to spur interest in the therapies.

But the federal government hasn’t addressed some of the basic barriers to use of the monoclonals, said the National Academies experts.

“Lack of awareness, interest, and confidence in COVID-19 mAb therapies among patients and providers are major issues,” they said in the report. Patients who have tested positive might not want to travel to an infusion site, while others might not have access to health care or only seek such treatments when it’s too late. Some who are eligible might not have the time, resources, or transportation to go to a site and sit through a 2-hour treatment.

In addition, “the supply and availability of infusion centers and personnel was identified as a greater constraint than the supply of COVID-19 mAbs,” said the report.
 

Cost a big impediment

While the federal government has covered the cost of the therapies, hospitals and patients inevitably incur related costs.

“The fragmented payment system in the United States has not provided adequate support to cover the spectrum of costs associated with COVID-19 mAb therapies,” said the report. That is compounded by chronic underfunding and restrictions on federally qualified health centers for community health, the report said.

Patients may have to pay for testing, office visits, follow-up appointments, transportation to and from the infusion site, and potentially a copay for the administration of the drug.

While Medicare pays hospitals $309 per infusion, that might not be enough, especially if a hospital or other site had to build out a new infusion center, the report shows. For clinicians, the administrative payment under Medicare Part B does “not cover the total practice cost to furnish infusion services, resulting in a substantial cost-reimbursement disparity,” the report states.

In addition, there are no specific codes for observing patients during the 2-hour procedure.

“The established Medicare payment rate for furnishing COVID-19 mAb therapies does not cover the cost associated with coordinating care for those patients, nor does it justify the risk and opportunity costs associated with investing in infrastructure modifications to safely integrate COVID-19 patients into existing facilities or building temporary infusion capacity,” the report concluded.
 

More data needed

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration issued emergency-use authorizations (EUAs) for the two monoclonal therapies based on phase 2 trial data, and that leaves a lot of uncertainty, noted the National Academies.

In trials, both therapies reduced COVID-19-related hospitalizations and emergency room visits within 28 days after treatment among patients at high risk of progression, compared with those who received placebo.

But clinicians aren’t certain about who should use the monoclonals, said the report. The underuse has in turn led to trouble collecting data – either through ongoing trials or in starting new trials.

The National Academies recommended allocating the monoclonal antibodies in a way that would give rise to better data collection to inform clinicians. Payers could support the development of a core data platform or registry, or Medicare could develop pilot trials, said the report.

Lilly and UnitedHealth Group are collaborating on a study in high-risk Medicare patients, according to Reuters. Patients who test positive will be given bamlanivimab at home.

“Building infusion capacity and developing the evidence base about the impact of COVID-19 mAbs on clinical outcomes other than hospitalization, including mortality, are the most promising strategies for increasing effective utilization moving forward,” stated the National Academies report.

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

Monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) to treat COVID-19 are in ample supply, but scant evidence on their effectiveness, paltry reimbursement, and a lack of a planned infrastructure to administer them has led to major underutilization of these potentially useful therapies, according to a new report from The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine.

The 35-page report described missed opportunities to work with states and hospitals to establish trust with clinicians and patients and to set up an infusion infrastructure to funnel patients to sites. Though the therapies still need more study, they should be an option for the right patient at the right time, said the National Academies experts in their report, Rapid Expert Consultation on Allocating COVID-19 Monoclonal Antibody Therapies and Other Novel Therapeutics.

“No potentially eligible patient should be left uninformed, and no eligible patient should be denied access, if there are doses available and the patient and doctor agree it is a reasonable course,” they concluded. The report also noted that underuse, and in particular underuse by members of vulnerable and underserved communities “raises concerns about exacerbating already dramatic health disparities.”

The federal government has spent $375 million on Eli Lilly’s bamlanivimab and $450 million on Regeneron’s casirivimab plus imdevimab cocktail, and agreed last month to spend as much as $2.6 billion more on up to 1.25 million additional doses.

Some 785,000 doses of the two therapeutics have been produced and about a half million have been distributed to states. But about three quarters have gone unused. The U.S. Department of Health & Human Services has launched an online treatment locater to try to spur interest in the therapies.

But the federal government hasn’t addressed some of the basic barriers to use of the monoclonals, said the National Academies experts.

“Lack of awareness, interest, and confidence in COVID-19 mAb therapies among patients and providers are major issues,” they said in the report. Patients who have tested positive might not want to travel to an infusion site, while others might not have access to health care or only seek such treatments when it’s too late. Some who are eligible might not have the time, resources, or transportation to go to a site and sit through a 2-hour treatment.

In addition, “the supply and availability of infusion centers and personnel was identified as a greater constraint than the supply of COVID-19 mAbs,” said the report.
 

Cost a big impediment

While the federal government has covered the cost of the therapies, hospitals and patients inevitably incur related costs.

“The fragmented payment system in the United States has not provided adequate support to cover the spectrum of costs associated with COVID-19 mAb therapies,” said the report. That is compounded by chronic underfunding and restrictions on federally qualified health centers for community health, the report said.

Patients may have to pay for testing, office visits, follow-up appointments, transportation to and from the infusion site, and potentially a copay for the administration of the drug.

While Medicare pays hospitals $309 per infusion, that might not be enough, especially if a hospital or other site had to build out a new infusion center, the report shows. For clinicians, the administrative payment under Medicare Part B does “not cover the total practice cost to furnish infusion services, resulting in a substantial cost-reimbursement disparity,” the report states.

In addition, there are no specific codes for observing patients during the 2-hour procedure.

“The established Medicare payment rate for furnishing COVID-19 mAb therapies does not cover the cost associated with coordinating care for those patients, nor does it justify the risk and opportunity costs associated with investing in infrastructure modifications to safely integrate COVID-19 patients into existing facilities or building temporary infusion capacity,” the report concluded.
 

More data needed

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration issued emergency-use authorizations (EUAs) for the two monoclonal therapies based on phase 2 trial data, and that leaves a lot of uncertainty, noted the National Academies.

In trials, both therapies reduced COVID-19-related hospitalizations and emergency room visits within 28 days after treatment among patients at high risk of progression, compared with those who received placebo.

But clinicians aren’t certain about who should use the monoclonals, said the report. The underuse has in turn led to trouble collecting data – either through ongoing trials or in starting new trials.

The National Academies recommended allocating the monoclonal antibodies in a way that would give rise to better data collection to inform clinicians. Payers could support the development of a core data platform or registry, or Medicare could develop pilot trials, said the report.

Lilly and UnitedHealth Group are collaborating on a study in high-risk Medicare patients, according to Reuters. Patients who test positive will be given bamlanivimab at home.

“Building infusion capacity and developing the evidence base about the impact of COVID-19 mAbs on clinical outcomes other than hospitalization, including mortality, are the most promising strategies for increasing effective utilization moving forward,” stated the National Academies report.

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

People with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs) who contract the SARS-CoV-2 virus appear more likely to die from COVID-19 if their rheumatologic condition is not being well controlled at the time of their infection.

New data from the COVID-19 Global Rheumatology Alliance (GRA) physician registry reported in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases have found that the odds of dying from COVID-19 were 87% higher in individuals recorded as having moderate to high disease activity versus those reported to be in remission or having low disease activity.

“I think this really highlights the importance of continuing to appropriately, and actively, treat our patients, and the importance of controlling their disease,” Pedro Machado, MD, PhD, said in an interview. Dr. Machado, an associate professor in rheumatology and muscle diseases at University College London and a consultant rheumatologist at several U.K. hospitals, has been involved in the GRA physician registry from the start, and sits on the GRA steering committee.

Alongside higher disease activity, several other important factors were found to be associated with increased odds of dying from COVID-19 – older age, male gender, and the presence of one or more comorbidities, such as hypertension combined with cardiovascular disease or chronic lung disease.

These demographic and disease-based factors have been linked to an increased risk for COVID-19–related hospitalization before, both in people with RMDs and in the general population, but the latest GRA physician registry data now take that a step further, and link them also to an increased risk for death, together with several other factors more specific to RMDs.
 

Logging COVID-19 rheumatologic cases

Since the start of the global pandemic, the potential effects that SARS-CoV-2 infection might have on people with RMDs in particular has concerned the rheumatology community. The main worries being that, either because of the underlying RMD itself or to its treatment, there may be immunoregulatory deficits or other risk factors that would make individuals more susceptible to not only infection but also to developing more severe COVID-19 than the general population.

These concerns led to the rapid formation of the GRA and the COVID-19 GRA physician registry in March 2020 to collect and analyze data on adults with rheumatic disease and confirmed or presumptive COVID-19. Entries into the registry are made by or under the direction of rheumatologists, and this is a voluntary process.

“This population cannot ever be entirely representative of the population of patients with rheumatic diseases,” Dr. Machado acknowledged. There will be selection and other biases that affect the reported data. That said, it’s the largest database of reported COVID-19 cases in adult rheumatology patients across the world, with more than 9,000 cases so far included from multiple registries, including those based in Europe and North and South America. Data from one of these – the French RMD cohort – have also recently been published in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, showing much the same findings but on a national level.

Hospitalization was the focus of a previous report because “you need large sample sizes” to look at endpoints that occur less frequently. When the first analysis was done, there were around 600 cases from 40 countries in the registry with sufficient data that could be used. Now, with a greater number of recorded cases, factors influencing the risk for death could be examined.

Death rate and risk factors found

Data on 3,729 COVID-19 cases in people with RMDs were included in the current analysis, all recorded in the first few months of the registry being open and up until July 1, 2020. In all, 390 (10.5%) of people died. While this is “clearly higher” than reported in the general population in most countries, the analysis was not designed to calculate a precise estimate.

“It should not be taken as an estimate of the overall death rate among patients with rheumatic diseases and COVID-19,” Dr. Machado and coauthors have been keen to point out.

“Age is always the biggest risk factor,” Dr. Machado explained. “There’s always a gradient: the older the patient, the worse the outcome.”

Indeed, there was a threefold increased risk for death among those aged 66-75 years versus those who were 65 years or younger (odds ratio, 3.00), and a sixfold increased risk for patients older than 75, compared with the younger age group (OR, 6.18).

Having both hypertension and cardiovascular disease was associated with an OR of 1.89, and coexisting chronic lung disease also significantly increased the chances of dying from COVID-19 (OR, 1.68).

Being of male sex was associated with a 46% increased risk for death from COVID-19 versus being of female sex.

The risk for COVID-19 death also rose with the use of corticosteroids. Compared with no steroid use, there was a 69% increased risk for with death at doses of 10 mg or more prednisolone equivalent per day.

“The finding about moderate to high doses of steroids being associated with a worse outcome is consistent with the first report; it was the same for hospitalization,” Dr. Machado observed.

The general consensus on steroid use in the COVID-19 setting is that they should be continued as needed, but at the lowest possible dose, as outlined in provisional recommendations set out by the recently renamed European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology.

The GRA physician registry findings provide further support for this, suggesting that disease control should be optimized with disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, ideally without increasing the dose of steroids.

Surprise over sulfasalazine risk

“Taking all medications into account – such as methotrexate, leflunomide, hydroxychloroquine, [tumor necrosis factor] blockers, interleukin-6 blockers, and [Janus kinase] inhibitors – it is quite reassuring because we did not see an association with worse outcome with those drugs overall,” Dr. Machado said.

However, treatment with rituximab (OR, 4.0), sulfasalazine (OR, 3.6), and immunosuppressive agents such as azathioprine, cyclophosphamide, cyclosporine, mycophenolate, or tacrolimus (OR, 2.2), were associated with higher odds of dying from COVID-19 when compared with treatment with methotrexate alone.

The findings for rituximab and immunosuppressant use were perhaps not unexpected, but the possible association between sulfasalazine and COVID-19 death was “a bit intriguing,” Dr. Machado observed. “Sulfasalazine is believed to have low immunosuppressive effect.”

This warrants further investigation, but there are likely a range of confounding factors at play. One could be that people considered to be at higher risk may have been more often prescribed sulfasalazine because it was thought to be less immunosuppressive. Another might be because people taking sulfasalazine were more likely to be smokers, and they were also not advised to protect themselves from exposure to the virus (shielding) during the first wave of the pandemic, at least not in the United Kingdom.
 

Rituximab caution and vaccination

“Rituximab is a concern,” Dr. Machado acknowledged. “It is a concern that rheumatologists are now aware of and they are addressing, but then it’s a concern for a very specific subgroup of patients.”

While rheumatologists are, and will continue to prescribe it, there will be even more careful consideration over when, in whom, and how to use it during, and possibly even after, the pandemic.

“COVID is here to stay, it will become endemic, and it’s going to be part of our lives like the flu virus is,” Dr. Machado predicted.

Then there is the issue on vaccinating people against COVID-19, should those on rituximab still receive it? The answer is a yes, but, as with other vaccinations it’s all about the timing of when the vaccination is given.

Societies such as the British Society for Rheumatology have already begun to include guidance on this, recommending one of the available COVID-19 vaccines is given at least a month before the next or first dose of rituximab is due. As rituximab is given every few months, with doses sometimes spaced as much as 9 months or even a year apart, this should not be too much of a problem, but it is “better to have the vaccine first,” Dr. Machado said.
 

Has COVID-19 care improved in RMDs?

In separate research published in The Lancet Rheumatology, April Jorge, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, and associates found that the risks of severe COVID-19 outcomes have improved over time, although they still “remain substantial.”

Dr. Jorge and colleagues looked at temporal trends in COVID-19 outcomes in patients with RMDs over the course of the first 6 months of the pandemic in 2020, using data from a large, multicenter, electronic health record network (TriNetX).

They formed two patient cohorts – a late (diagnosed from April 20 to July 20) and an early (diagnosed from January 20 to April 20) cohort – to see if outcomes had improved and discovered lower relative risks among patients in the late cohort for hospitalization (0.67), admission to the ICU (0.56), mechanical ventilation (0.39), acute kidney injury (0.66), renal replacement (0.53), and death (0.39).

“These results are encouraging,” but it’s difficult to match these different populations of patients, Dr. Machado said. “There are always factors that you cannot match for” and were not included in the U.S. analysis.

While there are important caveats in how the analysis was performed and thus in interpreting these data, they do “suggest that one of the reasons why outcomes have improved is because we have become better at treating these patients,” Dr. Machado added.

“Our treatment has improved, and our capacity to treat the complications has improved. We understand better how the disease behaves – we know that they can have thromboembolic complications that we can manage, and we are now able to manage ventilation issues better.”

Moreover, Dr. Machado said that, not only were clinicians more aware of what they should or should not do, there were treatments that were being used routinely or in some cases based on recent clinical trial results. “I think we are indeed treating these patients better.”

The COVID-19 GRA physician registry is financially supported by the American College of Rheumatology and EULAR. Dr. Machado had no relevant conflicts of interest.

People with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs) who contract the SARS-CoV-2 virus appear more likely to die from COVID-19 if their rheumatologic condition is not being well controlled at the time of their infection.

New data from the COVID-19 Global Rheumatology Alliance (GRA) physician registry reported in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases have found that the odds of dying from COVID-19 were 87% higher in individuals recorded as having moderate to high disease activity versus those reported to be in remission or having low disease activity.

“I think this really highlights the importance of continuing to appropriately, and actively, treat our patients, and the importance of controlling their disease,” Pedro Machado, MD, PhD, said in an interview. Dr. Machado, an associate professor in rheumatology and muscle diseases at University College London and a consultant rheumatologist at several U.K. hospitals, has been involved in the GRA physician registry from the start, and sits on the GRA steering committee.

Alongside higher disease activity, several other important factors were found to be associated with increased odds of dying from COVID-19 – older age, male gender, and the presence of one or more comorbidities, such as hypertension combined with cardiovascular disease or chronic lung disease.

These demographic and disease-based factors have been linked to an increased risk for COVID-19–related hospitalization before, both in people with RMDs and in the general population, but the latest GRA physician registry data now take that a step further, and link them also to an increased risk for death, together with several other factors more specific to RMDs.
 

Logging COVID-19 rheumatologic cases

Since the start of the global pandemic, the potential effects that SARS-CoV-2 infection might have on people with RMDs in particular has concerned the rheumatology community. The main worries being that, either because of the underlying RMD itself or to its treatment, there may be immunoregulatory deficits or other risk factors that would make individuals more susceptible to not only infection but also to developing more severe COVID-19 than the general population.

These concerns led to the rapid formation of the GRA and the COVID-19 GRA physician registry in March 2020 to collect and analyze data on adults with rheumatic disease and confirmed or presumptive COVID-19. Entries into the registry are made by or under the direction of rheumatologists, and this is a voluntary process.

“This population cannot ever be entirely representative of the population of patients with rheumatic diseases,” Dr. Machado acknowledged. There will be selection and other biases that affect the reported data. That said, it’s the largest database of reported COVID-19 cases in adult rheumatology patients across the world, with more than 9,000 cases so far included from multiple registries, including those based in Europe and North and South America. Data from one of these – the French RMD cohort – have also recently been published in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, showing much the same findings but on a national level.

Hospitalization was the focus of a previous report because “you need large sample sizes” to look at endpoints that occur less frequently. When the first analysis was done, there were around 600 cases from 40 countries in the registry with sufficient data that could be used. Now, with a greater number of recorded cases, factors influencing the risk for death could be examined.

Death rate and risk factors found

Data on 3,729 COVID-19 cases in people with RMDs were included in the current analysis, all recorded in the first few months of the registry being open and up until July 1, 2020. In all, 390 (10.5%) of people died. While this is “clearly higher” than reported in the general population in most countries, the analysis was not designed to calculate a precise estimate.

“It should not be taken as an estimate of the overall death rate among patients with rheumatic diseases and COVID-19,” Dr. Machado and coauthors have been keen to point out.

“Age is always the biggest risk factor,” Dr. Machado explained. “There’s always a gradient: the older the patient, the worse the outcome.”

Indeed, there was a threefold increased risk for death among those aged 66-75 years versus those who were 65 years or younger (odds ratio, 3.00), and a sixfold increased risk for patients older than 75, compared with the younger age group (OR, 6.18).

Having both hypertension and cardiovascular disease was associated with an OR of 1.89, and coexisting chronic lung disease also significantly increased the chances of dying from COVID-19 (OR, 1.68).

Being of male sex was associated with a 46% increased risk for death from COVID-19 versus being of female sex.

The risk for COVID-19 death also rose with the use of corticosteroids. Compared with no steroid use, there was a 69% increased risk for with death at doses of 10 mg or more prednisolone equivalent per day.

“The finding about moderate to high doses of steroids being associated with a worse outcome is consistent with the first report; it was the same for hospitalization,” Dr. Machado observed.

The general consensus on steroid use in the COVID-19 setting is that they should be continued as needed, but at the lowest possible dose, as outlined in provisional recommendations set out by the recently renamed European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology.

The GRA physician registry findings provide further support for this, suggesting that disease control should be optimized with disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, ideally without increasing the dose of steroids.

Surprise over sulfasalazine risk

“Taking all medications into account – such as methotrexate, leflunomide, hydroxychloroquine, [tumor necrosis factor] blockers, interleukin-6 blockers, and [Janus kinase] inhibitors – it is quite reassuring because we did not see an association with worse outcome with those drugs overall,” Dr. Machado said.

However, treatment with rituximab (OR, 4.0), sulfasalazine (OR, 3.6), and immunosuppressive agents such as azathioprine, cyclophosphamide, cyclosporine, mycophenolate, or tacrolimus (OR, 2.2), were associated with higher odds of dying from COVID-19 when compared with treatment with methotrexate alone.

The findings for rituximab and immunosuppressant use were perhaps not unexpected, but the possible association between sulfasalazine and COVID-19 death was “a bit intriguing,” Dr. Machado observed. “Sulfasalazine is believed to have low immunosuppressive effect.”

This warrants further investigation, but there are likely a range of confounding factors at play. One could be that people considered to be at higher risk may have been more often prescribed sulfasalazine because it was thought to be less immunosuppressive. Another might be because people taking sulfasalazine were more likely to be smokers, and they were also not advised to protect themselves from exposure to the virus (shielding) during the first wave of the pandemic, at least not in the United Kingdom.
 

Rituximab caution and vaccination

“Rituximab is a concern,” Dr. Machado acknowledged. “It is a concern that rheumatologists are now aware of and they are addressing, but then it’s a concern for a very specific subgroup of patients.”

While rheumatologists are, and will continue to prescribe it, there will be even more careful consideration over when, in whom, and how to use it during, and possibly even after, the pandemic.

“COVID is here to stay, it will become endemic, and it’s going to be part of our lives like the flu virus is,” Dr. Machado predicted.

Then there is the issue on vaccinating people against COVID-19, should those on rituximab still receive it? The answer is a yes, but, as with other vaccinations it’s all about the timing of when the vaccination is given.

Societies such as the British Society for Rheumatology have already begun to include guidance on this, recommending one of the available COVID-19 vaccines is given at least a month before the next or first dose of rituximab is due. As rituximab is given every few months, with doses sometimes spaced as much as 9 months or even a year apart, this should not be too much of a problem, but it is “better to have the vaccine first,” Dr. Machado said.
 

Has COVID-19 care improved in RMDs?

In separate research published in The Lancet Rheumatology, April Jorge, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, and associates found that the risks of severe COVID-19 outcomes have improved over time, although they still “remain substantial.”

Dr. Jorge and colleagues looked at temporal trends in COVID-19 outcomes in patients with RMDs over the course of the first 6 months of the pandemic in 2020, using data from a large, multicenter, electronic health record network (TriNetX).

They formed two patient cohorts – a late (diagnosed from April 20 to July 20) and an early (diagnosed from January 20 to April 20) cohort – to see if outcomes had improved and discovered lower relative risks among patients in the late cohort for hospitalization (0.67), admission to the ICU (0.56), mechanical ventilation (0.39), acute kidney injury (0.66), renal replacement (0.53), and death (0.39).

“These results are encouraging,” but it’s difficult to match these different populations of patients, Dr. Machado said. “There are always factors that you cannot match for” and were not included in the U.S. analysis.

While there are important caveats in how the analysis was performed and thus in interpreting these data, they do “suggest that one of the reasons why outcomes have improved is because we have become better at treating these patients,” Dr. Machado added.

“Our treatment has improved, and our capacity to treat the complications has improved. We understand better how the disease behaves – we know that they can have thromboembolic complications that we can manage, and we are now able to manage ventilation issues better.”

Moreover, Dr. Machado said that, not only were clinicians more aware of what they should or should not do, there were treatments that were being used routinely or in some cases based on recent clinical trial results. “I think we are indeed treating these patients better.”

The COVID-19 GRA physician registry is financially supported by the American College of Rheumatology and EULAR. Dr. Machado had no relevant conflicts of interest.

People with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs) who contract the SARS-CoV-2 virus appear more likely to die from COVID-19 if their rheumatologic condition is not being well controlled at the time of their infection.

New data from the COVID-19 Global Rheumatology Alliance (GRA) physician registry reported in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases have found that the odds of dying from COVID-19 were 87% higher in individuals recorded as having moderate to high disease activity versus those reported to be in remission or having low disease activity.

“I think this really highlights the importance of continuing to appropriately, and actively, treat our patients, and the importance of controlling their disease,” Pedro Machado, MD, PhD, said in an interview. Dr. Machado, an associate professor in rheumatology and muscle diseases at University College London and a consultant rheumatologist at several U.K. hospitals, has been involved in the GRA physician registry from the start, and sits on the GRA steering committee.

Alongside higher disease activity, several other important factors were found to be associated with increased odds of dying from COVID-19 – older age, male gender, and the presence of one or more comorbidities, such as hypertension combined with cardiovascular disease or chronic lung disease.

These demographic and disease-based factors have been linked to an increased risk for COVID-19–related hospitalization before, both in people with RMDs and in the general population, but the latest GRA physician registry data now take that a step further, and link them also to an increased risk for death, together with several other factors more specific to RMDs.
 

Logging COVID-19 rheumatologic cases

Since the start of the global pandemic, the potential effects that SARS-CoV-2 infection might have on people with RMDs in particular has concerned the rheumatology community. The main worries being that, either because of the underlying RMD itself or to its treatment, there may be immunoregulatory deficits or other risk factors that would make individuals more susceptible to not only infection but also to developing more severe COVID-19 than the general population.

These concerns led to the rapid formation of the GRA and the COVID-19 GRA physician registry in March 2020 to collect and analyze data on adults with rheumatic disease and confirmed or presumptive COVID-19. Entries into the registry are made by or under the direction of rheumatologists, and this is a voluntary process.

“This population cannot ever be entirely representative of the population of patients with rheumatic diseases,” Dr. Machado acknowledged. There will be selection and other biases that affect the reported data. That said, it’s the largest database of reported COVID-19 cases in adult rheumatology patients across the world, with more than 9,000 cases so far included from multiple registries, including those based in Europe and North and South America. Data from one of these – the French RMD cohort – have also recently been published in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, showing much the same findings but on a national level.

Hospitalization was the focus of a previous report because “you need large sample sizes” to look at endpoints that occur less frequently. When the first analysis was done, there were around 600 cases from 40 countries in the registry with sufficient data that could be used. Now, with a greater number of recorded cases, factors influencing the risk for death could be examined.

Death rate and risk factors found

Data on 3,729 COVID-19 cases in people with RMDs were included in the current analysis, all recorded in the first few months of the registry being open and up until July 1, 2020. In all, 390 (10.5%) of people died. While this is “clearly higher” than reported in the general population in most countries, the analysis was not designed to calculate a precise estimate.

“It should not be taken as an estimate of the overall death rate among patients with rheumatic diseases and COVID-19,” Dr. Machado and coauthors have been keen to point out.

“Age is always the biggest risk factor,” Dr. Machado explained. “There’s always a gradient: the older the patient, the worse the outcome.”

Indeed, there was a threefold increased risk for death among those aged 66-75 years versus those who were 65 years or younger (odds ratio, 3.00), and a sixfold increased risk for patients older than 75, compared with the younger age group (OR, 6.18).

Having both hypertension and cardiovascular disease was associated with an OR of 1.89, and coexisting chronic lung disease also significantly increased the chances of dying from COVID-19 (OR, 1.68).

Being of male sex was associated with a 46% increased risk for death from COVID-19 versus being of female sex.

The risk for COVID-19 death also rose with the use of corticosteroids. Compared with no steroid use, there was a 69% increased risk for with death at doses of 10 mg or more prednisolone equivalent per day.

“The finding about moderate to high doses of steroids being associated with a worse outcome is consistent with the first report; it was the same for hospitalization,” Dr. Machado observed.

The general consensus on steroid use in the COVID-19 setting is that they should be continued as needed, but at the lowest possible dose, as outlined in provisional recommendations set out by the recently renamed European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology.

The GRA physician registry findings provide further support for this, suggesting that disease control should be optimized with disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, ideally without increasing the dose of steroids.

Surprise over sulfasalazine risk

“Taking all medications into account – such as methotrexate, leflunomide, hydroxychloroquine, [tumor necrosis factor] blockers, interleukin-6 blockers, and [Janus kinase] inhibitors – it is quite reassuring because we did not see an association with worse outcome with those drugs overall,” Dr. Machado said.

However, treatment with rituximab (OR, 4.0), sulfasalazine (OR, 3.6), and immunosuppressive agents such as azathioprine, cyclophosphamide, cyclosporine, mycophenolate, or tacrolimus (OR, 2.2), were associated with higher odds of dying from COVID-19 when compared with treatment with methotrexate alone.

The findings for rituximab and immunosuppressant use were perhaps not unexpected, but the possible association between sulfasalazine and COVID-19 death was “a bit intriguing,” Dr. Machado observed. “Sulfasalazine is believed to have low immunosuppressive effect.”

This warrants further investigation, but there are likely a range of confounding factors at play. One could be that people considered to be at higher risk may have been more often prescribed sulfasalazine because it was thought to be less immunosuppressive. Another might be because people taking sulfasalazine were more likely to be smokers, and they were also not advised to protect themselves from exposure to the virus (shielding) during the first wave of the pandemic, at least not in the United Kingdom.
 

Rituximab caution and vaccination

“Rituximab is a concern,” Dr. Machado acknowledged. “It is a concern that rheumatologists are now aware of and they are addressing, but then it’s a concern for a very specific subgroup of patients.”

While rheumatologists are, and will continue to prescribe it, there will be even more careful consideration over when, in whom, and how to use it during, and possibly even after, the pandemic.

“COVID is here to stay, it will become endemic, and it’s going to be part of our lives like the flu virus is,” Dr. Machado predicted.

Then there is the issue on vaccinating people against COVID-19, should those on rituximab still receive it? The answer is a yes, but, as with other vaccinations it’s all about the timing of when the vaccination is given.

Societies such as the British Society for Rheumatology have already begun to include guidance on this, recommending one of the available COVID-19 vaccines is given at least a month before the next or first dose of rituximab is due. As rituximab is given every few months, with doses sometimes spaced as much as 9 months or even a year apart, this should not be too much of a problem, but it is “better to have the vaccine first,” Dr. Machado said.
 

Has COVID-19 care improved in RMDs?

In separate research published in The Lancet Rheumatology, April Jorge, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, and associates found that the risks of severe COVID-19 outcomes have improved over time, although they still “remain substantial.”

Dr. Jorge and colleagues looked at temporal trends in COVID-19 outcomes in patients with RMDs over the course of the first 6 months of the pandemic in 2020, using data from a large, multicenter, electronic health record network (TriNetX).

They formed two patient cohorts – a late (diagnosed from April 20 to July 20) and an early (diagnosed from January 20 to April 20) cohort – to see if outcomes had improved and discovered lower relative risks among patients in the late cohort for hospitalization (0.67), admission to the ICU (0.56), mechanical ventilation (0.39), acute kidney injury (0.66), renal replacement (0.53), and death (0.39).

“These results are encouraging,” but it’s difficult to match these different populations of patients, Dr. Machado said. “There are always factors that you cannot match for” and were not included in the U.S. analysis.

While there are important caveats in how the analysis was performed and thus in interpreting these data, they do “suggest that one of the reasons why outcomes have improved is because we have become better at treating these patients,” Dr. Machado added.

“Our treatment has improved, and our capacity to treat the complications has improved. We understand better how the disease behaves – we know that they can have thromboembolic complications that we can manage, and we are now able to manage ventilation issues better.”

Moreover, Dr. Machado said that, not only were clinicians more aware of what they should or should not do, there were treatments that were being used routinely or in some cases based on recent clinical trial results. “I think we are indeed treating these patients better.”

The COVID-19 GRA physician registry is financially supported by the American College of Rheumatology and EULAR. Dr. Machado had no relevant conflicts of interest.

The Food and Drug Administration has alerted the public to an increased risk of serious heart-related problems and cancer risk associated with the Janus kinase inhibitor tofacitinib (Xeljanz, Xeljanz XR), based on early results from a safety clinical trial comparing tofacitinib and tumor necrosis factor inhibitors in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

The FDA is awaiting further results from the trial, but in a safety communication issued on Feb. 4, the agency advised patients not to discontinue tofacitinib without consulting their health care providers and advised health care professionals to weigh the risks and benefits when prescribing the drug and continue to follow the current prescribing information.

Tofacitinib was approved for treatment of RA in 2012 at a 5-mg dose. After this approval, the FDA required drug manufacturer Pfizer to conduct a safety clinical trial that included the 5-mg twice-daily dose and a 10-mg twice-daily dose that is currently approved only for ulcerative colitis. In addition to RA and ulcerative colitis, tofacitinib is approved for adults with active psoriatic arthritis and patients aged 2 years or older with active polyarticular course juvenile idiopathic arthritis.

Pfizer announced partial results of the study, known as the ORAL Surveillance trial, in a press release on Jan. 27. The randomized trial included 4,362 RA patients aged 50 years and older who received either 5-mg or 10-mg doses of tofacitinib or a TNF inhibitor (adalimumab or etanercept).

The full results have yet to be released, but based on data from approximately 10,000 person-years for the combined tofacitinib groups and approximately 5,000 person-years for the TNF inhibitor group, the rate of major cardiovascular adverse events was significantly higher in the combined tofacitinib group, compared with the TNF inhibitor group (0.98 vs. 0.73 per 100 person-years; hazard ratio, 1.33). In addition, the rate of adjudicated malignancies was significantly higher in the tofacitinib group, compared with the TNF inhibitor group (1.13 vs. 0.77 per 100 person-years; HR, 1.48).

In February 2019, the FDA issued a warning stating an increased risk of pulmonary embolism and death associated with the 10-mg twice-daily dose of tofacitinib, following interims results from the safety study.

In July 2019, the FDA added a boxed warning to tofacitinib advising of the increased risk for pulmonary embolism and death associated with the 10-mg twice-daily dose.

The FDA encouraged health care professionals and patients to report any side effects from tofacitinib or other medications through the FDA MedWatch program online or by phone at 1-800-332-1088.

Until nuances revealed, no change in practice

The preliminary study findings contain some nuances that are a bit complicated from a statistical standpoint, according to Daniel Furst, MD, professor emeritus of medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles; adjunct professor at the University of Washington, Seattle; and research professor at the University of Florence (Italy).

Updated on 2/8/2021.

The Food and Drug Administration has alerted the public to an increased risk of serious heart-related problems and cancer risk associated with the Janus kinase inhibitor tofacitinib (Xeljanz, Xeljanz XR), based on early results from a safety clinical trial comparing tofacitinib and tumor necrosis factor inhibitors in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

The FDA is awaiting further results from the trial, but in a safety communication issued on Feb. 4, the agency advised patients not to discontinue tofacitinib without consulting their health care providers and advised health care professionals to weigh the risks and benefits when prescribing the drug and continue to follow the current prescribing information.

Tofacitinib was approved for treatment of RA in 2012 at a 5-mg dose. After this approval, the FDA required drug manufacturer Pfizer to conduct a safety clinical trial that included the 5-mg twice-daily dose and a 10-mg twice-daily dose that is currently approved only for ulcerative colitis. In addition to RA and ulcerative colitis, tofacitinib is approved for adults with active psoriatic arthritis and patients aged 2 years or older with active polyarticular course juvenile idiopathic arthritis.

Pfizer announced partial results of the study, known as the ORAL Surveillance trial, in a press release on Jan. 27. The randomized trial included 4,362 RA patients aged 50 years and older who received either 5-mg or 10-mg doses of tofacitinib or a TNF inhibitor (adalimumab or etanercept).

The full results have yet to be released, but based on data from approximately 10,000 person-years for the combined tofacitinib groups and approximately 5,000 person-years for the TNF inhibitor group, the rate of major cardiovascular adverse events was significantly higher in the combined tofacitinib group, compared with the TNF inhibitor group (0.98 vs. 0.73 per 100 person-years; hazard ratio, 1.33). In addition, the rate of adjudicated malignancies was significantly higher in the tofacitinib group, compared with the TNF inhibitor group (1.13 vs. 0.77 per 100 person-years; HR, 1.48).

In February 2019, the FDA issued a warning stating an increased risk of pulmonary embolism and death associated with the 10-mg twice-daily dose of tofacitinib, following interims results from the safety study.

In July 2019, the FDA added a boxed warning to tofacitinib advising of the increased risk for pulmonary embolism and death associated with the 10-mg twice-daily dose.

The FDA encouraged health care professionals and patients to report any side effects from tofacitinib or other medications through the FDA MedWatch program online or by phone at 1-800-332-1088.

Until nuances revealed, no change in practice

The preliminary study findings contain some nuances that are a bit complicated from a statistical standpoint, according to Daniel Furst, MD, professor emeritus of medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles; adjunct professor at the University of Washington, Seattle; and research professor at the University of Florence (Italy).

Updated on 2/8/2021.

The Food and Drug Administration has alerted the public to an increased risk of serious heart-related problems and cancer risk associated with the Janus kinase inhibitor tofacitinib (Xeljanz, Xeljanz XR), based on early results from a safety clinical trial comparing tofacitinib and tumor necrosis factor inhibitors in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

The FDA is awaiting further results from the trial, but in a safety communication issued on Feb. 4, the agency advised patients not to discontinue tofacitinib without consulting their health care providers and advised health care professionals to weigh the risks and benefits when prescribing the drug and continue to follow the current prescribing information.

Tofacitinib was approved for treatment of RA in 2012 at a 5-mg dose. After this approval, the FDA required drug manufacturer Pfizer to conduct a safety clinical trial that included the 5-mg twice-daily dose and a 10-mg twice-daily dose that is currently approved only for ulcerative colitis. In addition to RA and ulcerative colitis, tofacitinib is approved for adults with active psoriatic arthritis and patients aged 2 years or older with active polyarticular course juvenile idiopathic arthritis.

Pfizer announced partial results of the study, known as the ORAL Surveillance trial, in a press release on Jan. 27. The randomized trial included 4,362 RA patients aged 50 years and older who received either 5-mg or 10-mg doses of tofacitinib or a TNF inhibitor (adalimumab or etanercept).

The full results have yet to be released, but based on data from approximately 10,000 person-years for the combined tofacitinib groups and approximately 5,000 person-years for the TNF inhibitor group, the rate of major cardiovascular adverse events was significantly higher in the combined tofacitinib group, compared with the TNF inhibitor group (0.98 vs. 0.73 per 100 person-years; hazard ratio, 1.33). In addition, the rate of adjudicated malignancies was significantly higher in the tofacitinib group, compared with the TNF inhibitor group (1.13 vs. 0.77 per 100 person-years; HR, 1.48).

In February 2019, the FDA issued a warning stating an increased risk of pulmonary embolism and death associated with the 10-mg twice-daily dose of tofacitinib, following interims results from the safety study.

In July 2019, the FDA added a boxed warning to tofacitinib advising of the increased risk for pulmonary embolism and death associated with the 10-mg twice-daily dose.

The FDA encouraged health care professionals and patients to report any side effects from tofacitinib or other medications through the FDA MedWatch program online or by phone at 1-800-332-1088.

Until nuances revealed, no change in practice

The preliminary study findings contain some nuances that are a bit complicated from a statistical standpoint, according to Daniel Furst, MD, professor emeritus of medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles; adjunct professor at the University of Washington, Seattle; and research professor at the University of Florence (Italy).

Updated on 2/8/2021.

The antidepressant fluvoxamine shows promise in preventing people infected with coronavirus from developing serious symptoms and having to be hospitalized, according to a nonrandomized study of California racetrack workers.

“What we observed was that of all the patients who received fluvoxamine, none of them had a severe COVID infection that affected their lungs or their respiratory status,” Caline Mattar, MD, told KNBC in Los Angeles. Dr. Mattar is an infectious disease researcher at Washington University in St. Louis who helped conduct the study that was published in Open Forum Infectious Diseases.

Fluvoxamine, which is sold under the brand name Luvox, is a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) often prescribed for people diagnosed with obsessive-compulsive disorder. It’s been on the market for over a decade.

Two-hundred employees at Golden Gate Fields Racetrack in Berkeley, Calif., tested positive for COVID-19 last November. Track physician David Seftel, MD, offered fluvoxamine to 113 of them, having learned of a previous randomized study of COVID-19 patients that indicated fluvoxamine helped ward off serious illness, Science News said.

The 65 workers who took a 2-week course of the drug didn’t have to be hospitalized, didn’t have serious symptoms, and felt better after 2 weeks, the study said. Six of the 48 workers who turned down fluvoxamine had to be hospitalized, two required intensive care, and one died, the study said.

“Overall, fluvoxamine appears promising as early treatment for COVID-19 to prevent clinical deterioration requiring hospitalization and to prevent possible long haul symptoms persisting beyond 2 weeks,” the study said.

The authors stressed that their findings were “a real world evidence study” necessitated by the urgency of the coronavirus pandemic.

They said their research needed verification from a randomized, controlled trial. Such a study is now being conducted by Washington University and other schools, KNBC said.

The track workers who were infected were predominantly male and Latino, and 30% had chronic medical problems such as diabetes or high blood pressure, Science News said.

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

The antidepressant fluvoxamine shows promise in preventing people infected with coronavirus from developing serious symptoms and having to be hospitalized, according to a nonrandomized study of California racetrack workers.

“What we observed was that of all the patients who received fluvoxamine, none of them had a severe COVID infection that affected their lungs or their respiratory status,” Caline Mattar, MD, told KNBC in Los Angeles. Dr. Mattar is an infectious disease researcher at Washington University in St. Louis who helped conduct the study that was published in Open Forum Infectious Diseases.

Fluvoxamine, which is sold under the brand name Luvox, is a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) often prescribed for people diagnosed with obsessive-compulsive disorder. It’s been on the market for over a decade.

Two-hundred employees at Golden Gate Fields Racetrack in Berkeley, Calif., tested positive for COVID-19 last November. Track physician David Seftel, MD, offered fluvoxamine to 113 of them, having learned of a previous randomized study of COVID-19 patients that indicated fluvoxamine helped ward off serious illness, Science News said.

The 65 workers who took a 2-week course of the drug didn’t have to be hospitalized, didn’t have serious symptoms, and felt better after 2 weeks, the study said. Six of the 48 workers who turned down fluvoxamine had to be hospitalized, two required intensive care, and one died, the study said.

“Overall, fluvoxamine appears promising as early treatment for COVID-19 to prevent clinical deterioration requiring hospitalization and to prevent possible long haul symptoms persisting beyond 2 weeks,” the study said.

The authors stressed that their findings were “a real world evidence study” necessitated by the urgency of the coronavirus pandemic.

They said their research needed verification from a randomized, controlled trial. Such a study is now being conducted by Washington University and other schools, KNBC said.

The track workers who were infected were predominantly male and Latino, and 30% had chronic medical problems such as diabetes or high blood pressure, Science News said.

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

The antidepressant fluvoxamine shows promise in preventing people infected with coronavirus from developing serious symptoms and having to be hospitalized, according to a nonrandomized study of California racetrack workers.

“What we observed was that of all the patients who received fluvoxamine, none of them had a severe COVID infection that affected their lungs or their respiratory status,” Caline Mattar, MD, told KNBC in Los Angeles. Dr. Mattar is an infectious disease researcher at Washington University in St. Louis who helped conduct the study that was published in Open Forum Infectious Diseases.

Fluvoxamine, which is sold under the brand name Luvox, is a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) often prescribed for people diagnosed with obsessive-compulsive disorder. It’s been on the market for over a decade.

Two-hundred employees at Golden Gate Fields Racetrack in Berkeley, Calif., tested positive for COVID-19 last November. Track physician David Seftel, MD, offered fluvoxamine to 113 of them, having learned of a previous randomized study of COVID-19 patients that indicated fluvoxamine helped ward off serious illness, Science News said.

The 65 workers who took a 2-week course of the drug didn’t have to be hospitalized, didn’t have serious symptoms, and felt better after 2 weeks, the study said. Six of the 48 workers who turned down fluvoxamine had to be hospitalized, two required intensive care, and one died, the study said.

“Overall, fluvoxamine appears promising as early treatment for COVID-19 to prevent clinical deterioration requiring hospitalization and to prevent possible long haul symptoms persisting beyond 2 weeks,” the study said.

The authors stressed that their findings were “a real world evidence study” necessitated by the urgency of the coronavirus pandemic.

They said their research needed verification from a randomized, controlled trial. Such a study is now being conducted by Washington University and other schools, KNBC said.

The track workers who were infected were predominantly male and Latino, and 30% had chronic medical problems such as diabetes or high blood pressure, Science News said.

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

The gout drug colchicine appears to lower the severity of COVID-19, a small new Brazilian study finds, adding to evidence that the familiar medication holds promise as a treatment for hospitalized patients.

Patients who received colchicine in this randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled clinical trial presented better evolution in terms of the need for supplemental oxygen and the length of hospitalisation. ... Colchicine was safe and well tolerated,” the study authors wrote in RMD Open. However, deaths were rare in the trial, they added, and it is impossible to “evaluate the capacity of colchicine to avoid admission to ICU and reduce mortality.”

The oral anti-inflammatory colchicine, widely used as treatment in rheumatic disease, was first approved in the United States 60 years ago. Researchers began to explore its potential as a COVID-19 treatment in the early months of the pandemic.

On Jan. 25, an international team of researchers reported in a press release – but not yet a published paper – that the drug seemed to reduce hospitalizations, mechanical ventilation, and deaths in the ColCORONA trial. Earlier, a much-smaller, randomized, open-label, Greek trial linked the drug to reduced time to clinical deterioration and hospital stay.

The Brazilian authors of the new study, led by Maria Isabel Lopes of the University of São Paulo’s Ribeirão Preto Medical School, randomly assigned 75 hospitalized patients with moderate to severe COVID-19 to colchicine or placebo. A total of 72 subjects completed the April-August 2020 trial: 36 received colchicine (typically 0.5 mg three times for 5 days, then 0.5 mg twice daily for 5 days; doses were adjusted in low-weight patients and those with chronic kidney disease). The other 36 received the placebo.

(In the United States, 0.6-mg tablets of generic colchicine cost as little as $1.90 each with free coupons, according to goodrx.com.)

The median age in the groups was similar (55 years); and the placebo group had more women (61% vs. 47% in the colchicine group, P = .34). All 72 patients received the same COVID-19 treatment at the time of the trial: azithromycin, hydroxychloroquine, and unfractionated heparin. Most patients, about two-thirds in both groups, also received methylprednisolone because they needed higher amounts of supplemental oxygen.

Patients in the colchicine group needed supplemental oxygen for less time: Their median time of need was 4.0 days (interquartile range [IQR], 2.0-6.0) vs. 6.5 days (IQR, 4.0-9.0) for the placebo group (P < .001). The median time for hospitalization was also lower at 7.0 days (IQR, 5.0–9.0) for the colchicine group vs. 9.0 (IQR, 7.0–12.0) for the placebo group (log rank test, 10.6; P = .001).

The researchers also reported the percentage of patients who needed supplemental oxygen at day 2 as 67% with colchicine vs. 86% with placebo, and at day 7 as 9% vs. 42% (log rank test, 10.6; P = .001). Two patients in the placebo group died, both from ventilator-associated pneumonia.

As for side effects, new or worsened diarrhea was reported more often in the colchicine group (17% vs. 6% with placebo), but the difference was not statistically significant (P = .26), and diarrhea was controlled via medication.

The researchers reported that limitations include the exclusion criteria and their inability to link colchicine to rates of ICU admissions and death.

The drug appears to help patients with COVID-19, the study authors wrote, by “inhibiting inflammasome, reducing neutrophil migration and activation, or preventing endothelial damage.”

A “well-conceived and well-designed” study

In an interview, NYU Langone Health rheumatologist Michael H. Pillinger, MD – an investigator with the ColCORONA trial – praised the Brazilian study. It “appears well-conceived and well-designed, and was enrolled at a rate that was greater than the sample size that was estimated to be needed based on power analysis,” he said.

The Brazilian study is small, he noted. (In contrast, the ColCORONA trial had 4,488 outpatient participants.) “This study differs from ColCORONA in several ways – the most important being that it is a study of inpatients with moderate to severe COVID (really mostly moderate),” he added. “ColCORONA is looking at a target audience that is much larger – outpatients with mild to moderate COVID with risk factors for hospitalization. Both questions are really important and certainly not mutually exclusive, since our care remains inadequate in both venues. This study also adds value in that several other studies have been conducted in hospital patients with enrollment criteria relatively similar to this one, and all showed benefit, but those were open-label or retrospective, and this is blinded and placebo-controlled.”
 

Using colchicine in patients with COVID-19

Should physicians turn to colchicine in patients with COVID-19? “I would rather that it still be used in the context of research until formal recommendations can be made by bodies like the NIH and CDC,” Dr. Pillinger said. “But certainly, there may be times when physicians feel compelled to treat patients off label.”

He cautioned, however, that colchicine should never be used with some other drugs. Its interaction with the antibiotic clarithromycin can be fatal, he noted. And, he said, the drug must be monitored in general since it can cause rare, severe problems.

“Overall, colchicine probably works on the overabundant inflammatory response to COVID, and it may be that it can be combined with other drugs that affect viral replication or promote immunity – e.g. vaccines,” Dr. Pillinger said. “So far, it seems as if there is no safety problem with combining colchicine with other approaches, but this has not been studied in a rigorous manner.”

Moving forward, he said, the drug’s very low price outside of the United States “could provide resource-poor countries with a way to help keep patients out of precious hospital beds – or help them go home sooner once admitted.” For now, however, “we need a large-scale inpatient study, and one is currently going on in Great Britain. We also need validation of the outpatient ColCORONA study, and studies to look at whether colchicine can work in conjunction with other strategies.”

The study was funded by grants from the São Paulo Research Foundation, Brazilian National Council for Scientific and Technological Development, and CAPES Foundation. No disclosures are reported. Dr. Pillinger reports serving as an investigator for the ColCORONA trial and receiving a unrelated investigator-initiated grant from Hikma, a colchicine manufacturer.

The gout drug colchicine appears to lower the severity of COVID-19, a small new Brazilian study finds, adding to evidence that the familiar medication holds promise as a treatment for hospitalized patients.

Patients who received colchicine in this randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled clinical trial presented better evolution in terms of the need for supplemental oxygen and the length of hospitalisation. ... Colchicine was safe and well tolerated,” the study authors wrote in RMD Open. However, deaths were rare in the trial, they added, and it is impossible to “evaluate the capacity of colchicine to avoid admission to ICU and reduce mortality.”

The oral anti-inflammatory colchicine, widely used as treatment in rheumatic disease, was first approved in the United States 60 years ago. Researchers began to explore its potential as a COVID-19 treatment in the early months of the pandemic.

On Jan. 25, an international team of researchers reported in a press release – but not yet a published paper – that the drug seemed to reduce hospitalizations, mechanical ventilation, and deaths in the ColCORONA trial. Earlier, a much-smaller, randomized, open-label, Greek trial linked the drug to reduced time to clinical deterioration and hospital stay.

The Brazilian authors of the new study, led by Maria Isabel Lopes of the University of São Paulo’s Ribeirão Preto Medical School, randomly assigned 75 hospitalized patients with moderate to severe COVID-19 to colchicine or placebo. A total of 72 subjects completed the April-August 2020 trial: 36 received colchicine (typically 0.5 mg three times for 5 days, then 0.5 mg twice daily for 5 days; doses were adjusted in low-weight patients and those with chronic kidney disease). The other 36 received the placebo.

(In the United States, 0.6-mg tablets of generic colchicine cost as little as $1.90 each with free coupons, according to goodrx.com.)

The median age in the groups was similar (55 years); and the placebo group had more women (61% vs. 47% in the colchicine group, P = .34). All 72 patients received the same COVID-19 treatment at the time of the trial: azithromycin, hydroxychloroquine, and unfractionated heparin. Most patients, about two-thirds in both groups, also received methylprednisolone because they needed higher amounts of supplemental oxygen.

Patients in the colchicine group needed supplemental oxygen for less time: Their median time of need was 4.0 days (interquartile range [IQR], 2.0-6.0) vs. 6.5 days (IQR, 4.0-9.0) for the placebo group (P < .001). The median time for hospitalization was also lower at 7.0 days (IQR, 5.0–9.0) for the colchicine group vs. 9.0 (IQR, 7.0–12.0) for the placebo group (log rank test, 10.6; P = .001).

The researchers also reported the percentage of patients who needed supplemental oxygen at day 2 as 67% with colchicine vs. 86% with placebo, and at day 7 as 9% vs. 42% (log rank test, 10.6; P = .001). Two patients in the placebo group died, both from ventilator-associated pneumonia.

As for side effects, new or worsened diarrhea was reported more often in the colchicine group (17% vs. 6% with placebo), but the difference was not statistically significant (P = .26), and diarrhea was controlled via medication.

The researchers reported that limitations include the exclusion criteria and their inability to link colchicine to rates of ICU admissions and death.

The drug appears to help patients with COVID-19, the study authors wrote, by “inhibiting inflammasome, reducing neutrophil migration and activation, or preventing endothelial damage.”

A “well-conceived and well-designed” study

In an interview, NYU Langone Health rheumatologist Michael H. Pillinger, MD – an investigator with the ColCORONA trial – praised the Brazilian study. It “appears well-conceived and well-designed, and was enrolled at a rate that was greater than the sample size that was estimated to be needed based on power analysis,” he said.

The Brazilian study is small, he noted. (In contrast, the ColCORONA trial had 4,488 outpatient participants.) “This study differs from ColCORONA in several ways – the most important being that it is a study of inpatients with moderate to severe COVID (really mostly moderate),” he added. “ColCORONA is looking at a target audience that is much larger – outpatients with mild to moderate COVID with risk factors for hospitalization. Both questions are really important and certainly not mutually exclusive, since our care remains inadequate in both venues. This study also adds value in that several other studies have been conducted in hospital patients with enrollment criteria relatively similar to this one, and all showed benefit, but those were open-label or retrospective, and this is blinded and placebo-controlled.”
 

Using colchicine in patients with COVID-19

Should physicians turn to colchicine in patients with COVID-19? “I would rather that it still be used in the context of research until formal recommendations can be made by bodies like the NIH and CDC,” Dr. Pillinger said. “But certainly, there may be times when physicians feel compelled to treat patients off label.”

He cautioned, however, that colchicine should never be used with some other drugs. Its interaction with the antibiotic clarithromycin can be fatal, he noted. And, he said, the drug must be monitored in general since it can cause rare, severe problems.

“Overall, colchicine probably works on the overabundant inflammatory response to COVID, and it may be that it can be combined with other drugs that affect viral replication or promote immunity – e.g. vaccines,” Dr. Pillinger said. “So far, it seems as if there is no safety problem with combining colchicine with other approaches, but this has not been studied in a rigorous manner.”

Moving forward, he said, the drug’s very low price outside of the United States “could provide resource-poor countries with a way to help keep patients out of precious hospital beds – or help them go home sooner once admitted.” For now, however, “we need a large-scale inpatient study, and one is currently going on in Great Britain. We also need validation of the outpatient ColCORONA study, and studies to look at whether colchicine can work in conjunction with other strategies.”

The study was funded by grants from the São Paulo Research Foundation, Brazilian National Council for Scientific and Technological Development, and CAPES Foundation. No disclosures are reported. Dr. Pillinger reports serving as an investigator for the ColCORONA trial and receiving a unrelated investigator-initiated grant from Hikma, a colchicine manufacturer.

The gout drug colchicine appears to lower the severity of COVID-19, a small new Brazilian study finds, adding to evidence that the familiar medication holds promise as a treatment for hospitalized patients.

Patients who received colchicine in this randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled clinical trial presented better evolution in terms of the need for supplemental oxygen and the length of hospitalisation. ... Colchicine was safe and well tolerated,” the study authors wrote in RMD Open. However, deaths were rare in the trial, they added, and it is impossible to “evaluate the capacity of colchicine to avoid admission to ICU and reduce mortality.”

The oral anti-inflammatory colchicine, widely used as treatment in rheumatic disease, was first approved in the United States 60 years ago. Researchers began to explore its potential as a COVID-19 treatment in the early months of the pandemic.

On Jan. 25, an international team of researchers reported in a press release – but not yet a published paper – that the drug seemed to reduce hospitalizations, mechanical ventilation, and deaths in the ColCORONA trial. Earlier, a much-smaller, randomized, open-label, Greek trial linked the drug to reduced time to clinical deterioration and hospital stay.

The Brazilian authors of the new study, led by Maria Isabel Lopes of the University of São Paulo’s Ribeirão Preto Medical School, randomly assigned 75 hospitalized patients with moderate to severe COVID-19 to colchicine or placebo. A total of 72 subjects completed the April-August 2020 trial: 36 received colchicine (typically 0.5 mg three times for 5 days, then 0.5 mg twice daily for 5 days; doses were adjusted in low-weight patients and those with chronic kidney disease). The other 36 received the placebo.

(In the United States, 0.6-mg tablets of generic colchicine cost as little as $1.90 each with free coupons, according to goodrx.com.)

The median age in the groups was similar (55 years); and the placebo group had more women (61% vs. 47% in the colchicine group, P = .34). All 72 patients received the same COVID-19 treatment at the time of the trial: azithromycin, hydroxychloroquine, and unfractionated heparin. Most patients, about two-thirds in both groups, also received methylprednisolone because they needed higher amounts of supplemental oxygen.

Patients in the colchicine group needed supplemental oxygen for less time: Their median time of need was 4.0 days (interquartile range [IQR], 2.0-6.0) vs. 6.5 days (IQR, 4.0-9.0) for the placebo group (P < .001). The median time for hospitalization was also lower at 7.0 days (IQR, 5.0–9.0) for the colchicine group vs. 9.0 (IQR, 7.0–12.0) for the placebo group (log rank test, 10.6; P = .001).

The researchers also reported the percentage of patients who needed supplemental oxygen at day 2 as 67% with colchicine vs. 86% with placebo, and at day 7 as 9% vs. 42% (log rank test, 10.6; P = .001). Two patients in the placebo group died, both from ventilator-associated pneumonia.

As for side effects, new or worsened diarrhea was reported more often in the colchicine group (17% vs. 6% with placebo), but the difference was not statistically significant (P = .26), and diarrhea was controlled via medication.

The researchers reported that limitations include the exclusion criteria and their inability to link colchicine to rates of ICU admissions and death.

The drug appears to help patients with COVID-19, the study authors wrote, by “inhibiting inflammasome, reducing neutrophil migration and activation, or preventing endothelial damage.”

A “well-conceived and well-designed” study

In an interview, NYU Langone Health rheumatologist Michael H. Pillinger, MD – an investigator with the ColCORONA trial – praised the Brazilian study. It “appears well-conceived and well-designed, and was enrolled at a rate that was greater than the sample size that was estimated to be needed based on power analysis,” he said.

The Brazilian study is small, he noted. (In contrast, the ColCORONA trial had 4,488 outpatient participants.) “This study differs from ColCORONA in several ways – the most important being that it is a study of inpatients with moderate to severe COVID (really mostly moderate),” he added. “ColCORONA is looking at a target audience that is much larger – outpatients with mild to moderate COVID with risk factors for hospitalization. Both questions are really important and certainly not mutually exclusive, since our care remains inadequate in both venues. This study also adds value in that several other studies have been conducted in hospital patients with enrollment criteria relatively similar to this one, and all showed benefit, but those were open-label or retrospective, and this is blinded and placebo-controlled.”
 

Using colchicine in patients with COVID-19

Should physicians turn to colchicine in patients with COVID-19? “I would rather that it still be used in the context of research until formal recommendations can be made by bodies like the NIH and CDC,” Dr. Pillinger said. “But certainly, there may be times when physicians feel compelled to treat patients off label.”

He cautioned, however, that colchicine should never be used with some other drugs. Its interaction with the antibiotic clarithromycin can be fatal, he noted. And, he said, the drug must be monitored in general since it can cause rare, severe problems.

“Overall, colchicine probably works on the overabundant inflammatory response to COVID, and it may be that it can be combined with other drugs that affect viral replication or promote immunity – e.g. vaccines,” Dr. Pillinger said. “So far, it seems as if there is no safety problem with combining colchicine with other approaches, but this has not been studied in a rigorous manner.”

Moving forward, he said, the drug’s very low price outside of the United States “could provide resource-poor countries with a way to help keep patients out of precious hospital beds – or help them go home sooner once admitted.” For now, however, “we need a large-scale inpatient study, and one is currently going on in Great Britain. We also need validation of the outpatient ColCORONA study, and studies to look at whether colchicine can work in conjunction with other strategies.”

The study was funded by grants from the São Paulo Research Foundation, Brazilian National Council for Scientific and Technological Development, and CAPES Foundation. No disclosures are reported. Dr. Pillinger reports serving as an investigator for the ColCORONA trial and receiving a unrelated investigator-initiated grant from Hikma, a colchicine manufacturer.

In the first ever placebo-controlled phase 3 trial in patients with relapsed mesothelioma, immunotherapy with nivolumab significantly improved both overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS).

The CONFIRM trial involved 330 previously treated patients with mesothelioma who were randomly assigned to nivolumab or placebo for 1 year or until progression or unacceptable toxicity.

Although recruitment to the study was stopped early because of the COVID-19 pandemic, enough data accrued to show that nivolumab improved overall survival by 28% over placebo, and increased PFS by 39%.

“Nivolumab was deemed a safe and effective treatment and should be considered a new treatment option for patients with relapsed mesothelioma,” said principal investigator Dean A. Fennell, MD, PhD, professor and consultant in thoracic medical oncology, University of Leicester (England).

He presented the results at the 2020 World Conference on Lung Cancer, which was rescheduled for January 2021.

Rina Hui, MD, PhD, Crown Princess Mary Cancer Centre, Westmead Hospital, Sydney, who was not involved in the study, said that these results had been a “long time coming.”

CONFIRM has added “important, encouraging data on immunotherapy in the salvage setting,” Dr. Hui said, noting that two-thirds of patients had received two or more prior lines of therapy.

Dr. Fennel noted that “a significant clinical benefit was observed in the epithelioid subtype” of the disease but not in patients with nonepithelioid disease.

However, there was “no evidence” to support programmed death–ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression as predictive of outcomes, he added, which does appear to be the case in some trials on lung cancer and other tumors.

Commenting on these observations, Dr. Hui said that PD-L1 as a predictive biomarker in mesothelioma has been “controversial,” and she emphasized that the results from CONFIRM indicate “no evidence of PD-L1 being predictive.”

However, Dr. Hui questioned the other observation that clinical benefit appeared to be seen only in the epithelioid subtype.

She emphasized that nonepithelioid disease is known to be a “more aggressive, chemoresistant subtype ... with a steep decline in the survival curves.

“Therefore, a lot of patients would not have made it to a subsequent-line clinical trial, explaining why there were only 12% in the CONFIRM study,” and so the sample size may be “too small to detect a difference in outcome,” Dr. Hui said.

Consequently, Dr. Hui said she “would not deny patients with nonepithelioid histology from considering nivolumab in the salvage setting.”

She argued that there was “no clear predictive biomarker for patient selection” emerging from the CONFIRM data.

She agreed that, in patients with mesothelioma who have progressed following platinum/pemetrexed-based chemotherapy as in the first line, “monotherapy nivolumab now can be considered as a treatment option in the second- ... or third-line setting, after second-line chemotherapy”.

However, outstanding questions remain, including whether nivolumab “provides better outcomes than second-line single agent chemotherapy or second-line gemcitabine with the [vascular endothelial growth factor receptor] inhibitor ramucirumab.”

It may also be that nivolumab plus ipilimumab might be superior to nivolumab alone in the salvage setting.

But a more fundamental question is what should be considered for salvage therapy if nivolumab and ipilimumab have already been used in the first-line setting, Dr. Hui said.

Results of first-line immunotherapy combination trials are “eagerly awaited ... to determine and develop other salvage treatments,” she commented.

Responding on Twitter, Riyaz Shah, MD, PhD, consultant medical oncologist, Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells NHS Trust in Royal Tunbridge Wells, England, echoed these comments, saying that the results were “very exciting,” but he also “can’t wait to see the first-line chemo–immunotherapy data.”

Stephen V. Liu, MD, director of thoracic oncology at Georgetown University, Washington, commented on Twitter that there was “not a lot of safety data” in the presentation and awaits their eventual publication.

He added that it is “good to have a positive trial” in relapsed mesothelioma, “though the first-line studies will decrease the eventual impact as immunotherapy becomes involved earlier in treatment.”

 

Details of the CONFIRM results 

Relapsed mesothelioma is an “unmet need,” and, until now, “there have been no phase 3 trials which have demonstrated improved overall survival,” Dr. Fennell said in his presentation.

However, three phase 2 trials have shown that immune checkpoint targeting via PD-1 has shown useful clinical activity as a monotherapy in the relapsed setting, and one of these trials has led to approval of nivolumab in Japan for this indication.

CONFIRM was an investigator-initiated phase 3 trial in patients with relapsed mesothelioma who had received more than one prior line of therapy and had a good performance status.

Recruitment began in April 2017, and the “target sample size was 336 patients,” Dr. Fennell said, but the trial was “halted at 332 patients (in March 2020) due to the peaking of the COVID-19 pandemic in the U.K.”

“However, at the time, it was felt there were sufficient events” to justify the current analysis of the coprimary endpoints of PFS and OS, despite the latter being 59 events short of the target of 291.

Dr. Fennell said that baseline characteristics were “generally well balanced” between the nivolumab (n = 221) and placebo (n = 111) arms.

However, there were more patients with a PD-L1 tumor proportion score (TPS) of at least 1% among the patients given nivolumab, at 37% versus 29% in the placebo arm.

After a median follow-up of 17.1 months in the nivolumab arm and 14.2 months in the placebo group, overall survival was significantly longer with the active treatment, at 9.2 months versus 6.6 months with placebo (hazard ratio, 0.72; P = .018).

The proportion of patients alive at 12 months was 39.5% in the nivolumab group and 26.9% in patients given placebo. Investigator-assessed PFS was also significantly longer with nivolumab, at 3.0 months versus 1.8 months with placebo (HR, 0.61; P < .001).

The proportion of patients disease free at 12 months was 14.5% with active treatment versus 4.9% months with the placebo.

“The role for PD-L1 as a potential biomarker was assessed,” Dr. Fennell said, using the Dako 22C3 antibody, with 150 nivolumab and 84 placebo patients divided into those with a TPS <1% or ≥1%.

He noted that PD-L1 expression in the tumor “did not predict survival for patients in the CONFIRM trial,” with neither PD-L1 positive nor PD-L1 negative patients demonstrating a significant improvement in overall survival with nivolumab vs placebo.

“For histology, epithelioid mesothelioma patients benefited from nivolumab,” Dr. Fennell continued, with a hazard ratio for death of 0.71 versus placebo (P = .021). “However, for the nonepithelioid subgroup, in this immature survival analysis ... the P value was not significant,” but this was a small subgroup of patients (12% in both nivolumab and placebo groups).

The safety analysis revealed that the proportion of patients with any serious adverse events, of any grade or grade 3 or higher, was almost identical between the active and placebo arms, Dr. Fennel reported. There were five deaths (3.6%) related to a serious adverse event in the nivolumab arm and four (5.3%) in the placebo group.

This research was funded by the Stand Up to Cancer campaign for Cancer Research UK, supported by Cancer Research UK core funding at the Southampton Clinical Trials Unit, and investigator-initiated support from Bristol-Myers Squibb for free drug labeling and distribution and funding for RECIST reporting. Dr. Fennell reported relationships with Astex Therapeutics, AstraZeneca, Atara Biotherapeutics, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Clovis Oncology, Eli Lilly, Inventiva, Lab 21, Merck, and Roche. Dr. Hui reported relationships with AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and Seagen.

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

In the first ever placebo-controlled phase 3 trial in patients with relapsed mesothelioma, immunotherapy with nivolumab significantly improved both overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS).

The CONFIRM trial involved 330 previously treated patients with mesothelioma who were randomly assigned to nivolumab or placebo for 1 year or until progression or unacceptable toxicity.

Although recruitment to the study was stopped early because of the COVID-19 pandemic, enough data accrued to show that nivolumab improved overall survival by 28% over placebo, and increased PFS by 39%.

“Nivolumab was deemed a safe and effective treatment and should be considered a new treatment option for patients with relapsed mesothelioma,” said principal investigator Dean A. Fennell, MD, PhD, professor and consultant in thoracic medical oncology, University of Leicester (England).

He presented the results at the 2020 World Conference on Lung Cancer, which was rescheduled for January 2021.

Rina Hui, MD, PhD, Crown Princess Mary Cancer Centre, Westmead Hospital, Sydney, who was not involved in the study, said that these results had been a “long time coming.”

CONFIRM has added “important, encouraging data on immunotherapy in the salvage setting,” Dr. Hui said, noting that two-thirds of patients had received two or more prior lines of therapy.

Dr. Fennel noted that “a significant clinical benefit was observed in the epithelioid subtype” of the disease but not in patients with nonepithelioid disease.

However, there was “no evidence” to support programmed death–ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression as predictive of outcomes, he added, which does appear to be the case in some trials on lung cancer and other tumors.

Commenting on these observations, Dr. Hui said that PD-L1 as a predictive biomarker in mesothelioma has been “controversial,” and she emphasized that the results from CONFIRM indicate “no evidence of PD-L1 being predictive.”

However, Dr. Hui questioned the other observation that clinical benefit appeared to be seen only in the epithelioid subtype.

She emphasized that nonepithelioid disease is known to be a “more aggressive, chemoresistant subtype ... with a steep decline in the survival curves.

“Therefore, a lot of patients would not have made it to a subsequent-line clinical trial, explaining why there were only 12% in the CONFIRM study,” and so the sample size may be “too small to detect a difference in outcome,” Dr. Hui said.

Consequently, Dr. Hui said she “would not deny patients with nonepithelioid histology from considering nivolumab in the salvage setting.”

She argued that there was “no clear predictive biomarker for patient selection” emerging from the CONFIRM data.

She agreed that, in patients with mesothelioma who have progressed following platinum/pemetrexed-based chemotherapy as in the first line, “monotherapy nivolumab now can be considered as a treatment option in the second- ... or third-line setting, after second-line chemotherapy”.

However, outstanding questions remain, including whether nivolumab “provides better outcomes than second-line single agent chemotherapy or second-line gemcitabine with the [vascular endothelial growth factor receptor] inhibitor ramucirumab.”

It may also be that nivolumab plus ipilimumab might be superior to nivolumab alone in the salvage setting.

But a more fundamental question is what should be considered for salvage therapy if nivolumab and ipilimumab have already been used in the first-line setting, Dr. Hui said.

Results of first-line immunotherapy combination trials are “eagerly awaited ... to determine and develop other salvage treatments,” she commented.

Responding on Twitter, Riyaz Shah, MD, PhD, consultant medical oncologist, Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells NHS Trust in Royal Tunbridge Wells, England, echoed these comments, saying that the results were “very exciting,” but he also “can’t wait to see the first-line chemo–immunotherapy data.”

Stephen V. Liu, MD, director of thoracic oncology at Georgetown University, Washington, commented on Twitter that there was “not a lot of safety data” in the presentation and awaits their eventual publication.

He added that it is “good to have a positive trial” in relapsed mesothelioma, “though the first-line studies will decrease the eventual impact as immunotherapy becomes involved earlier in treatment.”

 

Details of the CONFIRM results 

Relapsed mesothelioma is an “unmet need,” and, until now, “there have been no phase 3 trials which have demonstrated improved overall survival,” Dr. Fennell said in his presentation.

However, three phase 2 trials have shown that immune checkpoint targeting via PD-1 has shown useful clinical activity as a monotherapy in the relapsed setting, and one of these trials has led to approval of nivolumab in Japan for this indication.

CONFIRM was an investigator-initiated phase 3 trial in patients with relapsed mesothelioma who had received more than one prior line of therapy and had a good performance status.

Recruitment began in April 2017, and the “target sample size was 336 patients,” Dr. Fennell said, but the trial was “halted at 332 patients (in March 2020) due to the peaking of the COVID-19 pandemic in the U.K.”

“However, at the time, it was felt there were sufficient events” to justify the current analysis of the coprimary endpoints of PFS and OS, despite the latter being 59 events short of the target of 291.

Dr. Fennell said that baseline characteristics were “generally well balanced” between the nivolumab (n = 221) and placebo (n = 111) arms.

However, there were more patients with a PD-L1 tumor proportion score (TPS) of at least 1% among the patients given nivolumab, at 37% versus 29% in the placebo arm.

After a median follow-up of 17.1 months in the nivolumab arm and 14.2 months in the placebo group, overall survival was significantly longer with the active treatment, at 9.2 months versus 6.6 months with placebo (hazard ratio, 0.72; P = .018).

The proportion of patients alive at 12 months was 39.5% in the nivolumab group and 26.9% in patients given placebo. Investigator-assessed PFS was also significantly longer with nivolumab, at 3.0 months versus 1.8 months with placebo (HR, 0.61; P < .001).

The proportion of patients disease free at 12 months was 14.5% with active treatment versus 4.9% months with the placebo.

“The role for PD-L1 as a potential biomarker was assessed,” Dr. Fennell said, using the Dako 22C3 antibody, with 150 nivolumab and 84 placebo patients divided into those with a TPS <1% or ≥1%.

He noted that PD-L1 expression in the tumor “did not predict survival for patients in the CONFIRM trial,” with neither PD-L1 positive nor PD-L1 negative patients demonstrating a significant improvement in overall survival with nivolumab vs placebo.

“For histology, epithelioid mesothelioma patients benefited from nivolumab,” Dr. Fennell continued, with a hazard ratio for death of 0.71 versus placebo (P = .021). “However, for the nonepithelioid subgroup, in this immature survival analysis ... the P value was not significant,” but this was a small subgroup of patients (12% in both nivolumab and placebo groups).

The safety analysis revealed that the proportion of patients with any serious adverse events, of any grade or grade 3 or higher, was almost identical between the active and placebo arms, Dr. Fennel reported. There were five deaths (3.6%) related to a serious adverse event in the nivolumab arm and four (5.3%) in the placebo group.

This research was funded by the Stand Up to Cancer campaign for Cancer Research UK, supported by Cancer Research UK core funding at the Southampton Clinical Trials Unit, and investigator-initiated support from Bristol-Myers Squibb for free drug labeling and distribution and funding for RECIST reporting. Dr. Fennell reported relationships with Astex Therapeutics, AstraZeneca, Atara Biotherapeutics, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Clovis Oncology, Eli Lilly, Inventiva, Lab 21, Merck, and Roche. Dr. Hui reported relationships with AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and Seagen.

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

In the first ever placebo-controlled phase 3 trial in patients with relapsed mesothelioma, immunotherapy with nivolumab significantly improved both overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS).

The CONFIRM trial involved 330 previously treated patients with mesothelioma who were randomly assigned to nivolumab or placebo for 1 year or until progression or unacceptable toxicity.

Although recruitment to the study was stopped early because of the COVID-19 pandemic, enough data accrued to show that nivolumab improved overall survival by 28% over placebo, and increased PFS by 39%.

“Nivolumab was deemed a safe and effective treatment and should be considered a new treatment option for patients with relapsed mesothelioma,” said principal investigator Dean A. Fennell, MD, PhD, professor and consultant in thoracic medical oncology, University of Leicester (England).

He presented the results at the 2020 World Conference on Lung Cancer, which was rescheduled for January 2021.

Rina Hui, MD, PhD, Crown Princess Mary Cancer Centre, Westmead Hospital, Sydney, who was not involved in the study, said that these results had been a “long time coming.”

CONFIRM has added “important, encouraging data on immunotherapy in the salvage setting,” Dr. Hui said, noting that two-thirds of patients had received two or more prior lines of therapy.

Dr. Fennel noted that “a significant clinical benefit was observed in the epithelioid subtype” of the disease but not in patients with nonepithelioid disease.

However, there was “no evidence” to support programmed death–ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression as predictive of outcomes, he added, which does appear to be the case in some trials on lung cancer and other tumors.

Commenting on these observations, Dr. Hui said that PD-L1 as a predictive biomarker in mesothelioma has been “controversial,” and she emphasized that the results from CONFIRM indicate “no evidence of PD-L1 being predictive.”

However, Dr. Hui questioned the other observation that clinical benefit appeared to be seen only in the epithelioid subtype.

She emphasized that nonepithelioid disease is known to be a “more aggressive, chemoresistant subtype ... with a steep decline in the survival curves.

“Therefore, a lot of patients would not have made it to a subsequent-line clinical trial, explaining why there were only 12% in the CONFIRM study,” and so the sample size may be “too small to detect a difference in outcome,” Dr. Hui said.

Consequently, Dr. Hui said she “would not deny patients with nonepithelioid histology from considering nivolumab in the salvage setting.”

She argued that there was “no clear predictive biomarker for patient selection” emerging from the CONFIRM data.

She agreed that, in patients with mesothelioma who have progressed following platinum/pemetrexed-based chemotherapy as in the first line, “monotherapy nivolumab now can be considered as a treatment option in the second- ... or third-line setting, after second-line chemotherapy”.

However, outstanding questions remain, including whether nivolumab “provides better outcomes than second-line single agent chemotherapy or second-line gemcitabine with the [vascular endothelial growth factor receptor] inhibitor ramucirumab.”

It may also be that nivolumab plus ipilimumab might be superior to nivolumab alone in the salvage setting.

But a more fundamental question is what should be considered for salvage therapy if nivolumab and ipilimumab have already been used in the first-line setting, Dr. Hui said.

Results of first-line immunotherapy combination trials are “eagerly awaited ... to determine and develop other salvage treatments,” she commented.

Responding on Twitter, Riyaz Shah, MD, PhD, consultant medical oncologist, Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells NHS Trust in Royal Tunbridge Wells, England, echoed these comments, saying that the results were “very exciting,” but he also “can’t wait to see the first-line chemo–immunotherapy data.”

Stephen V. Liu, MD, director of thoracic oncology at Georgetown University, Washington, commented on Twitter that there was “not a lot of safety data” in the presentation and awaits their eventual publication.

He added that it is “good to have a positive trial” in relapsed mesothelioma, “though the first-line studies will decrease the eventual impact as immunotherapy becomes involved earlier in treatment.”

 

Details of the CONFIRM results 

Relapsed mesothelioma is an “unmet need,” and, until now, “there have been no phase 3 trials which have demonstrated improved overall survival,” Dr. Fennell said in his presentation.

However, three phase 2 trials have shown that immune checkpoint targeting via PD-1 has shown useful clinical activity as a monotherapy in the relapsed setting, and one of these trials has led to approval of nivolumab in Japan for this indication.

CONFIRM was an investigator-initiated phase 3 trial in patients with relapsed mesothelioma who had received more than one prior line of therapy and had a good performance status.

Recruitment began in April 2017, and the “target sample size was 336 patients,” Dr. Fennell said, but the trial was “halted at 332 patients (in March 2020) due to the peaking of the COVID-19 pandemic in the U.K.”

“However, at the time, it was felt there were sufficient events” to justify the current analysis of the coprimary endpoints of PFS and OS, despite the latter being 59 events short of the target of 291.

Dr. Fennell said that baseline characteristics were “generally well balanced” between the nivolumab (n = 221) and placebo (n = 111) arms.

However, there were more patients with a PD-L1 tumor proportion score (TPS) of at least 1% among the patients given nivolumab, at 37% versus 29% in the placebo arm.

After a median follow-up of 17.1 months in the nivolumab arm and 14.2 months in the placebo group, overall survival was significantly longer with the active treatment, at 9.2 months versus 6.6 months with placebo (hazard ratio, 0.72; P = .018).

The proportion of patients alive at 12 months was 39.5% in the nivolumab group and 26.9% in patients given placebo. Investigator-assessed PFS was also significantly longer with nivolumab, at 3.0 months versus 1.8 months with placebo (HR, 0.61; P < .001).

The proportion of patients disease free at 12 months was 14.5% with active treatment versus 4.9% months with the placebo.

“The role for PD-L1 as a potential biomarker was assessed,” Dr. Fennell said, using the Dako 22C3 antibody, with 150 nivolumab and 84 placebo patients divided into those with a TPS <1% or ≥1%.

He noted that PD-L1 expression in the tumor “did not predict survival for patients in the CONFIRM trial,” with neither PD-L1 positive nor PD-L1 negative patients demonstrating a significant improvement in overall survival with nivolumab vs placebo.

“For histology, epithelioid mesothelioma patients benefited from nivolumab,” Dr. Fennell continued, with a hazard ratio for death of 0.71 versus placebo (P = .021). “However, for the nonepithelioid subgroup, in this immature survival analysis ... the P value was not significant,” but this was a small subgroup of patients (12% in both nivolumab and placebo groups).

The safety analysis revealed that the proportion of patients with any serious adverse events, of any grade or grade 3 or higher, was almost identical between the active and placebo arms, Dr. Fennel reported. There were five deaths (3.6%) related to a serious adverse event in the nivolumab arm and four (5.3%) in the placebo group.

This research was funded by the Stand Up to Cancer campaign for Cancer Research UK, supported by Cancer Research UK core funding at the Southampton Clinical Trials Unit, and investigator-initiated support from Bristol-Myers Squibb for free drug labeling and distribution and funding for RECIST reporting. Dr. Fennell reported relationships with Astex Therapeutics, AstraZeneca, Atara Biotherapeutics, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Clovis Oncology, Eli Lilly, Inventiva, Lab 21, Merck, and Roche. Dr. Hui reported relationships with AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and Seagen.

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

Lung cancer experts have been rejoicing over new longer-term results that continue to show the combination of immunotherapy and chemotherapy doubles survival, compared with chemotherapy alone.

The results are from a 4-year follow-up of 160 patients with previously untreated stage IV non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) taking part in the KEYNOTE-189 trial of immunotherapy with pembrolizumab plus pemetrexed–platinum chemotherapy versus chemotherapy plus placebo.

After a median follow-up of 46.3 months, the median overall survival (OS) in the intention-to-treat population was 22.0 months with the combination versus 10.6 months with chemotherapy alone (hazard ratio, 0.60).

A similar pattern was seen for progression-free survival (PFS), with patients receiving the combination having a longer median PFS, at 9.0 months versus 4.9 months with chemotherapy alone (HR, 0.50).

“Stellar data,” Riyaz Shah, MD, PhD, consultant medical oncologist, Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells NHS Trust, Royal Tunbridge Wells, England, exclaimed on Twitter.

He described the results for the programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression subgroups as “astonishing” and singled out the performance of the combination therapy in patients with very low (<1%) tumor PD-L1 expression, showing more than 23% of patients were alive at 3 years versus just over 5% in the group given chemotherapy alone.

Charu Aggarwal, MD, MPH, Leslye M. Heisler associate professor for lung cancer excellence, Penn Medicine, Philadelphia, said the outcomes with the combination of chemotherapy and immunotherapy were “terrific.”

Sandip P. Patel, MD, medical oncologist, associate professor of medicine, University of California, San Diego, agreed that these long-term results were “very impressive.” However, he noted the “full effect” of chemotherapy plus immunotherapy has not “fully been captured in our overall cancer mortality statistics in the U.S. yet.”

The new results were presented at the 2020 World Conference on Lung Cancer, which was rescheduled for January 2021.

Previous results from KEYNOTE-189 had already demonstrated that, after a median follow-up of 10.5 months, adding pembrolizumab to chemotherapy significantly improves both OS and PFS, compared with chemotherapy alone.

The latest results show that the combination “continued to provide overall survival and progression-free survival benefit” in extended follow-up, said study presenter Jhanelle Elaine Gray, MD, chair, department of thoracic oncology, Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa.

The 3-year OS rate with pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy, compared with chemotherapy alone was 31.3% versus 17.4%, and the estimated 3-year PFS was 11.8% versus 1.3%.

Substantial improvements were even seen in patients with tumors that had a low level of PD-L1 expression (measured as the PD-L1 tumor proportion score [TPS]).

Dr. Gray highlighted the finding that the survival benefit with pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy was seen regardless of PD-L1 expression in the tumor, with a hazard ratio versus chemotherapy alone of 0.71 in patients with a TPS ≥ 50%, 0.66 in those with a TPS of 1%-49%, and 0.52 in patients with a TPS less than 1%. A similar pattern was seen with PFS, with a hazard ratio of 0.36 in patients with a TPS of at least 50%, 0.54 in those with a TPS of 1%-49%, and 0.68 in patients with a TPS less than 1%.

In addition, overall response rate and duration of response were also improved with combination therapy, regardless of tumor PD-L1 expression.

Among 56 patients who completed 35 cycles of pembrolizumab, the objective response rate was 87.5% (with 10.7% having a complete response and 76.8% a partial response).

At the data cutoff, 45 patients were alive, 28 did not have progressive disease, and seven had started a second course of pembrolizumab.

The side effect profile of the combination was “manageable,” Dr. Gray reported.

The combination arm was associated with more grade 3-5 treatment-related adverse events than the chemotherapy alone arm, at 52.1% versus 42.1%, and more grade 3-5 immune-related adverse events and infusion reactions, at 27.7% versus 13.4%.

Events leading to treatment discontinuation were also more common with pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy than chemotherapy, at 27.4% versus 9.9%.

The combination of pembrolizumab plus pemetrexed-platinum has already become “a standard-of-care therapy for patients with newly diagnosed metastatic nonsquamous NSCLC,” Dr. Gray commented.

The study was funded by Merck. Dr. Gray disclosed relationships with Array, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Genentech, and Merck.

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

Lung cancer experts have been rejoicing over new longer-term results that continue to show the combination of immunotherapy and chemotherapy doubles survival, compared with chemotherapy alone.

The results are from a 4-year follow-up of 160 patients with previously untreated stage IV non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) taking part in the KEYNOTE-189 trial of immunotherapy with pembrolizumab plus pemetrexed–platinum chemotherapy versus chemotherapy plus placebo.

After a median follow-up of 46.3 months, the median overall survival (OS) in the intention-to-treat population was 22.0 months with the combination versus 10.6 months with chemotherapy alone (hazard ratio, 0.60).

A similar pattern was seen for progression-free survival (PFS), with patients receiving the combination having a longer median PFS, at 9.0 months versus 4.9 months with chemotherapy alone (HR, 0.50).

“Stellar data,” Riyaz Shah, MD, PhD, consultant medical oncologist, Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells NHS Trust, Royal Tunbridge Wells, England, exclaimed on Twitter.

He described the results for the programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression subgroups as “astonishing” and singled out the performance of the combination therapy in patients with very low (<1%) tumor PD-L1 expression, showing more than 23% of patients were alive at 3 years versus just over 5% in the group given chemotherapy alone.

Charu Aggarwal, MD, MPH, Leslye M. Heisler associate professor for lung cancer excellence, Penn Medicine, Philadelphia, said the outcomes with the combination of chemotherapy and immunotherapy were “terrific.”

Sandip P. Patel, MD, medical oncologist, associate professor of medicine, University of California, San Diego, agreed that these long-term results were “very impressive.” However, he noted the “full effect” of chemotherapy plus immunotherapy has not “fully been captured in our overall cancer mortality statistics in the U.S. yet.”

The new results were presented at the 2020 World Conference on Lung Cancer, which was rescheduled for January 2021.

Previous results from KEYNOTE-189 had already demonstrated that, after a median follow-up of 10.5 months, adding pembrolizumab to chemotherapy significantly improves both OS and PFS, compared with chemotherapy alone.

The latest results show that the combination “continued to provide overall survival and progression-free survival benefit” in extended follow-up, said study presenter Jhanelle Elaine Gray, MD, chair, department of thoracic oncology, Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa.

The 3-year OS rate with pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy, compared with chemotherapy alone was 31.3% versus 17.4%, and the estimated 3-year PFS was 11.8% versus 1.3%.

Substantial improvements were even seen in patients with tumors that had a low level of PD-L1 expression (measured as the PD-L1 tumor proportion score [TPS]).

Dr. Gray highlighted the finding that the survival benefit with pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy was seen regardless of PD-L1 expression in the tumor, with a hazard ratio versus chemotherapy alone of 0.71 in patients with a TPS ≥ 50%, 0.66 in those with a TPS of 1%-49%, and 0.52 in patients with a TPS less than 1%. A similar pattern was seen with PFS, with a hazard ratio of 0.36 in patients with a TPS of at least 50%, 0.54 in those with a TPS of 1%-49%, and 0.68 in patients with a TPS less than 1%.

In addition, overall response rate and duration of response were also improved with combination therapy, regardless of tumor PD-L1 expression.

Among 56 patients who completed 35 cycles of pembrolizumab, the objective response rate was 87.5% (with 10.7% having a complete response and 76.8% a partial response).

At the data cutoff, 45 patients were alive, 28 did not have progressive disease, and seven had started a second course of pembrolizumab.

The side effect profile of the combination was “manageable,” Dr. Gray reported.

The combination arm was associated with more grade 3-5 treatment-related adverse events than the chemotherapy alone arm, at 52.1% versus 42.1%, and more grade 3-5 immune-related adverse events and infusion reactions, at 27.7% versus 13.4%.

Events leading to treatment discontinuation were also more common with pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy than chemotherapy, at 27.4% versus 9.9%.

The combination of pembrolizumab plus pemetrexed-platinum has already become “a standard-of-care therapy for patients with newly diagnosed metastatic nonsquamous NSCLC,” Dr. Gray commented.

The study was funded by Merck. Dr. Gray disclosed relationships with Array, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Genentech, and Merck.

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

Lung cancer experts have been rejoicing over new longer-term results that continue to show the combination of immunotherapy and chemotherapy doubles survival, compared with chemotherapy alone.

The results are from a 4-year follow-up of 160 patients with previously untreated stage IV non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) taking part in the KEYNOTE-189 trial of immunotherapy with pembrolizumab plus pemetrexed–platinum chemotherapy versus chemotherapy plus placebo.

After a median follow-up of 46.3 months, the median overall survival (OS) in the intention-to-treat population was 22.0 months with the combination versus 10.6 months with chemotherapy alone (hazard ratio, 0.60).

A similar pattern was seen for progression-free survival (PFS), with patients receiving the combination having a longer median PFS, at 9.0 months versus 4.9 months with chemotherapy alone (HR, 0.50).

“Stellar data,” Riyaz Shah, MD, PhD, consultant medical oncologist, Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells NHS Trust, Royal Tunbridge Wells, England, exclaimed on Twitter.

He described the results for the programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression subgroups as “astonishing” and singled out the performance of the combination therapy in patients with very low (<1%) tumor PD-L1 expression, showing more than 23% of patients were alive at 3 years versus just over 5% in the group given chemotherapy alone.

Charu Aggarwal, MD, MPH, Leslye M. Heisler associate professor for lung cancer excellence, Penn Medicine, Philadelphia, said the outcomes with the combination of chemotherapy and immunotherapy were “terrific.”

Sandip P. Patel, MD, medical oncologist, associate professor of medicine, University of California, San Diego, agreed that these long-term results were “very impressive.” However, he noted the “full effect” of chemotherapy plus immunotherapy has not “fully been captured in our overall cancer mortality statistics in the U.S. yet.”

The new results were presented at the 2020 World Conference on Lung Cancer, which was rescheduled for January 2021.

Previous results from KEYNOTE-189 had already demonstrated that, after a median follow-up of 10.5 months, adding pembrolizumab to chemotherapy significantly improves both OS and PFS, compared with chemotherapy alone.

The latest results show that the combination “continued to provide overall survival and progression-free survival benefit” in extended follow-up, said study presenter Jhanelle Elaine Gray, MD, chair, department of thoracic oncology, Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa.

The 3-year OS rate with pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy, compared with chemotherapy alone was 31.3% versus 17.4%, and the estimated 3-year PFS was 11.8% versus 1.3%.

Substantial improvements were even seen in patients with tumors that had a low level of PD-L1 expression (measured as the PD-L1 tumor proportion score [TPS]).

Dr. Gray highlighted the finding that the survival benefit with pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy was seen regardless of PD-L1 expression in the tumor, with a hazard ratio versus chemotherapy alone of 0.71 in patients with a TPS ≥ 50%, 0.66 in those with a TPS of 1%-49%, and 0.52 in patients with a TPS less than 1%. A similar pattern was seen with PFS, with a hazard ratio of 0.36 in patients with a TPS of at least 50%, 0.54 in those with a TPS of 1%-49%, and 0.68 in patients with a TPS less than 1%.

In addition, overall response rate and duration of response were also improved with combination therapy, regardless of tumor PD-L1 expression.

Among 56 patients who completed 35 cycles of pembrolizumab, the objective response rate was 87.5% (with 10.7% having a complete response and 76.8% a partial response).

At the data cutoff, 45 patients were alive, 28 did not have progressive disease, and seven had started a second course of pembrolizumab.

The side effect profile of the combination was “manageable,” Dr. Gray reported.

The combination arm was associated with more grade 3-5 treatment-related adverse events than the chemotherapy alone arm, at 52.1% versus 42.1%, and more grade 3-5 immune-related adverse events and infusion reactions, at 27.7% versus 13.4%.

Events leading to treatment discontinuation were also more common with pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy than chemotherapy, at 27.4% versus 9.9%.

The combination of pembrolizumab plus pemetrexed-platinum has already become “a standard-of-care therapy for patients with newly diagnosed metastatic nonsquamous NSCLC,” Dr. Gray commented.

The study was funded by Merck. Dr. Gray disclosed relationships with Array, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Genentech, and Merck.

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

Oral contraceptive use is associated with a decreased risk of ovarian and endometrial cancer 3 decades after discontinuation, according to an analysis of data from more than 250,000 women.

At the same time, oral contraceptive use is associated with a short-term increased risk of breast cancer after discontinuation, although the lifetime risk of breast cancer is not significantly different, the researchers found.

The absolute risk of breast cancer after discontinuation is “extremely small” and should be a limited factor when deciding whether to start oral contraceptive pills (OCPs), a doctor said.

The study was conducted by Torgny Karlsson, PhD, a researcher in the department of immunology, genetics, and pathology at Uppsala (Sweden) University, and colleagues and published online in Cancer Research.


 

Reinforcing and extending knowledge

“These findings are generally consistent with what is known, but extend that knowledge, most notably by the longer-term follow-up for the cohort,” commented Nancy L. Keating, MD, MPH, professor of health care policy and medicine at Harvard Medical School and a physician at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, both in Boston. “Other studies have also shown that OCPs lower risk of ovarian and endometrial cancer. This study suggests that this protective benefit extends up to 30-35 years after discontinuing OCPs.”

The results “reinforce the message to patients of the protective effect of OCPs on risk of ovarian and endometrial cancer,” Dr. Keating said. “Women concerned about these cancers can be reassured that this protective effect appears to persist for decades after discontinuing use.”

Prior studies have indicated that oral contraceptives may be associated with an increased risk of breast cancer.

In terms of breast cancer risk, the study “again extends follow-up and shows that risk of breast cancer was higher for current and ever users through age 50,” although the lifetime risk was not elevated, Dr. Keating said.

“The counseling regarding the effect on breast cancer is more complex,” she said. “I tell women about the very small increased risk of breast cancer during and immediately after use. Because cancer is very rare among women at the ages when OCPs are typically prescribed, the absolute risk increase is extremely small. This paper adds reassurance that this small increase in risk does not persist.”

For certain patients, the association may be more relevant.

“For most women, this risk is so small that it should be a limited factor in their decision to start OCPs,” Dr. Keating said. “However, for women with a substantially higher risk of breast cancer, or a family history of breast cancer at a young age, the small increased risk of breast cancer during and immediately after OCP use is more relevant, and counseling should include carefully weighing the benefits and harms of OCPs with other forms of contraception (and no contraception).”

Although the protective effects of oral contraceptives on ovarian and endometrial cancer were well known, the study describes long-term outcomes that can further inform patient counseling, said Samuel S. Badalian, MD, PhD, chief of the department of obstetrics and gynecology at Bassett Medical Center in Cooperstown, N.Y., and clinical professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the State University of New York, Syracuse.

“Women with individual or family risk factors of ovarian or endometrial cancers will need to know about the protective effects of oral contraceptives and long-term benefits related with their use (30-35 years after discontinuation),” Dr. Badalian said. “Women with family history of breast cancer need to know that lifetime risk of breast cancer might not differ between ever and never users, even if there is an increased short-term risk.”
 

Data from the U.K. Biobank

To examine the time-dependent effects between long-term oral contraceptive use and cancer risk, the researchers examined data from 256,661 women from the U.K. Biobank who were born between 1939 and 1970. The researchers identified cancer diagnoses using information from national registers and self-reported data until March 2019.

Of the women included in the study, 82% had used or still were using oral contraceptives, whereas 18% had never used oral contraceptives. Overall, ever users were younger, more frequently smokers, and had a lower body mass index, compared with never users. Most women started using oral contraceptives between 1969 and 1978. Last use of oral contraceptives occurred on average 10.7 years after starting.

The researchers adjusted for covariates and used logistic regression analyses to measure the cumulative risk of cancer. They used Cox regression analysis to examine instantaneous risk, measured using hazard ratios.

In all, there were 17,739 cases of breast cancer (6.9%), 1,966 cases of ovarian cancer (0.76%), and 2,462 cases of endometrial cancer (0.96%).

Among ever users, the likelihood of ovarian cancer (OR, 0.72) and endometrial cancer (OR, 0.68) was lower, compared with never users. “However, we did not see a significant association between oral contraceptive use and breast cancer” for the study period as a whole, the researchers reported. When the researchers limited follow-up to age 50 years, however, the odds ratio for breast cancer was increased (OR, 1.09).

“Surprisingly, we only found a small increased risk of breast cancer among oral contraceptive users, and the increased risk disappeared within a few years after discontinuation,” Åsa Johansson, PhD, a researcher in the department of immunology, genetics, and pathology at Uppsala University and one of the study authors, said in a news release. “Our results suggest that the lifetime risk of breast cancer might not differ between ever and never users, even if there is an increased short-term risk.”

Oral contraceptives today typically use lower doses of estrogen and other types of progesterone, compared with formulas commonly used when participants in the study started taking them, so the results may not directly apply to patients currently taking oral contraceptives, the researchers noted.

The study was supported by the Swedish Research Council, the Swedish Cancer Society, and the Kjell and Märta Beijers, the Marcus Borgström, the Åke Wiberg, and the A and M Rudbergs foundations. The authors, Dr. Keating, and Dr. Badalian had no conflicts of interest.
 

jremaly@mdedge.com

Oral contraceptive use is associated with a decreased risk of ovarian and endometrial cancer 3 decades after discontinuation, according to an analysis of data from more than 250,000 women.

At the same time, oral contraceptive use is associated with a short-term increased risk of breast cancer after discontinuation, although the lifetime risk of breast cancer is not significantly different, the researchers found.

The absolute risk of breast cancer after discontinuation is “extremely small” and should be a limited factor when deciding whether to start oral contraceptive pills (OCPs), a doctor said.

The study was conducted by Torgny Karlsson, PhD, a researcher in the department of immunology, genetics, and pathology at Uppsala (Sweden) University, and colleagues and published online in Cancer Research.


 

Reinforcing and extending knowledge

“These findings are generally consistent with what is known, but extend that knowledge, most notably by the longer-term follow-up for the cohort,” commented Nancy L. Keating, MD, MPH, professor of health care policy and medicine at Harvard Medical School and a physician at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, both in Boston. “Other studies have also shown that OCPs lower risk of ovarian and endometrial cancer. This study suggests that this protective benefit extends up to 30-35 years after discontinuing OCPs.”

The results “reinforce the message to patients of the protective effect of OCPs on risk of ovarian and endometrial cancer,” Dr. Keating said. “Women concerned about these cancers can be reassured that this protective effect appears to persist for decades after discontinuing use.”

Prior studies have indicated that oral contraceptives may be associated with an increased risk of breast cancer.

In terms of breast cancer risk, the study “again extends follow-up and shows that risk of breast cancer was higher for current and ever users through age 50,” although the lifetime risk was not elevated, Dr. Keating said.

“The counseling regarding the effect on breast cancer is more complex,” she said. “I tell women about the very small increased risk of breast cancer during and immediately after use. Because cancer is very rare among women at the ages when OCPs are typically prescribed, the absolute risk increase is extremely small. This paper adds reassurance that this small increase in risk does not persist.”

For certain patients, the association may be more relevant.

“For most women, this risk is so small that it should be a limited factor in their decision to start OCPs,” Dr. Keating said. “However, for women with a substantially higher risk of breast cancer, or a family history of breast cancer at a young age, the small increased risk of breast cancer during and immediately after OCP use is more relevant, and counseling should include carefully weighing the benefits and harms of OCPs with other forms of contraception (and no contraception).”

Although the protective effects of oral contraceptives on ovarian and endometrial cancer were well known, the study describes long-term outcomes that can further inform patient counseling, said Samuel S. Badalian, MD, PhD, chief of the department of obstetrics and gynecology at Bassett Medical Center in Cooperstown, N.Y., and clinical professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the State University of New York, Syracuse.

“Women with individual or family risk factors of ovarian or endometrial cancers will need to know about the protective effects of oral contraceptives and long-term benefits related with their use (30-35 years after discontinuation),” Dr. Badalian said. “Women with family history of breast cancer need to know that lifetime risk of breast cancer might not differ between ever and never users, even if there is an increased short-term risk.”
 

Data from the U.K. Biobank

To examine the time-dependent effects between long-term oral contraceptive use and cancer risk, the researchers examined data from 256,661 women from the U.K. Biobank who were born between 1939 and 1970. The researchers identified cancer diagnoses using information from national registers and self-reported data until March 2019.

Of the women included in the study, 82% had used or still were using oral contraceptives, whereas 18% had never used oral contraceptives. Overall, ever users were younger, more frequently smokers, and had a lower body mass index, compared with never users. Most women started using oral contraceptives between 1969 and 1978. Last use of oral contraceptives occurred on average 10.7 years after starting.

The researchers adjusted for covariates and used logistic regression analyses to measure the cumulative risk of cancer. They used Cox regression analysis to examine instantaneous risk, measured using hazard ratios.

In all, there were 17,739 cases of breast cancer (6.9%), 1,966 cases of ovarian cancer (0.76%), and 2,462 cases of endometrial cancer (0.96%).

Among ever users, the likelihood of ovarian cancer (OR, 0.72) and endometrial cancer (OR, 0.68) was lower, compared with never users. “However, we did not see a significant association between oral contraceptive use and breast cancer” for the study period as a whole, the researchers reported. When the researchers limited follow-up to age 50 years, however, the odds ratio for breast cancer was increased (OR, 1.09).

“Surprisingly, we only found a small increased risk of breast cancer among oral contraceptive users, and the increased risk disappeared within a few years after discontinuation,” Åsa Johansson, PhD, a researcher in the department of immunology, genetics, and pathology at Uppsala University and one of the study authors, said in a news release. “Our results suggest that the lifetime risk of breast cancer might not differ between ever and never users, even if there is an increased short-term risk.”

Oral contraceptives today typically use lower doses of estrogen and other types of progesterone, compared with formulas commonly used when participants in the study started taking them, so the results may not directly apply to patients currently taking oral contraceptives, the researchers noted.

The study was supported by the Swedish Research Council, the Swedish Cancer Society, and the Kjell and Märta Beijers, the Marcus Borgström, the Åke Wiberg, and the A and M Rudbergs foundations. The authors, Dr. Keating, and Dr. Badalian had no conflicts of interest.
 

jremaly@mdedge.com

Oral contraceptive use is associated with a decreased risk of ovarian and endometrial cancer 3 decades after discontinuation, according to an analysis of data from more than 250,000 women.

At the same time, oral contraceptive use is associated with a short-term increased risk of breast cancer after discontinuation, although the lifetime risk of breast cancer is not significantly different, the researchers found.

The absolute risk of breast cancer after discontinuation is “extremely small” and should be a limited factor when deciding whether to start oral contraceptive pills (OCPs), a doctor said.

The study was conducted by Torgny Karlsson, PhD, a researcher in the department of immunology, genetics, and pathology at Uppsala (Sweden) University, and colleagues and published online in Cancer Research.


 

Reinforcing and extending knowledge

“These findings are generally consistent with what is known, but extend that knowledge, most notably by the longer-term follow-up for the cohort,” commented Nancy L. Keating, MD, MPH, professor of health care policy and medicine at Harvard Medical School and a physician at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, both in Boston. “Other studies have also shown that OCPs lower risk of ovarian and endometrial cancer. This study suggests that this protective benefit extends up to 30-35 years after discontinuing OCPs.”

The results “reinforce the message to patients of the protective effect of OCPs on risk of ovarian and endometrial cancer,” Dr. Keating said. “Women concerned about these cancers can be reassured that this protective effect appears to persist for decades after discontinuing use.”

Prior studies have indicated that oral contraceptives may be associated with an increased risk of breast cancer.

In terms of breast cancer risk, the study “again extends follow-up and shows that risk of breast cancer was higher for current and ever users through age 50,” although the lifetime risk was not elevated, Dr. Keating said.

“The counseling regarding the effect on breast cancer is more complex,” she said. “I tell women about the very small increased risk of breast cancer during and immediately after use. Because cancer is very rare among women at the ages when OCPs are typically prescribed, the absolute risk increase is extremely small. This paper adds reassurance that this small increase in risk does not persist.”

For certain patients, the association may be more relevant.

“For most women, this risk is so small that it should be a limited factor in their decision to start OCPs,” Dr. Keating said. “However, for women with a substantially higher risk of breast cancer, or a family history of breast cancer at a young age, the small increased risk of breast cancer during and immediately after OCP use is more relevant, and counseling should include carefully weighing the benefits and harms of OCPs with other forms of contraception (and no contraception).”

Although the protective effects of oral contraceptives on ovarian and endometrial cancer were well known, the study describes long-term outcomes that can further inform patient counseling, said Samuel S. Badalian, MD, PhD, chief of the department of obstetrics and gynecology at Bassett Medical Center in Cooperstown, N.Y., and clinical professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the State University of New York, Syracuse.

“Women with individual or family risk factors of ovarian or endometrial cancers will need to know about the protective effects of oral contraceptives and long-term benefits related with their use (30-35 years after discontinuation),” Dr. Badalian said. “Women with family history of breast cancer need to know that lifetime risk of breast cancer might not differ between ever and never users, even if there is an increased short-term risk.”
 

Data from the U.K. Biobank

To examine the time-dependent effects between long-term oral contraceptive use and cancer risk, the researchers examined data from 256,661 women from the U.K. Biobank who were born between 1939 and 1970. The researchers identified cancer diagnoses using information from national registers and self-reported data until March 2019.

Of the women included in the study, 82% had used or still were using oral contraceptives, whereas 18% had never used oral contraceptives. Overall, ever users were younger, more frequently smokers, and had a lower body mass index, compared with never users. Most women started using oral contraceptives between 1969 and 1978. Last use of oral contraceptives occurred on average 10.7 years after starting.

The researchers adjusted for covariates and used logistic regression analyses to measure the cumulative risk of cancer. They used Cox regression analysis to examine instantaneous risk, measured using hazard ratios.

In all, there were 17,739 cases of breast cancer (6.9%), 1,966 cases of ovarian cancer (0.76%), and 2,462 cases of endometrial cancer (0.96%).

Among ever users, the likelihood of ovarian cancer (OR, 0.72) and endometrial cancer (OR, 0.68) was lower, compared with never users. “However, we did not see a significant association between oral contraceptive use and breast cancer” for the study period as a whole, the researchers reported. When the researchers limited follow-up to age 50 years, however, the odds ratio for breast cancer was increased (OR, 1.09).

“Surprisingly, we only found a small increased risk of breast cancer among oral contraceptive users, and the increased risk disappeared within a few years after discontinuation,” Åsa Johansson, PhD, a researcher in the department of immunology, genetics, and pathology at Uppsala University and one of the study authors, said in a news release. “Our results suggest that the lifetime risk of breast cancer might not differ between ever and never users, even if there is an increased short-term risk.”

Oral contraceptives today typically use lower doses of estrogen and other types of progesterone, compared with formulas commonly used when participants in the study started taking them, so the results may not directly apply to patients currently taking oral contraceptives, the researchers noted.

The study was supported by the Swedish Research Council, the Swedish Cancer Society, and the Kjell and Märta Beijers, the Marcus Borgström, the Åke Wiberg, and the A and M Rudbergs foundations. The authors, Dr. Keating, and Dr. Badalian had no conflicts of interest.
 

jremaly@mdedge.com