User login
ACEIs, ARBs safe to continue in COVID-19: Trial published
The BRACE-CORONA trial, the first randomized trial to address the question of whether patients with COVID-19 should continue to take ACE inhibitors (ACEIs) or angiotensin-receptor blockers (ARBs) – has now been published.
The study, which was conducted in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 who were taking ACEIs or ARBs before hospitalization, showed no significant difference in the mean number of days alive and out of the hospital for those assigned to discontinue versus those assigned to continue these medications.
There were, however, hints that continuing to take ACEIs or ARBs may be beneficial for patients with more severe COVID-19.
The study was first presented at last year’s European Society of Cardiology Congress and was reported by this news organization at that time. The study was published online in JAMA on Jan. 19, 2021.
“These findings do not support routinely discontinuing ACEIs or ARBs among patients hospitalized with mild to moderate COVID-19 if there is an indication for treatment,” the authors concluded.
Led by Renato D. Lopes, MD, Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, N.C., the researchers explained that there has been conflicting speculation about the effect of renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) inhibitors on the course of COVID-19.
On the one hand, observations from animal models suggest that ACEIs and ARBs up-regulate the expression of ACE2, a receptor involved in SARS-CoV-2 infection of host target cells. This led to suggestions that these medications may enhance viral binding and cell entry. Conversely, RAAS inhibitors could benefit patients with COVID-19 through effects on angiotensin II expression and subsequent increases in angiotensin 1-7 and 1-9, which have vasodilatory and anti-inflammatory effects that might attenuate lung injury.
The BRACE-CORONA trial included 659 patients hospitalized in Brazil with mild to moderate COVID-19 who were taking ACEIs or ARBs prior to hospitalization. The median age of the patients was 55 years. Of these patients, 57.1% were considered to have mild cases at hospital admission, and 42.9% were considered to have moderate cases.
Results showed no significant difference in the number of days alive and out of the hospital for patients in the discontinuation group (mean, 21.9 days) in comparison with patients in the continuation group (mean, 22.9 days). The mean ratio was 0.95 (95% confidence interval, 0.90-1.01).
There also was no statistically significant difference in deaths (2.7% of the discontinuation group vs. 2.8% for the continuation group); cardiovascular death (0.6% vs. 0.3%), or COVID-19 progression (38.3% vs. 32.3%).
The most common adverse events were respiratory failure requiring invasive mechanical ventilation (9.6% in the discontinuation group vs. 7.7% in the continuation group), shock requiring vasopressors (8.4% vs. 7.1%), acute MI (7.5% vs. 4.6%), new or worsening heart failure (4.2% vs. 4.9%), and acute kidney failure requiring hemodialysis (3.3% vs. 2.8%).
The authors note that hypertension is an important comorbidity in patients with COVID-19. Recent data suggest that immune dysfunction may contribute to poor outcomes among patients who have COVID-19 and hypertension.
It has been shown that, when use of long-term medications is discontinued during hospitalization, the use of those medications is often not resumed, owing to clinical inertia. Long-term outcomes worsen as a result, the authors reported. In the current study, all patients had hypertension, and more than 50% were obese; both of these comorbidities increase the risk for poor outcomes with COVID-19.
The investigators pointed out that a sensitivity analysis in which site was regarded as a random effect showed a statistically significant finding in favor of the group that continued ACEIs or ARBs. This finding was similar to that of the on-treatment analysis. There were also statistically significant interactions between treatment effect and some subgroups, such as patients with lower oxygen saturation and greater disease severity at hospital admission. For these patients, continuing ACEIs or ARBs may be beneficial.
“The primary analyses with the null results but wide 95% confidence intervals suggest that the study might have been underpowered to detect a statistically significant benefit of continuing ACEIs or ARBs,” they said.
Dr. Lopes has received grant support from Bristol-Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, Medtronic, Pfizer, and Sanofi and consulting fees from Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Daiichi Sankyo, GlaxoSmithKline, Medtronic, Merck, Pfizer, Portola, and Sanofi.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The BRACE-CORONA trial, the first randomized trial to address the question of whether patients with COVID-19 should continue to take ACE inhibitors (ACEIs) or angiotensin-receptor blockers (ARBs) – has now been published.
The study, which was conducted in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 who were taking ACEIs or ARBs before hospitalization, showed no significant difference in the mean number of days alive and out of the hospital for those assigned to discontinue versus those assigned to continue these medications.
There were, however, hints that continuing to take ACEIs or ARBs may be beneficial for patients with more severe COVID-19.
The study was first presented at last year’s European Society of Cardiology Congress and was reported by this news organization at that time. The study was published online in JAMA on Jan. 19, 2021.
“These findings do not support routinely discontinuing ACEIs or ARBs among patients hospitalized with mild to moderate COVID-19 if there is an indication for treatment,” the authors concluded.
Led by Renato D. Lopes, MD, Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, N.C., the researchers explained that there has been conflicting speculation about the effect of renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) inhibitors on the course of COVID-19.
On the one hand, observations from animal models suggest that ACEIs and ARBs up-regulate the expression of ACE2, a receptor involved in SARS-CoV-2 infection of host target cells. This led to suggestions that these medications may enhance viral binding and cell entry. Conversely, RAAS inhibitors could benefit patients with COVID-19 through effects on angiotensin II expression and subsequent increases in angiotensin 1-7 and 1-9, which have vasodilatory and anti-inflammatory effects that might attenuate lung injury.
The BRACE-CORONA trial included 659 patients hospitalized in Brazil with mild to moderate COVID-19 who were taking ACEIs or ARBs prior to hospitalization. The median age of the patients was 55 years. Of these patients, 57.1% were considered to have mild cases at hospital admission, and 42.9% were considered to have moderate cases.
Results showed no significant difference in the number of days alive and out of the hospital for patients in the discontinuation group (mean, 21.9 days) in comparison with patients in the continuation group (mean, 22.9 days). The mean ratio was 0.95 (95% confidence interval, 0.90-1.01).
There also was no statistically significant difference in deaths (2.7% of the discontinuation group vs. 2.8% for the continuation group); cardiovascular death (0.6% vs. 0.3%), or COVID-19 progression (38.3% vs. 32.3%).
The most common adverse events were respiratory failure requiring invasive mechanical ventilation (9.6% in the discontinuation group vs. 7.7% in the continuation group), shock requiring vasopressors (8.4% vs. 7.1%), acute MI (7.5% vs. 4.6%), new or worsening heart failure (4.2% vs. 4.9%), and acute kidney failure requiring hemodialysis (3.3% vs. 2.8%).
The authors note that hypertension is an important comorbidity in patients with COVID-19. Recent data suggest that immune dysfunction may contribute to poor outcomes among patients who have COVID-19 and hypertension.
It has been shown that, when use of long-term medications is discontinued during hospitalization, the use of those medications is often not resumed, owing to clinical inertia. Long-term outcomes worsen as a result, the authors reported. In the current study, all patients had hypertension, and more than 50% were obese; both of these comorbidities increase the risk for poor outcomes with COVID-19.
The investigators pointed out that a sensitivity analysis in which site was regarded as a random effect showed a statistically significant finding in favor of the group that continued ACEIs or ARBs. This finding was similar to that of the on-treatment analysis. There were also statistically significant interactions between treatment effect and some subgroups, such as patients with lower oxygen saturation and greater disease severity at hospital admission. For these patients, continuing ACEIs or ARBs may be beneficial.
“The primary analyses with the null results but wide 95% confidence intervals suggest that the study might have been underpowered to detect a statistically significant benefit of continuing ACEIs or ARBs,” they said.
Dr. Lopes has received grant support from Bristol-Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, Medtronic, Pfizer, and Sanofi and consulting fees from Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Daiichi Sankyo, GlaxoSmithKline, Medtronic, Merck, Pfizer, Portola, and Sanofi.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The BRACE-CORONA trial, the first randomized trial to address the question of whether patients with COVID-19 should continue to take ACE inhibitors (ACEIs) or angiotensin-receptor blockers (ARBs) – has now been published.
The study, which was conducted in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 who were taking ACEIs or ARBs before hospitalization, showed no significant difference in the mean number of days alive and out of the hospital for those assigned to discontinue versus those assigned to continue these medications.
There were, however, hints that continuing to take ACEIs or ARBs may be beneficial for patients with more severe COVID-19.
The study was first presented at last year’s European Society of Cardiology Congress and was reported by this news organization at that time. The study was published online in JAMA on Jan. 19, 2021.
“These findings do not support routinely discontinuing ACEIs or ARBs among patients hospitalized with mild to moderate COVID-19 if there is an indication for treatment,” the authors concluded.
Led by Renato D. Lopes, MD, Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, N.C., the researchers explained that there has been conflicting speculation about the effect of renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) inhibitors on the course of COVID-19.
On the one hand, observations from animal models suggest that ACEIs and ARBs up-regulate the expression of ACE2, a receptor involved in SARS-CoV-2 infection of host target cells. This led to suggestions that these medications may enhance viral binding and cell entry. Conversely, RAAS inhibitors could benefit patients with COVID-19 through effects on angiotensin II expression and subsequent increases in angiotensin 1-7 and 1-9, which have vasodilatory and anti-inflammatory effects that might attenuate lung injury.
The BRACE-CORONA trial included 659 patients hospitalized in Brazil with mild to moderate COVID-19 who were taking ACEIs or ARBs prior to hospitalization. The median age of the patients was 55 years. Of these patients, 57.1% were considered to have mild cases at hospital admission, and 42.9% were considered to have moderate cases.
Results showed no significant difference in the number of days alive and out of the hospital for patients in the discontinuation group (mean, 21.9 days) in comparison with patients in the continuation group (mean, 22.9 days). The mean ratio was 0.95 (95% confidence interval, 0.90-1.01).
There also was no statistically significant difference in deaths (2.7% of the discontinuation group vs. 2.8% for the continuation group); cardiovascular death (0.6% vs. 0.3%), or COVID-19 progression (38.3% vs. 32.3%).
The most common adverse events were respiratory failure requiring invasive mechanical ventilation (9.6% in the discontinuation group vs. 7.7% in the continuation group), shock requiring vasopressors (8.4% vs. 7.1%), acute MI (7.5% vs. 4.6%), new or worsening heart failure (4.2% vs. 4.9%), and acute kidney failure requiring hemodialysis (3.3% vs. 2.8%).
The authors note that hypertension is an important comorbidity in patients with COVID-19. Recent data suggest that immune dysfunction may contribute to poor outcomes among patients who have COVID-19 and hypertension.
It has been shown that, when use of long-term medications is discontinued during hospitalization, the use of those medications is often not resumed, owing to clinical inertia. Long-term outcomes worsen as a result, the authors reported. In the current study, all patients had hypertension, and more than 50% were obese; both of these comorbidities increase the risk for poor outcomes with COVID-19.
The investigators pointed out that a sensitivity analysis in which site was regarded as a random effect showed a statistically significant finding in favor of the group that continued ACEIs or ARBs. This finding was similar to that of the on-treatment analysis. There were also statistically significant interactions between treatment effect and some subgroups, such as patients with lower oxygen saturation and greater disease severity at hospital admission. For these patients, continuing ACEIs or ARBs may be beneficial.
“The primary analyses with the null results but wide 95% confidence intervals suggest that the study might have been underpowered to detect a statistically significant benefit of continuing ACEIs or ARBs,” they said.
Dr. Lopes has received grant support from Bristol-Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, Medtronic, Pfizer, and Sanofi and consulting fees from Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Daiichi Sankyo, GlaxoSmithKline, Medtronic, Merck, Pfizer, Portola, and Sanofi.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Repeated ketamine infusions linked to rapid relief of PTSD
Repeated intravenous infusions of ketamine provide rapid relief for patients with posttraumatic stress disorder, new research suggests.
In what investigators are calling the first randomized controlled trial of repeated ketamine administration for chronic PTSD, 30 patients received six infusions of ketamine or midazolam (used as a psychoactive placebo) over 2 consecutive weeks.
Between baseline and week 2, those receiving ketamine showed significantly greater improvement than those receiving midazolam. Total scores on the Clinician-Administered PTSD Scale for DSM-5 (CAPS-5) for the first group were almost 12 points lower than the latter group at week 2, meeting the study’s primary outcome measure.
In addition, 67% vs. 20% of the patients, respectively, were considered to be treatment responders; time to loss of response for those in the ketamine group was 28 days.
Although the overall findings were as expected, “what was surprising was how robust the results were,” lead author Adriana Feder, MD, associate professor of psychiatry, Icahn School of Medicine, Mount Sinai, New York, told this news organization.
It was also a bit surprising that, in a study of just 30 participants, “we were able to show such a clear difference” between the two treatment groups, said Dr. Feder, who is also a coinventor on issued patents for the use of ketamine as therapy for PTSD, and codirector of the Ehrenkranz Lab for the Study of Human Resilience at Mount Sinai.
The findings were published online Jan. 5 in the American Journal of Psychiatry.
Unmet need
Ketamine is a glutamate N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA) receptor antagonist that was first approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for anesthetic use in 1970. It has also been shown to be effective for treatment-resistant depression.
PTSD has a lifetime prevalence of about 6% in the United States. “While trauma-focused psychotherapies have the most empirical support, they are limited by significant rates of nonresponse, partial response, and treatment dropout,” the investigators write. Also, there are “few available pharmacotherapies for PTSD, and their efficacy is insufficient,” they add.
“There’s a real need for new treatment interventions that are effective for PTSD and also work rapidly, because it can take weeks to months for currently available treatments to work for PTSD,” Dr. Feder said.
The researchers previously conducted a “proof-of-concept” randomized controlled trial of single infusions of ketamine for chronic PTSD. Results published in 2014 in JAMA Psychiatry showed significant reduction in PTSD symptoms 24 hours after infusion.
For the current study, the investigative team wanted to assess whether ketamine was viable as a longer-term treatment.
“We were encouraged by our initial promising findings” of the earlier trial, Dr. Feder said. “We wanted to do the second study to see if ketamine really works for PTSD, to see if we could replicate the rapid improvement and also examine whether a course of six infusions over 2 weeks could maintain the improvement.”
Thirty patients (aged 18-70; mean age, 39 years) with chronic PTSD from civilian or military trauma were enrolled (mean PTSD duration, 15 years).
The most cited primary trauma was sexual assault or molestation (n = 13), followed by physical assault or abuse (n = 8), witnessing a violent assault or death (n = 4), witnessing the 9/11 attacks (n = 3), and combat exposure (n = 2).
During the 2-week treatment phase, half of the patients were randomly assigned to receive six infusions of ketamine hydrochloride at a dose of 0.5 mg/kg (86.7% women; mean CAPS-5 score, 42), while the other half received six infusions of midazolam at a dose of 0.045 mg/kg (66.7% women; mean CAPS-5 score, 40).
In addition to the primary outcome measure of 2-week changes on the CAPS-5, secondary outcomes included score changes on the Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) and the Impact of Event Scale-Revised (IES-R).
Treatment response was defined as a 30% or more improvement in symptoms on the CAPS-5. A number of measures were also used to assess potential treatment-related adverse events (AEs).
Safe, effective
Results showed significantly lower total CAPS-5 scores for the ketamine group vs. the midazolam group at week 1 (score difference, 8.8 points; P = .03) and at week 2 (score difference, 11.88 points; P = .004).
Those receiving ketamine also showed improvements in three of the four PTSD symptom clusters on the CAPS-5: avoidance (P < .0001), negative mood and cognitions (P = .02), and intrusions (P = .03). The fourth symptom cluster – arousal and reactivity – did not show a significant improvement.
In addition, the ketamine group showed significantly greater improvement scores on the MADRS at both week 1 and week 2.
Treatment response at 2 weeks was achieved by 10 members of the ketamine group and by three members of the midazolam group (P = .03).
Secondary analyses showed rapid improvement in the treatment responders within the ketamine group, with a mean change of 26 points on the total IES-R score between baseline and 24 hours after their first infusion, and a mean change of 13.4 points on the MADRS total past-24-hour score, a 53% improvement on average.
“A response at 2 weeks is very rapid but they got better sometimes within the first day,” Dr. Feder noted.
There were no serious AEs reported. Although some dissociative symptoms occurred during ketamine infusions, with the highest levels reported at the end of the infusion, these symptoms had resolved by the next assessment, conducted 2 hours after infusion.
The most frequently reported AE in the ketamine group, compared with midazolam, after the start of infusions was blurred vision (53% vs. 0%), followed by dizziness (33% vs. 13%), fatigue (33% vs. 87%), headache (27% vs. 13%), and nausea or vomiting (20% vs. 7%).
‘Large-magnitude improvement’
The overall findings show that, in this patient population, “repeated intravenous ketamine infusions administered over 2 weeks were associated with a large-magnitude, clinically significant improvement in PTSD symptoms,” the investigators write.
The results “were very satisfying,” added Dr. Feder. “It was heartening also to hear what some of the participants would say. Some told us about how their symptoms and feelings had changed during the course of treatment with ketamine, where they felt stronger and better able to cope with their trauma and memories.”
She noted, however, that this was not a study designed to specifically assess ketamine in treatment-resistant PTSD. “Some patients had had multiple treatments before that hadn’t worked, while others had not received treatment before. Efficacy for treatment-resistant PTSD is an important question for future research,” Dr. Feder said.
Other areas worth future exploration include treatment efficacy in patients with different types of trauma and whether outcomes can last longer in patients receiving ketamine plus psychotherapy treatment, she noted.
“I don’t want to ignore the fact that currently available treatments work for a number of people with chronic PTSD. But because there are many more for whom [the treatments] don’t work, or they’re insufficiently helped by those treatments, this is certainly one potentially very promising approach that can be added” to a clinician’s toolbox, Dr. Feder said.
Speaks to clinical utility
Commenting for this news organization, Gerard Sanacora, MD, PhD, professor of psychiatry at Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut, called this a “very solid and well-designed” study.
“It definitely builds on what’s been found in the past, but it’s a critical piece of information speaking to the clinical utility of this treatment for PTSD,” said Dr. Sanacora, who is also director of the Yale Depression Research Program and was not involved with the current research.
He agreed with the investigators that PTSD has long been a condition that is difficult to treat.
“It’s an area that has a great unmet need for treatment options. Beyond that, as ketamine is becoming more widely used, there’s increasing demand for off-label uses. This [study] actually provides some evidence that there may be efficacy there,” Dr. Sanacora said.
Although he cautioned that this was a small study, and thus further research with a larger patient population will be needed, it provides a compelling foundation to build upon.
“This study provides clear evidence to support a larger study to really give a definitive statement on the efficacy and safety of its use for PTSD. I don’t think this is the study that provides that definitive evidence, but it is a very strong indication, and it very strongly supports the initiation of a large study to address that,” said Dr. Sanacora.
He noted that, although he’s used the term “cautious optimism” for studies in the past, he has “real optimism” that ketamine will be effective for PTSD based on the results of this current study.
“We still need some more data to really convince us of that before we can say with any clear statement that it is effective and safe, but I’m very optimistic,” Dr. Sanacora concluded.
The study was funded by the Brain and Behavior Research Foundation, Mount Sinai Innovation Partners and the Mount Sinai i3 Accelerator, Gerald and Glenda Greenwald, and the Ehrenkranz Laboratory for Human Resilience. Dr. Feder is a coinventor on issued patents for the use of ketamine as therapy for PTSD. A list of all disclosures for the other study authors are listed in the original article.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Repeated intravenous infusions of ketamine provide rapid relief for patients with posttraumatic stress disorder, new research suggests.
In what investigators are calling the first randomized controlled trial of repeated ketamine administration for chronic PTSD, 30 patients received six infusions of ketamine or midazolam (used as a psychoactive placebo) over 2 consecutive weeks.
Between baseline and week 2, those receiving ketamine showed significantly greater improvement than those receiving midazolam. Total scores on the Clinician-Administered PTSD Scale for DSM-5 (CAPS-5) for the first group were almost 12 points lower than the latter group at week 2, meeting the study’s primary outcome measure.
In addition, 67% vs. 20% of the patients, respectively, were considered to be treatment responders; time to loss of response for those in the ketamine group was 28 days.
Although the overall findings were as expected, “what was surprising was how robust the results were,” lead author Adriana Feder, MD, associate professor of psychiatry, Icahn School of Medicine, Mount Sinai, New York, told this news organization.
It was also a bit surprising that, in a study of just 30 participants, “we were able to show such a clear difference” between the two treatment groups, said Dr. Feder, who is also a coinventor on issued patents for the use of ketamine as therapy for PTSD, and codirector of the Ehrenkranz Lab for the Study of Human Resilience at Mount Sinai.
The findings were published online Jan. 5 in the American Journal of Psychiatry.
Unmet need
Ketamine is a glutamate N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA) receptor antagonist that was first approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for anesthetic use in 1970. It has also been shown to be effective for treatment-resistant depression.
PTSD has a lifetime prevalence of about 6% in the United States. “While trauma-focused psychotherapies have the most empirical support, they are limited by significant rates of nonresponse, partial response, and treatment dropout,” the investigators write. Also, there are “few available pharmacotherapies for PTSD, and their efficacy is insufficient,” they add.
“There’s a real need for new treatment interventions that are effective for PTSD and also work rapidly, because it can take weeks to months for currently available treatments to work for PTSD,” Dr. Feder said.
The researchers previously conducted a “proof-of-concept” randomized controlled trial of single infusions of ketamine for chronic PTSD. Results published in 2014 in JAMA Psychiatry showed significant reduction in PTSD symptoms 24 hours after infusion.
For the current study, the investigative team wanted to assess whether ketamine was viable as a longer-term treatment.
“We were encouraged by our initial promising findings” of the earlier trial, Dr. Feder said. “We wanted to do the second study to see if ketamine really works for PTSD, to see if we could replicate the rapid improvement and also examine whether a course of six infusions over 2 weeks could maintain the improvement.”
Thirty patients (aged 18-70; mean age, 39 years) with chronic PTSD from civilian or military trauma were enrolled (mean PTSD duration, 15 years).
The most cited primary trauma was sexual assault or molestation (n = 13), followed by physical assault or abuse (n = 8), witnessing a violent assault or death (n = 4), witnessing the 9/11 attacks (n = 3), and combat exposure (n = 2).
During the 2-week treatment phase, half of the patients were randomly assigned to receive six infusions of ketamine hydrochloride at a dose of 0.5 mg/kg (86.7% women; mean CAPS-5 score, 42), while the other half received six infusions of midazolam at a dose of 0.045 mg/kg (66.7% women; mean CAPS-5 score, 40).
In addition to the primary outcome measure of 2-week changes on the CAPS-5, secondary outcomes included score changes on the Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) and the Impact of Event Scale-Revised (IES-R).
Treatment response was defined as a 30% or more improvement in symptoms on the CAPS-5. A number of measures were also used to assess potential treatment-related adverse events (AEs).
Safe, effective
Results showed significantly lower total CAPS-5 scores for the ketamine group vs. the midazolam group at week 1 (score difference, 8.8 points; P = .03) and at week 2 (score difference, 11.88 points; P = .004).
Those receiving ketamine also showed improvements in three of the four PTSD symptom clusters on the CAPS-5: avoidance (P < .0001), negative mood and cognitions (P = .02), and intrusions (P = .03). The fourth symptom cluster – arousal and reactivity – did not show a significant improvement.
In addition, the ketamine group showed significantly greater improvement scores on the MADRS at both week 1 and week 2.
Treatment response at 2 weeks was achieved by 10 members of the ketamine group and by three members of the midazolam group (P = .03).
Secondary analyses showed rapid improvement in the treatment responders within the ketamine group, with a mean change of 26 points on the total IES-R score between baseline and 24 hours after their first infusion, and a mean change of 13.4 points on the MADRS total past-24-hour score, a 53% improvement on average.
“A response at 2 weeks is very rapid but they got better sometimes within the first day,” Dr. Feder noted.
There were no serious AEs reported. Although some dissociative symptoms occurred during ketamine infusions, with the highest levels reported at the end of the infusion, these symptoms had resolved by the next assessment, conducted 2 hours after infusion.
The most frequently reported AE in the ketamine group, compared with midazolam, after the start of infusions was blurred vision (53% vs. 0%), followed by dizziness (33% vs. 13%), fatigue (33% vs. 87%), headache (27% vs. 13%), and nausea or vomiting (20% vs. 7%).
‘Large-magnitude improvement’
The overall findings show that, in this patient population, “repeated intravenous ketamine infusions administered over 2 weeks were associated with a large-magnitude, clinically significant improvement in PTSD symptoms,” the investigators write.
The results “were very satisfying,” added Dr. Feder. “It was heartening also to hear what some of the participants would say. Some told us about how their symptoms and feelings had changed during the course of treatment with ketamine, where they felt stronger and better able to cope with their trauma and memories.”
She noted, however, that this was not a study designed to specifically assess ketamine in treatment-resistant PTSD. “Some patients had had multiple treatments before that hadn’t worked, while others had not received treatment before. Efficacy for treatment-resistant PTSD is an important question for future research,” Dr. Feder said.
Other areas worth future exploration include treatment efficacy in patients with different types of trauma and whether outcomes can last longer in patients receiving ketamine plus psychotherapy treatment, she noted.
“I don’t want to ignore the fact that currently available treatments work for a number of people with chronic PTSD. But because there are many more for whom [the treatments] don’t work, or they’re insufficiently helped by those treatments, this is certainly one potentially very promising approach that can be added” to a clinician’s toolbox, Dr. Feder said.
Speaks to clinical utility
Commenting for this news organization, Gerard Sanacora, MD, PhD, professor of psychiatry at Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut, called this a “very solid and well-designed” study.
“It definitely builds on what’s been found in the past, but it’s a critical piece of information speaking to the clinical utility of this treatment for PTSD,” said Dr. Sanacora, who is also director of the Yale Depression Research Program and was not involved with the current research.
He agreed with the investigators that PTSD has long been a condition that is difficult to treat.
“It’s an area that has a great unmet need for treatment options. Beyond that, as ketamine is becoming more widely used, there’s increasing demand for off-label uses. This [study] actually provides some evidence that there may be efficacy there,” Dr. Sanacora said.
Although he cautioned that this was a small study, and thus further research with a larger patient population will be needed, it provides a compelling foundation to build upon.
“This study provides clear evidence to support a larger study to really give a definitive statement on the efficacy and safety of its use for PTSD. I don’t think this is the study that provides that definitive evidence, but it is a very strong indication, and it very strongly supports the initiation of a large study to address that,” said Dr. Sanacora.
He noted that, although he’s used the term “cautious optimism” for studies in the past, he has “real optimism” that ketamine will be effective for PTSD based on the results of this current study.
“We still need some more data to really convince us of that before we can say with any clear statement that it is effective and safe, but I’m very optimistic,” Dr. Sanacora concluded.
The study was funded by the Brain and Behavior Research Foundation, Mount Sinai Innovation Partners and the Mount Sinai i3 Accelerator, Gerald and Glenda Greenwald, and the Ehrenkranz Laboratory for Human Resilience. Dr. Feder is a coinventor on issued patents for the use of ketamine as therapy for PTSD. A list of all disclosures for the other study authors are listed in the original article.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Repeated intravenous infusions of ketamine provide rapid relief for patients with posttraumatic stress disorder, new research suggests.
In what investigators are calling the first randomized controlled trial of repeated ketamine administration for chronic PTSD, 30 patients received six infusions of ketamine or midazolam (used as a psychoactive placebo) over 2 consecutive weeks.
Between baseline and week 2, those receiving ketamine showed significantly greater improvement than those receiving midazolam. Total scores on the Clinician-Administered PTSD Scale for DSM-5 (CAPS-5) for the first group were almost 12 points lower than the latter group at week 2, meeting the study’s primary outcome measure.
In addition, 67% vs. 20% of the patients, respectively, were considered to be treatment responders; time to loss of response for those in the ketamine group was 28 days.
Although the overall findings were as expected, “what was surprising was how robust the results were,” lead author Adriana Feder, MD, associate professor of psychiatry, Icahn School of Medicine, Mount Sinai, New York, told this news organization.
It was also a bit surprising that, in a study of just 30 participants, “we were able to show such a clear difference” between the two treatment groups, said Dr. Feder, who is also a coinventor on issued patents for the use of ketamine as therapy for PTSD, and codirector of the Ehrenkranz Lab for the Study of Human Resilience at Mount Sinai.
The findings were published online Jan. 5 in the American Journal of Psychiatry.
Unmet need
Ketamine is a glutamate N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA) receptor antagonist that was first approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for anesthetic use in 1970. It has also been shown to be effective for treatment-resistant depression.
PTSD has a lifetime prevalence of about 6% in the United States. “While trauma-focused psychotherapies have the most empirical support, they are limited by significant rates of nonresponse, partial response, and treatment dropout,” the investigators write. Also, there are “few available pharmacotherapies for PTSD, and their efficacy is insufficient,” they add.
“There’s a real need for new treatment interventions that are effective for PTSD and also work rapidly, because it can take weeks to months for currently available treatments to work for PTSD,” Dr. Feder said.
The researchers previously conducted a “proof-of-concept” randomized controlled trial of single infusions of ketamine for chronic PTSD. Results published in 2014 in JAMA Psychiatry showed significant reduction in PTSD symptoms 24 hours after infusion.
For the current study, the investigative team wanted to assess whether ketamine was viable as a longer-term treatment.
“We were encouraged by our initial promising findings” of the earlier trial, Dr. Feder said. “We wanted to do the second study to see if ketamine really works for PTSD, to see if we could replicate the rapid improvement and also examine whether a course of six infusions over 2 weeks could maintain the improvement.”
Thirty patients (aged 18-70; mean age, 39 years) with chronic PTSD from civilian or military trauma were enrolled (mean PTSD duration, 15 years).
The most cited primary trauma was sexual assault or molestation (n = 13), followed by physical assault or abuse (n = 8), witnessing a violent assault or death (n = 4), witnessing the 9/11 attacks (n = 3), and combat exposure (n = 2).
During the 2-week treatment phase, half of the patients were randomly assigned to receive six infusions of ketamine hydrochloride at a dose of 0.5 mg/kg (86.7% women; mean CAPS-5 score, 42), while the other half received six infusions of midazolam at a dose of 0.045 mg/kg (66.7% women; mean CAPS-5 score, 40).
In addition to the primary outcome measure of 2-week changes on the CAPS-5, secondary outcomes included score changes on the Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) and the Impact of Event Scale-Revised (IES-R).
Treatment response was defined as a 30% or more improvement in symptoms on the CAPS-5. A number of measures were also used to assess potential treatment-related adverse events (AEs).
Safe, effective
Results showed significantly lower total CAPS-5 scores for the ketamine group vs. the midazolam group at week 1 (score difference, 8.8 points; P = .03) and at week 2 (score difference, 11.88 points; P = .004).
Those receiving ketamine also showed improvements in three of the four PTSD symptom clusters on the CAPS-5: avoidance (P < .0001), negative mood and cognitions (P = .02), and intrusions (P = .03). The fourth symptom cluster – arousal and reactivity – did not show a significant improvement.
In addition, the ketamine group showed significantly greater improvement scores on the MADRS at both week 1 and week 2.
Treatment response at 2 weeks was achieved by 10 members of the ketamine group and by three members of the midazolam group (P = .03).
Secondary analyses showed rapid improvement in the treatment responders within the ketamine group, with a mean change of 26 points on the total IES-R score between baseline and 24 hours after their first infusion, and a mean change of 13.4 points on the MADRS total past-24-hour score, a 53% improvement on average.
“A response at 2 weeks is very rapid but they got better sometimes within the first day,” Dr. Feder noted.
There were no serious AEs reported. Although some dissociative symptoms occurred during ketamine infusions, with the highest levels reported at the end of the infusion, these symptoms had resolved by the next assessment, conducted 2 hours after infusion.
The most frequently reported AE in the ketamine group, compared with midazolam, after the start of infusions was blurred vision (53% vs. 0%), followed by dizziness (33% vs. 13%), fatigue (33% vs. 87%), headache (27% vs. 13%), and nausea or vomiting (20% vs. 7%).
‘Large-magnitude improvement’
The overall findings show that, in this patient population, “repeated intravenous ketamine infusions administered over 2 weeks were associated with a large-magnitude, clinically significant improvement in PTSD symptoms,” the investigators write.
The results “were very satisfying,” added Dr. Feder. “It was heartening also to hear what some of the participants would say. Some told us about how their symptoms and feelings had changed during the course of treatment with ketamine, where they felt stronger and better able to cope with their trauma and memories.”
She noted, however, that this was not a study designed to specifically assess ketamine in treatment-resistant PTSD. “Some patients had had multiple treatments before that hadn’t worked, while others had not received treatment before. Efficacy for treatment-resistant PTSD is an important question for future research,” Dr. Feder said.
Other areas worth future exploration include treatment efficacy in patients with different types of trauma and whether outcomes can last longer in patients receiving ketamine plus psychotherapy treatment, she noted.
“I don’t want to ignore the fact that currently available treatments work for a number of people with chronic PTSD. But because there are many more for whom [the treatments] don’t work, or they’re insufficiently helped by those treatments, this is certainly one potentially very promising approach that can be added” to a clinician’s toolbox, Dr. Feder said.
Speaks to clinical utility
Commenting for this news organization, Gerard Sanacora, MD, PhD, professor of psychiatry at Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut, called this a “very solid and well-designed” study.
“It definitely builds on what’s been found in the past, but it’s a critical piece of information speaking to the clinical utility of this treatment for PTSD,” said Dr. Sanacora, who is also director of the Yale Depression Research Program and was not involved with the current research.
He agreed with the investigators that PTSD has long been a condition that is difficult to treat.
“It’s an area that has a great unmet need for treatment options. Beyond that, as ketamine is becoming more widely used, there’s increasing demand for off-label uses. This [study] actually provides some evidence that there may be efficacy there,” Dr. Sanacora said.
Although he cautioned that this was a small study, and thus further research with a larger patient population will be needed, it provides a compelling foundation to build upon.
“This study provides clear evidence to support a larger study to really give a definitive statement on the efficacy and safety of its use for PTSD. I don’t think this is the study that provides that definitive evidence, but it is a very strong indication, and it very strongly supports the initiation of a large study to address that,” said Dr. Sanacora.
He noted that, although he’s used the term “cautious optimism” for studies in the past, he has “real optimism” that ketamine will be effective for PTSD based on the results of this current study.
“We still need some more data to really convince us of that before we can say with any clear statement that it is effective and safe, but I’m very optimistic,” Dr. Sanacora concluded.
The study was funded by the Brain and Behavior Research Foundation, Mount Sinai Innovation Partners and the Mount Sinai i3 Accelerator, Gerald and Glenda Greenwald, and the Ehrenkranz Laboratory for Human Resilience. Dr. Feder is a coinventor on issued patents for the use of ketamine as therapy for PTSD. A list of all disclosures for the other study authors are listed in the original article.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Further warning on SGLT2 inhibitor use and DKA risk in COVID-19
a new case series suggests.
Five patients with type 2 diabetes who were taking SGLT2 inhibitors presented in DKA despite having glucose levels below 300 mg/dL. The report was published online last month in AACE Clinical Case Reports by Rebecca J. Vitale, MD, and colleagues at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston.
“A cluster of euglycemic DKA cases at our hospital during the first wave of the pandemic suggests that patients with diabetes taking SGLT2 inhibitors may be at enhanced risk for euDKA when they contract COVID-19,” senior author Naomi D.L. Fisher, MD, said in an interview.
Dr. Fisher, an endocrinologist, added: “This complication is preventable with the simple measure of holding the drug. We are hopeful that widespread patient and physician education will prevent future cases of euDKA as COVID-19 infections continue to surge.”
These cases underscore recommendations published early in the COVID-19 pandemic by an international panel, she noted.
“Patients who are acutely ill with nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain, or diarrhea, or who are experiencing loss of appetite with reduced food and fluid intake, should be advised to hold their SGLT2 inhibitor. This medication should not be resumed until patients are feeling better and eating and drinking normally.”
On the other hand, “If patients with asymptomatic or mild COVID-19 infection are otherwise well, and are eating and drinking normally, there is no evidence that SGLT2 inhibitors need to be stopped. These patients should monitor [themselves] closely for worsening symptoms, especially resulting in poor hydration and nutrition, which would be reason to discontinue their medication.”
Pay special attention to the elderly, those with complications
However, special consideration should be given to elderly patients and those with medical conditions known to increase the likelihood of severe infection, like heart failure and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, Dr. Fisher added.
The SGLT2 inhibitor class of drugs causes significant urinary glucose excretion, and they are also diuretics. A decrease in available glucose and volume depletion are probably both important contributors to euDKA, she explained.
With COVID-19 infection the euDKA risk is compounded by several mechanisms. Most cases of euDKA are associated with an underlying state of starvation that can be triggered by vomiting, diarrhea, loss of appetite, and poor oral intake.
In addition – although not yet known for certain – SARS-CoV-2 may also be toxic to pancreatic beta cells and thus reduce insulin secretion. The maladaptive inflammatory response seen with COVID-19 may also contribute, she said.
The patients in the current case series were three men and two women seen between March and May 2020. They ranged in age from 52 to 79 years.
None had a prior history of DKA or any known diabetes complications. In all of them, antihyperglycemic medications, including SGLT2 inhibitors, were stopped on hospital admission. The patients were initially treated with intravenous insulin, and then subcutaneous insulin after the DKA diagnosis.
Three of the patients were discharged to rehabilitation facilities on hospital days 28-47 and one (age 53 years) was discharged home on day 11. The other patient also had hypertension and nonalcoholic steatohepatitis.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
a new case series suggests.
Five patients with type 2 diabetes who were taking SGLT2 inhibitors presented in DKA despite having glucose levels below 300 mg/dL. The report was published online last month in AACE Clinical Case Reports by Rebecca J. Vitale, MD, and colleagues at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston.
“A cluster of euglycemic DKA cases at our hospital during the first wave of the pandemic suggests that patients with diabetes taking SGLT2 inhibitors may be at enhanced risk for euDKA when they contract COVID-19,” senior author Naomi D.L. Fisher, MD, said in an interview.
Dr. Fisher, an endocrinologist, added: “This complication is preventable with the simple measure of holding the drug. We are hopeful that widespread patient and physician education will prevent future cases of euDKA as COVID-19 infections continue to surge.”
These cases underscore recommendations published early in the COVID-19 pandemic by an international panel, she noted.
“Patients who are acutely ill with nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain, or diarrhea, or who are experiencing loss of appetite with reduced food and fluid intake, should be advised to hold their SGLT2 inhibitor. This medication should not be resumed until patients are feeling better and eating and drinking normally.”
On the other hand, “If patients with asymptomatic or mild COVID-19 infection are otherwise well, and are eating and drinking normally, there is no evidence that SGLT2 inhibitors need to be stopped. These patients should monitor [themselves] closely for worsening symptoms, especially resulting in poor hydration and nutrition, which would be reason to discontinue their medication.”
Pay special attention to the elderly, those with complications
However, special consideration should be given to elderly patients and those with medical conditions known to increase the likelihood of severe infection, like heart failure and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, Dr. Fisher added.
The SGLT2 inhibitor class of drugs causes significant urinary glucose excretion, and they are also diuretics. A decrease in available glucose and volume depletion are probably both important contributors to euDKA, she explained.
With COVID-19 infection the euDKA risk is compounded by several mechanisms. Most cases of euDKA are associated with an underlying state of starvation that can be triggered by vomiting, diarrhea, loss of appetite, and poor oral intake.
In addition – although not yet known for certain – SARS-CoV-2 may also be toxic to pancreatic beta cells and thus reduce insulin secretion. The maladaptive inflammatory response seen with COVID-19 may also contribute, she said.
The patients in the current case series were three men and two women seen between March and May 2020. They ranged in age from 52 to 79 years.
None had a prior history of DKA or any known diabetes complications. In all of them, antihyperglycemic medications, including SGLT2 inhibitors, were stopped on hospital admission. The patients were initially treated with intravenous insulin, and then subcutaneous insulin after the DKA diagnosis.
Three of the patients were discharged to rehabilitation facilities on hospital days 28-47 and one (age 53 years) was discharged home on day 11. The other patient also had hypertension and nonalcoholic steatohepatitis.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
a new case series suggests.
Five patients with type 2 diabetes who were taking SGLT2 inhibitors presented in DKA despite having glucose levels below 300 mg/dL. The report was published online last month in AACE Clinical Case Reports by Rebecca J. Vitale, MD, and colleagues at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston.
“A cluster of euglycemic DKA cases at our hospital during the first wave of the pandemic suggests that patients with diabetes taking SGLT2 inhibitors may be at enhanced risk for euDKA when they contract COVID-19,” senior author Naomi D.L. Fisher, MD, said in an interview.
Dr. Fisher, an endocrinologist, added: “This complication is preventable with the simple measure of holding the drug. We are hopeful that widespread patient and physician education will prevent future cases of euDKA as COVID-19 infections continue to surge.”
These cases underscore recommendations published early in the COVID-19 pandemic by an international panel, she noted.
“Patients who are acutely ill with nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain, or diarrhea, or who are experiencing loss of appetite with reduced food and fluid intake, should be advised to hold their SGLT2 inhibitor. This medication should not be resumed until patients are feeling better and eating and drinking normally.”
On the other hand, “If patients with asymptomatic or mild COVID-19 infection are otherwise well, and are eating and drinking normally, there is no evidence that SGLT2 inhibitors need to be stopped. These patients should monitor [themselves] closely for worsening symptoms, especially resulting in poor hydration and nutrition, which would be reason to discontinue their medication.”
Pay special attention to the elderly, those with complications
However, special consideration should be given to elderly patients and those with medical conditions known to increase the likelihood of severe infection, like heart failure and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, Dr. Fisher added.
The SGLT2 inhibitor class of drugs causes significant urinary glucose excretion, and they are also diuretics. A decrease in available glucose and volume depletion are probably both important contributors to euDKA, she explained.
With COVID-19 infection the euDKA risk is compounded by several mechanisms. Most cases of euDKA are associated with an underlying state of starvation that can be triggered by vomiting, diarrhea, loss of appetite, and poor oral intake.
In addition – although not yet known for certain – SARS-CoV-2 may also be toxic to pancreatic beta cells and thus reduce insulin secretion. The maladaptive inflammatory response seen with COVID-19 may also contribute, she said.
The patients in the current case series were three men and two women seen between March and May 2020. They ranged in age from 52 to 79 years.
None had a prior history of DKA or any known diabetes complications. In all of them, antihyperglycemic medications, including SGLT2 inhibitors, were stopped on hospital admission. The patients were initially treated with intravenous insulin, and then subcutaneous insulin after the DKA diagnosis.
Three of the patients were discharged to rehabilitation facilities on hospital days 28-47 and one (age 53 years) was discharged home on day 11. The other patient also had hypertension and nonalcoholic steatohepatitis.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Gut microbiome may predict nivolumab efficacy in gastric cancer
Researchers have demonstrated bacterial invasion of the epithelial cell pathway in the gut microbiome and suggest that this could potentially become a novel biomarker.
“In addition, we found gastric cancer–specific gut microbiome predictive of responses to immune checkpoint inhibitors,” said study author Yu Sunakawa, MD, PhD, an associate professor in the department of clinical oncology at St. Marianna University, Kawasaki, Japan.
Dr. Sunakawa presented the study’s results at the 2021 Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium.
The gut microbiome holds great interest as a potential biomarker for response. Previous studies suggested that it may hold the key to immunotherapy responses. The concept has been demonstrated in several studies involving patients with melanoma, but this is the first study in patients with gastric cancer.
Nivolumab monotherapy has been shown to provide a survival benefit with a manageable safety profile in previously treated patients with gastric cancer or gastroesophageal junction (GEJ) cancer, Dr. Sunakawa noted. However, fewer than half of patients responded to therapy.
“The disease control rate was about 40%, and many patients did not experience any tumor degradation,” he said. “About 60% of the patients did not respond to nivolumab as a late-line therapy.”
In the observational/translational DELIVER trial, investigators enrolled 501 patients with recurrent or metastatic adenocarcinoma of the stomach or GEJ. The patients were recruited from 50 sites in Japan.
The primary endpoint was the relationship between the genomic pathway in the gut microbiome and efficacy of nivolumab and whether there was progressive disease or not at the first evaluation, as determined in accordance with Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors criteria.
Genomic data were measured by genome shotgun sequence at a central laboratory. Biomarkers were analyzed by Wilcoxon rank sum test in the first 200 patients, who constituted the training cohort. The top 30 biomarker candidates were validated in the last 300 patients (the validation cohort) using the Bonferroni method.
Clinical and genomic data were available for 437 patients (87%). Of this group, 180 constituted the training cohort, and 257, the validation cohort.
The phylogenetic composition of common bacterial taxa was similar for both cohorts.
In the training cohort, 62.2% of patients had progressive disease, as did 53.2% in the validation cohort. The microbiome was more diverse among the patients who did not have progressive disease than among those who did have progressive disease.
The authors noted that, although there was no statistically significant pathway to be validated for a primary endpoint using the Bonferroni method, bacterial invasion of epithelial cells in the KEGG pathway was associated with clinical outcomes in both the training cohort (P = .057) and the validation cohort (P = .014). However, these pathways were not significantly associated with progressive disease after Bonferroni correction, a conservative test that adjusts for multiple comparisons.
An exploratory analysis of genus showed that Odoribacter and Veillonella species were associated with tumor response to nivolumab in both cohorts.
Dr. Sunakawa noted that biomarker analyses are ongoing. The researchers are investigating the relationships between microbiome and survival times, as well as other endpoints.
Still some gaps
In a discussion of the study, Jonathan Yeung, MD, PhD, of Princess Margaret Cancer Center, Toronto, congratulated the investigators on their study, noting that “the logistical hurdles must have been tremendous to obtain these data.”
However, Dr. Yeung pointed out some limitations and gaps in the data that were presented. For example, he found that the ratio of the training set to the validation set was unusual. “The training set is usually larger and usually an 80/20 ratio,” he said. “In their design, the validation set is larger, and I’m quite curious about their rationale.
“The conclusion of the study is that a more diverse microbiome was observed in patients with a tumor response than in those without a response,” he continued, “but they don’t actually show the statistical test used to make this conclusion. There is considerable overlap between the groups, and more compelling data are needed to make that conclusion.”
Another limitation was the marked imbalance in the number of patients whose condition responded to nivolumab in comparison with those whose condition did not (20 vs. 417 patients). This could have affected the statistical power of the study.
But overall, Dr. Yeung congratulated the authors for presenting a very impressive dataset. “The preliminary data are very interesting, and I look forward to the final results,” he said.
The study was funded by Ono Pharmaceutical and Bristol-Myers Squibb, which markets nivolumab. Dr. Sunakawa has received honoraria from Bayer Yakuhin, Bristol-Myers Squibb Japan, Chugai, Kyowa Hakko Kirin, Lilly Japan, Nippon Kayaku, Sanofi, Taiho, Takeda, and Yakult Honsha. He has held a consulting or advisory role for Bristol-Myers Squibb Japan, Daiichi Sankyo, and Takeda and has received research funding from Chugai Pharma, Daiichi Sankyo, Lilly Japan, Sanofi, Taiho Pharmaceutical, and Takeda. The Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium is sponsored by the American Gastroenterological Association, the American Society for Clinical Oncology, the American Society for Radiation Oncology, and the Society of Surgical Oncology.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Researchers have demonstrated bacterial invasion of the epithelial cell pathway in the gut microbiome and suggest that this could potentially become a novel biomarker.
“In addition, we found gastric cancer–specific gut microbiome predictive of responses to immune checkpoint inhibitors,” said study author Yu Sunakawa, MD, PhD, an associate professor in the department of clinical oncology at St. Marianna University, Kawasaki, Japan.
Dr. Sunakawa presented the study’s results at the 2021 Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium.
The gut microbiome holds great interest as a potential biomarker for response. Previous studies suggested that it may hold the key to immunotherapy responses. The concept has been demonstrated in several studies involving patients with melanoma, but this is the first study in patients with gastric cancer.
Nivolumab monotherapy has been shown to provide a survival benefit with a manageable safety profile in previously treated patients with gastric cancer or gastroesophageal junction (GEJ) cancer, Dr. Sunakawa noted. However, fewer than half of patients responded to therapy.
“The disease control rate was about 40%, and many patients did not experience any tumor degradation,” he said. “About 60% of the patients did not respond to nivolumab as a late-line therapy.”
In the observational/translational DELIVER trial, investigators enrolled 501 patients with recurrent or metastatic adenocarcinoma of the stomach or GEJ. The patients were recruited from 50 sites in Japan.
The primary endpoint was the relationship between the genomic pathway in the gut microbiome and efficacy of nivolumab and whether there was progressive disease or not at the first evaluation, as determined in accordance with Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors criteria.
Genomic data were measured by genome shotgun sequence at a central laboratory. Biomarkers were analyzed by Wilcoxon rank sum test in the first 200 patients, who constituted the training cohort. The top 30 biomarker candidates were validated in the last 300 patients (the validation cohort) using the Bonferroni method.
Clinical and genomic data were available for 437 patients (87%). Of this group, 180 constituted the training cohort, and 257, the validation cohort.
The phylogenetic composition of common bacterial taxa was similar for both cohorts.
In the training cohort, 62.2% of patients had progressive disease, as did 53.2% in the validation cohort. The microbiome was more diverse among the patients who did not have progressive disease than among those who did have progressive disease.
The authors noted that, although there was no statistically significant pathway to be validated for a primary endpoint using the Bonferroni method, bacterial invasion of epithelial cells in the KEGG pathway was associated with clinical outcomes in both the training cohort (P = .057) and the validation cohort (P = .014). However, these pathways were not significantly associated with progressive disease after Bonferroni correction, a conservative test that adjusts for multiple comparisons.
An exploratory analysis of genus showed that Odoribacter and Veillonella species were associated with tumor response to nivolumab in both cohorts.
Dr. Sunakawa noted that biomarker analyses are ongoing. The researchers are investigating the relationships between microbiome and survival times, as well as other endpoints.
Still some gaps
In a discussion of the study, Jonathan Yeung, MD, PhD, of Princess Margaret Cancer Center, Toronto, congratulated the investigators on their study, noting that “the logistical hurdles must have been tremendous to obtain these data.”
However, Dr. Yeung pointed out some limitations and gaps in the data that were presented. For example, he found that the ratio of the training set to the validation set was unusual. “The training set is usually larger and usually an 80/20 ratio,” he said. “In their design, the validation set is larger, and I’m quite curious about their rationale.
“The conclusion of the study is that a more diverse microbiome was observed in patients with a tumor response than in those without a response,” he continued, “but they don’t actually show the statistical test used to make this conclusion. There is considerable overlap between the groups, and more compelling data are needed to make that conclusion.”
Another limitation was the marked imbalance in the number of patients whose condition responded to nivolumab in comparison with those whose condition did not (20 vs. 417 patients). This could have affected the statistical power of the study.
But overall, Dr. Yeung congratulated the authors for presenting a very impressive dataset. “The preliminary data are very interesting, and I look forward to the final results,” he said.
The study was funded by Ono Pharmaceutical and Bristol-Myers Squibb, which markets nivolumab. Dr. Sunakawa has received honoraria from Bayer Yakuhin, Bristol-Myers Squibb Japan, Chugai, Kyowa Hakko Kirin, Lilly Japan, Nippon Kayaku, Sanofi, Taiho, Takeda, and Yakult Honsha. He has held a consulting or advisory role for Bristol-Myers Squibb Japan, Daiichi Sankyo, and Takeda and has received research funding from Chugai Pharma, Daiichi Sankyo, Lilly Japan, Sanofi, Taiho Pharmaceutical, and Takeda. The Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium is sponsored by the American Gastroenterological Association, the American Society for Clinical Oncology, the American Society for Radiation Oncology, and the Society of Surgical Oncology.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Researchers have demonstrated bacterial invasion of the epithelial cell pathway in the gut microbiome and suggest that this could potentially become a novel biomarker.
“In addition, we found gastric cancer–specific gut microbiome predictive of responses to immune checkpoint inhibitors,” said study author Yu Sunakawa, MD, PhD, an associate professor in the department of clinical oncology at St. Marianna University, Kawasaki, Japan.
Dr. Sunakawa presented the study’s results at the 2021 Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium.
The gut microbiome holds great interest as a potential biomarker for response. Previous studies suggested that it may hold the key to immunotherapy responses. The concept has been demonstrated in several studies involving patients with melanoma, but this is the first study in patients with gastric cancer.
Nivolumab monotherapy has been shown to provide a survival benefit with a manageable safety profile in previously treated patients with gastric cancer or gastroesophageal junction (GEJ) cancer, Dr. Sunakawa noted. However, fewer than half of patients responded to therapy.
“The disease control rate was about 40%, and many patients did not experience any tumor degradation,” he said. “About 60% of the patients did not respond to nivolumab as a late-line therapy.”
In the observational/translational DELIVER trial, investigators enrolled 501 patients with recurrent or metastatic adenocarcinoma of the stomach or GEJ. The patients were recruited from 50 sites in Japan.
The primary endpoint was the relationship between the genomic pathway in the gut microbiome and efficacy of nivolumab and whether there was progressive disease or not at the first evaluation, as determined in accordance with Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors criteria.
Genomic data were measured by genome shotgun sequence at a central laboratory. Biomarkers were analyzed by Wilcoxon rank sum test in the first 200 patients, who constituted the training cohort. The top 30 biomarker candidates were validated in the last 300 patients (the validation cohort) using the Bonferroni method.
Clinical and genomic data were available for 437 patients (87%). Of this group, 180 constituted the training cohort, and 257, the validation cohort.
The phylogenetic composition of common bacterial taxa was similar for both cohorts.
In the training cohort, 62.2% of patients had progressive disease, as did 53.2% in the validation cohort. The microbiome was more diverse among the patients who did not have progressive disease than among those who did have progressive disease.
The authors noted that, although there was no statistically significant pathway to be validated for a primary endpoint using the Bonferroni method, bacterial invasion of epithelial cells in the KEGG pathway was associated with clinical outcomes in both the training cohort (P = .057) and the validation cohort (P = .014). However, these pathways were not significantly associated with progressive disease after Bonferroni correction, a conservative test that adjusts for multiple comparisons.
An exploratory analysis of genus showed that Odoribacter and Veillonella species were associated with tumor response to nivolumab in both cohorts.
Dr. Sunakawa noted that biomarker analyses are ongoing. The researchers are investigating the relationships between microbiome and survival times, as well as other endpoints.
Still some gaps
In a discussion of the study, Jonathan Yeung, MD, PhD, of Princess Margaret Cancer Center, Toronto, congratulated the investigators on their study, noting that “the logistical hurdles must have been tremendous to obtain these data.”
However, Dr. Yeung pointed out some limitations and gaps in the data that were presented. For example, he found that the ratio of the training set to the validation set was unusual. “The training set is usually larger and usually an 80/20 ratio,” he said. “In their design, the validation set is larger, and I’m quite curious about their rationale.
“The conclusion of the study is that a more diverse microbiome was observed in patients with a tumor response than in those without a response,” he continued, “but they don’t actually show the statistical test used to make this conclusion. There is considerable overlap between the groups, and more compelling data are needed to make that conclusion.”
Another limitation was the marked imbalance in the number of patients whose condition responded to nivolumab in comparison with those whose condition did not (20 vs. 417 patients). This could have affected the statistical power of the study.
But overall, Dr. Yeung congratulated the authors for presenting a very impressive dataset. “The preliminary data are very interesting, and I look forward to the final results,” he said.
The study was funded by Ono Pharmaceutical and Bristol-Myers Squibb, which markets nivolumab. Dr. Sunakawa has received honoraria from Bayer Yakuhin, Bristol-Myers Squibb Japan, Chugai, Kyowa Hakko Kirin, Lilly Japan, Nippon Kayaku, Sanofi, Taiho, Takeda, and Yakult Honsha. He has held a consulting or advisory role for Bristol-Myers Squibb Japan, Daiichi Sankyo, and Takeda and has received research funding from Chugai Pharma, Daiichi Sankyo, Lilly Japan, Sanofi, Taiho Pharmaceutical, and Takeda. The Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium is sponsored by the American Gastroenterological Association, the American Society for Clinical Oncology, the American Society for Radiation Oncology, and the Society of Surgical Oncology.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Biomarker HF risk score envisioned as SGLT2 inhibitor lodestar in diabetes
A scoring system that predicts risk for new heart failure over 5 years that is based solely on a few familiar, readily available biomarkers could potentially help steer patients with diabetes or even prediabetes toward HF-preventive therapies, researchers proposed based on a new study.
They foresee the risk-stratification tool, based on data pooled from three major community-based cohort studies but not independently validated, as a way to select patients with diabetes and prediabetes for treatment with SGLT2 inhibitors.
Several members of that drug class, conceived as antidiabetic agents, have been shown to help in prevention or treatment of HF in patients with diabetes and those without diabetes but at increased cardiovascular (CV) risk. Yet their uptake in practice has been lagging, the group noted.
Most HF benefits in the SGLT2 inhibitor trials “were seen in patients who have established cardiovascular disease – basically a history of heart attack or stroke,” Ambarish Pandey, MD, MSCS, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, said in an interview.
“So we wanted to see how we can identify high-risk patients without a history of cardiovascular disease using these biomarkers, as an approach to targeting SGLT2 inhibitors, which are fairly expensive therapies,” he said. Without such risk stratification, “you end up treating so many more patients to get very modest returns.”
The group developed a scoring system based on four biomarkers that are “easily measured with inexpensive tests,” Dr. Pandey said: high-sensitivity-assay cardiac troponin T (hs-cTnT) and C-reactive protein (hs-CRP) levels, N-terminal of the prohormone brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) levels, and electrocardiography for evidence of left-ventricular hypertrophy (ECG-LVH).
The derivation cohort consisted of participants in the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities RIC, Dallas Heart Study, and Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis epidemiologic studies who were free of coronary heart disease, stroke, or HF for whom there were sufficient data on CV risk factors and the four biomarkers. None were taking SGLT2 inhibitors at enrollment in their respective studies, the researchers noted.
Members of the pooled cohorts who had diabetes or prediabetes were assigned 1 point for each abnormal biomarker. The 5-year risk for incident HF went up continuously along with the score in people with diabetes and in those with prediabetes, the latter defined as a fasting plasma glucose level from 100 mg/dL to less than 126 mg/dL.
For those with a score of 1, compared with 0, for example, the risk for HF went up 82% with diabetes and 40% with prediabetes. But for those with a score of 3 or 4, the risk went up more than four and a half times with diabetes and more than three and a half times for those with prediabetes. Risk increases were independent of other likely HF risk factors and consistently significant.
The analysis was published Jan. 6 in JACC: Heart Failure.
The biomarker score should be especially useful in patients considered at low to intermediate risk, based on clinical characteristics, as a means to identify residual HF risk and, potentially, select candidates for SGLT2-inhibitor therapy, Dr. Pandey said.
“The other purpose of the study was to broaden the scope of heart failure prevention in dysglycemia by looking also at prediabetes, not just diabetes,” he said. There isn’t much high-quality evidence supporting SGLT2-inhibitor therapy in prediabetes, but it follows that the drugs may be helpful in prediabetes because they are protective in patients with and without diabetes.
“Our work suggests that prediabetes patients who have elevated biomarkers are at a higher risk of heart failure,” Dr. Pandey said, suggesting that the HF risk score could potentially help select their drug therapy as well.
The current study seems “to provide a proof of concept that one can use circulating biomarkers to more precisely identify patients in whom therapies might be expected to exert greatest benefit,” which is especially important for potentially expensive agents like the SGLT2 inhibitors, James L. Januzzi, MD, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, said in an interview.
Importantly in the analysis, a greater number of biomarker abnormalities not only corresponded to rising levels of risk, the risk increases were “dramatic,” and therefore so was the supposed potential benefit of SGLT2-inhibitor therapy, said Dr. Januzzi, who isn’t a coauthor but was an editor for its publication in JACC: Heart Failure.
The uptake of SGLT2 inhibitors for heart failure in practice has been less rapid than hoped, he observed, so if “this hypothetical construct holds up” for the drug class, “it might actually help kick-start focusing on who might optimally receive the drugs.”
Elevated levels of hs-cTnT, hs-CRP, and NT-proBNP, as well as presence of ECG-LVH, were each independently associated with a significantly increased 5-year risk for HF in unadjusted and adjusted analyses of the 6,799 people in the pooled cohort, 33.2% of whom had diabetes and 66.8% of whom had prediabetes, the group writes.
The scoring system would require validation in other cohorts before it could be used, Dr. Pandey observed; once there is “robust validation,” it might be applied first to patients with dysglycemia at intermediate CV risk by standard clinical measures.
Certainly the HF risk-stratification scoring system requires validation in other studies, Dr. Januzzi agreed. But it is intuitively appealing, and the study’s results are consistent with “data that we’re submitting for publication imminently” based on the CANVAS CV-outcomes trial of the SGLT2 inhibitor canagliflozin (Invokana) in patients with diabetes.
Dr. Pandey disclosed receiving support from the Gilead Sciences Research Scholar Program and serving on an advisory board of Roche Diagnostics. Dr. Januzzi disclosed receiving grant support from Novartis, Applied Therapeutics, and Innolife; consulting for Abbott Diagnostics, Janssen, Novartis, Quidel, and Roche Diagnostics; and serving on end-point committees or data safety monitoring boards for trials supported by Abbott, AbbVie, Amgen, CVRx, Janssen, MyoKardia, and Takeda.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
A scoring system that predicts risk for new heart failure over 5 years that is based solely on a few familiar, readily available biomarkers could potentially help steer patients with diabetes or even prediabetes toward HF-preventive therapies, researchers proposed based on a new study.
They foresee the risk-stratification tool, based on data pooled from three major community-based cohort studies but not independently validated, as a way to select patients with diabetes and prediabetes for treatment with SGLT2 inhibitors.
Several members of that drug class, conceived as antidiabetic agents, have been shown to help in prevention or treatment of HF in patients with diabetes and those without diabetes but at increased cardiovascular (CV) risk. Yet their uptake in practice has been lagging, the group noted.
Most HF benefits in the SGLT2 inhibitor trials “were seen in patients who have established cardiovascular disease – basically a history of heart attack or stroke,” Ambarish Pandey, MD, MSCS, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, said in an interview.
“So we wanted to see how we can identify high-risk patients without a history of cardiovascular disease using these biomarkers, as an approach to targeting SGLT2 inhibitors, which are fairly expensive therapies,” he said. Without such risk stratification, “you end up treating so many more patients to get very modest returns.”
The group developed a scoring system based on four biomarkers that are “easily measured with inexpensive tests,” Dr. Pandey said: high-sensitivity-assay cardiac troponin T (hs-cTnT) and C-reactive protein (hs-CRP) levels, N-terminal of the prohormone brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) levels, and electrocardiography for evidence of left-ventricular hypertrophy (ECG-LVH).
The derivation cohort consisted of participants in the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities RIC, Dallas Heart Study, and Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis epidemiologic studies who were free of coronary heart disease, stroke, or HF for whom there were sufficient data on CV risk factors and the four biomarkers. None were taking SGLT2 inhibitors at enrollment in their respective studies, the researchers noted.
Members of the pooled cohorts who had diabetes or prediabetes were assigned 1 point for each abnormal biomarker. The 5-year risk for incident HF went up continuously along with the score in people with diabetes and in those with prediabetes, the latter defined as a fasting plasma glucose level from 100 mg/dL to less than 126 mg/dL.
For those with a score of 1, compared with 0, for example, the risk for HF went up 82% with diabetes and 40% with prediabetes. But for those with a score of 3 or 4, the risk went up more than four and a half times with diabetes and more than three and a half times for those with prediabetes. Risk increases were independent of other likely HF risk factors and consistently significant.
The analysis was published Jan. 6 in JACC: Heart Failure.
The biomarker score should be especially useful in patients considered at low to intermediate risk, based on clinical characteristics, as a means to identify residual HF risk and, potentially, select candidates for SGLT2-inhibitor therapy, Dr. Pandey said.
“The other purpose of the study was to broaden the scope of heart failure prevention in dysglycemia by looking also at prediabetes, not just diabetes,” he said. There isn’t much high-quality evidence supporting SGLT2-inhibitor therapy in prediabetes, but it follows that the drugs may be helpful in prediabetes because they are protective in patients with and without diabetes.
“Our work suggests that prediabetes patients who have elevated biomarkers are at a higher risk of heart failure,” Dr. Pandey said, suggesting that the HF risk score could potentially help select their drug therapy as well.
The current study seems “to provide a proof of concept that one can use circulating biomarkers to more precisely identify patients in whom therapies might be expected to exert greatest benefit,” which is especially important for potentially expensive agents like the SGLT2 inhibitors, James L. Januzzi, MD, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, said in an interview.
Importantly in the analysis, a greater number of biomarker abnormalities not only corresponded to rising levels of risk, the risk increases were “dramatic,” and therefore so was the supposed potential benefit of SGLT2-inhibitor therapy, said Dr. Januzzi, who isn’t a coauthor but was an editor for its publication in JACC: Heart Failure.
The uptake of SGLT2 inhibitors for heart failure in practice has been less rapid than hoped, he observed, so if “this hypothetical construct holds up” for the drug class, “it might actually help kick-start focusing on who might optimally receive the drugs.”
Elevated levels of hs-cTnT, hs-CRP, and NT-proBNP, as well as presence of ECG-LVH, were each independently associated with a significantly increased 5-year risk for HF in unadjusted and adjusted analyses of the 6,799 people in the pooled cohort, 33.2% of whom had diabetes and 66.8% of whom had prediabetes, the group writes.
The scoring system would require validation in other cohorts before it could be used, Dr. Pandey observed; once there is “robust validation,” it might be applied first to patients with dysglycemia at intermediate CV risk by standard clinical measures.
Certainly the HF risk-stratification scoring system requires validation in other studies, Dr. Januzzi agreed. But it is intuitively appealing, and the study’s results are consistent with “data that we’re submitting for publication imminently” based on the CANVAS CV-outcomes trial of the SGLT2 inhibitor canagliflozin (Invokana) in patients with diabetes.
Dr. Pandey disclosed receiving support from the Gilead Sciences Research Scholar Program and serving on an advisory board of Roche Diagnostics. Dr. Januzzi disclosed receiving grant support from Novartis, Applied Therapeutics, and Innolife; consulting for Abbott Diagnostics, Janssen, Novartis, Quidel, and Roche Diagnostics; and serving on end-point committees or data safety monitoring boards for trials supported by Abbott, AbbVie, Amgen, CVRx, Janssen, MyoKardia, and Takeda.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
A scoring system that predicts risk for new heart failure over 5 years that is based solely on a few familiar, readily available biomarkers could potentially help steer patients with diabetes or even prediabetes toward HF-preventive therapies, researchers proposed based on a new study.
They foresee the risk-stratification tool, based on data pooled from three major community-based cohort studies but not independently validated, as a way to select patients with diabetes and prediabetes for treatment with SGLT2 inhibitors.
Several members of that drug class, conceived as antidiabetic agents, have been shown to help in prevention or treatment of HF in patients with diabetes and those without diabetes but at increased cardiovascular (CV) risk. Yet their uptake in practice has been lagging, the group noted.
Most HF benefits in the SGLT2 inhibitor trials “were seen in patients who have established cardiovascular disease – basically a history of heart attack or stroke,” Ambarish Pandey, MD, MSCS, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, said in an interview.
“So we wanted to see how we can identify high-risk patients without a history of cardiovascular disease using these biomarkers, as an approach to targeting SGLT2 inhibitors, which are fairly expensive therapies,” he said. Without such risk stratification, “you end up treating so many more patients to get very modest returns.”
The group developed a scoring system based on four biomarkers that are “easily measured with inexpensive tests,” Dr. Pandey said: high-sensitivity-assay cardiac troponin T (hs-cTnT) and C-reactive protein (hs-CRP) levels, N-terminal of the prohormone brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) levels, and electrocardiography for evidence of left-ventricular hypertrophy (ECG-LVH).
The derivation cohort consisted of participants in the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities RIC, Dallas Heart Study, and Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis epidemiologic studies who were free of coronary heart disease, stroke, or HF for whom there were sufficient data on CV risk factors and the four biomarkers. None were taking SGLT2 inhibitors at enrollment in their respective studies, the researchers noted.
Members of the pooled cohorts who had diabetes or prediabetes were assigned 1 point for each abnormal biomarker. The 5-year risk for incident HF went up continuously along with the score in people with diabetes and in those with prediabetes, the latter defined as a fasting plasma glucose level from 100 mg/dL to less than 126 mg/dL.
For those with a score of 1, compared with 0, for example, the risk for HF went up 82% with diabetes and 40% with prediabetes. But for those with a score of 3 or 4, the risk went up more than four and a half times with diabetes and more than three and a half times for those with prediabetes. Risk increases were independent of other likely HF risk factors and consistently significant.
The analysis was published Jan. 6 in JACC: Heart Failure.
The biomarker score should be especially useful in patients considered at low to intermediate risk, based on clinical characteristics, as a means to identify residual HF risk and, potentially, select candidates for SGLT2-inhibitor therapy, Dr. Pandey said.
“The other purpose of the study was to broaden the scope of heart failure prevention in dysglycemia by looking also at prediabetes, not just diabetes,” he said. There isn’t much high-quality evidence supporting SGLT2-inhibitor therapy in prediabetes, but it follows that the drugs may be helpful in prediabetes because they are protective in patients with and without diabetes.
“Our work suggests that prediabetes patients who have elevated biomarkers are at a higher risk of heart failure,” Dr. Pandey said, suggesting that the HF risk score could potentially help select their drug therapy as well.
The current study seems “to provide a proof of concept that one can use circulating biomarkers to more precisely identify patients in whom therapies might be expected to exert greatest benefit,” which is especially important for potentially expensive agents like the SGLT2 inhibitors, James L. Januzzi, MD, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, said in an interview.
Importantly in the analysis, a greater number of biomarker abnormalities not only corresponded to rising levels of risk, the risk increases were “dramatic,” and therefore so was the supposed potential benefit of SGLT2-inhibitor therapy, said Dr. Januzzi, who isn’t a coauthor but was an editor for its publication in JACC: Heart Failure.
The uptake of SGLT2 inhibitors for heart failure in practice has been less rapid than hoped, he observed, so if “this hypothetical construct holds up” for the drug class, “it might actually help kick-start focusing on who might optimally receive the drugs.”
Elevated levels of hs-cTnT, hs-CRP, and NT-proBNP, as well as presence of ECG-LVH, were each independently associated with a significantly increased 5-year risk for HF in unadjusted and adjusted analyses of the 6,799 people in the pooled cohort, 33.2% of whom had diabetes and 66.8% of whom had prediabetes, the group writes.
The scoring system would require validation in other cohorts before it could be used, Dr. Pandey observed; once there is “robust validation,” it might be applied first to patients with dysglycemia at intermediate CV risk by standard clinical measures.
Certainly the HF risk-stratification scoring system requires validation in other studies, Dr. Januzzi agreed. But it is intuitively appealing, and the study’s results are consistent with “data that we’re submitting for publication imminently” based on the CANVAS CV-outcomes trial of the SGLT2 inhibitor canagliflozin (Invokana) in patients with diabetes.
Dr. Pandey disclosed receiving support from the Gilead Sciences Research Scholar Program and serving on an advisory board of Roche Diagnostics. Dr. Januzzi disclosed receiving grant support from Novartis, Applied Therapeutics, and Innolife; consulting for Abbott Diagnostics, Janssen, Novartis, Quidel, and Roche Diagnostics; and serving on end-point committees or data safety monitoring boards for trials supported by Abbott, AbbVie, Amgen, CVRx, Janssen, MyoKardia, and Takeda.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Arthritis drugs ‘impressive’ for severe COVID but not ‘magic cure’
New findings suggest that monoclonal antibodies used to treat RA could improve severe COVID-19 outcomes, including risk for death.
Given within 24 hours of critical illness, tocilizumab (Actemra) was associated with a median of 10 days free of respiratory and cardiovascular support up to day 21, the primary outcome. Similarly, sarilumab (Kevzara) was linked to a median of 11 days. In contrast, the usual care control group experienced zero such days in the hospital.
However, the Randomized, Embedded, Multifactorial Adaptive Platform Trial for Community-Acquired Pneumonia (REMAP-CAP) trial comes with a caveat. The preprint findings have not yet been peer reviewed and “should not be used to guide clinical practice,” the authors stated.
The results were published online Jan. 7 in MedRxiv.
Nevertheless, the trial also revealed a mortality benefit associated with the two interleukin-6 antagonists. The hospital mortality rate was 22% with sarilumab, 28% with tocilizumab, and almost 36% with usual care.
“That’s a big change in survival. They are both lifesaving drugs,” lead coinvestigator Anthony Gordon, an Imperial College London professor of anesthesia and critical care, commented in a recent story by Reuters.
Consider the big picture
“What I think is important is ... this is one of many trials,” Paul Auwaerter, MD, MBA, said in an interview. Many other studies looking at monoclonal antibody therapy for people with COVID-19 were halted because they did not show improvement.
One exception is the EMPACTA trial, which suggested that tocilizumab was effective if given before a person becomes ill enough to be placed on a ventilator, said Dr. Auwaerter, clinical director of the division of infectious diseases at Johns Hopkins Medicine and a contributor to this news organization. “It appeared to reduce the need for mechanical ventilation or death.”
“These two trials are the first randomized, prospective trials that show a benefit on a background of others which have not,” Dr. Auwaerter added.
Interim findings
The REMAP-CAP investigators randomly assigned adults within 24 hours of critical care for COVID-19 to 8 mg/kg tocilizumab, 400 mg sarilumab, or usual care at 113 sites in six countries. There were 353 participants in the tocilizumab arm, 48 in the sarilumab group, and 402 in the control group.
Compared with the control group, the 10 days free of organ support in the tocilizumab cohort was associated with an adjusted odds ratio of 1.64 (95% confidence interval, 1.25-2.14). The 11 days free of organ support in the sarilumab cohort was likewise superior to control (adjusted odds ratio, 1.76; 95% CI, 1.17-2.91).
“All secondary outcomes and analyses supported efficacy of these IL-6 receptor antagonists,” the authors note. These endpoints included 90-day survival, time to intensive care unit discharge, and hospital discharge.
Cautious optimism?
“The results were quite impressive – having 10 or 11 fewer days in the ICU, compared to standard of care,” Deepa Gotur, MD, said in an interview. “Choosing the right patient population and providing the anti-IL-6 treatment at the right time would be the key here.”
In addition to not yet receiving peer review, an open-label design, a relatively short follow-up of 21 days, and steroids becoming standard of care about halfway through the trial are potential limitations, said Dr. Gotur, an intensivist at Houston Methodist Hospital and associate professor of clinical medicine at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York.
“This is an interesting study,” Carl J. Fichtenbaum, MD, professor of clinical medicine at the University of Cincinnati, said in a comment.
Additional detail on how many participants in each group received steroids is warranted, Dr. Fichtenbaum said. “The analysis did not carefully adjust for the use of steroids that might have influenced outcomes.”
Dr. Fichtenbaum said it’s important to look at what is distinctive about REMAP-CAP because “there are several other studies showing opposite results.”
Dr. Gotur was an investigator on a previous study evaluating tocilizumab for patients already on mechanical ventilation. “One of the key differences between this and other studies is that they included more of the ICU population,” she said. “They also included patients within 24 hours of requiring organ support, cardiac, as well as respiratory support.” Some other research included less-acute patients, including all comers into the ED who required oxygen and received tocilizumab.
The prior studies also evaluated cytokine or inflammatory markers. In contrast, REMAP-CAP researchers “looked at organ failure itself ... which I think makes sense,” Dr. Gotur said.
Cytokine release syndrome can cause organ damage or organ failure, she added, “but these markers are all over the place. I’ve seen patients who are very, very sick despite having a low [C-reactive protein] or IL-6 level.”
Backing from the British
Citing the combined 24% decrease in the risk for death associated with these agents in the REMAP-CAP trial, the U.K. government announced Jan. 7 it will work to make tocilizumab and sarilumab available to citizens with severe COVID-19.
Experts in the United Kingdom shared their perspectives on the REMAP-CAP interim findings through the U.K. Science Media Centre.
“There are few treatments for severe COVID-19,” said Robin Ferner, MD, honorary professor of clinical pharmacology at the University of Birmingham (England) and honorary consultant physician at City Hospital Birmingham. “If the published data from REMAP-CAP are supported by further studies, this suggests that two IL-6 receptor antagonists can reduce the death rate in the most severely ill patients.”
Dr. Ferner added that the findings are not a “magic cure,” however. He pointed out that of 401 patients given the drugs, 109 died, and with standard treatment, 144 out of 402 died.
Peter Horby, MD, PhD, was more optimistic. “It is great to see a positive result at a time that we really need good news and more tools to fight COVID. This is great achievement for REMAP-CAP,” he said.
“We hope to soon have results from RECOVERY on the effect of tocilizumab in less severely ill patients in the hospital,” said Dr. Horby, cochief investigator of the RECOVERY trial and professor of emerging infectious diseases at the Centre for Tropical Medicine and Global Health at the University of Oxford (England).
Stephen Evans, BA, MSc, FRCP, professor of pharmacoepidemiology at the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, said, “This is a high-quality trial, and although published as a preprint, is of much higher quality than many non–peer-reviewed papers.”
Dr. Evans also noted the addition of steroid therapy for many participants. “Partway through the trial, the RECOVERY trial findings showed that the corticosteroid drug dexamethasone had notable mortality benefits. Consequently, quite a number of the patients in this trial had also received a corticosteroid.”
“It does look as though these drugs give some additional benefit beyond that given by dexamethasone,” he added.
Awaiting peer review
“We need to wait for the final results and ensure it was adequately powered with enough observations to make us confident in the results,” Dr. Fichtenbaum said.
“We in the United States have to step back and look at the entire set of studies and also, for this particular one, REMAP-CAP, to be in a peer-reviewed publication,” Dr. Auwaerter said. Preprints are often released “in the setting of the pandemic, where there may be important findings, especially if they impact mortality or severity of illness.”
“We need to make sure these findings, as outlined, hold up,” he said.
In the meantime, Dr. Auwaerter added, “Exactly how this will fit in is unclear. But it’s important to me as another potential drug that can help our critically ill patients.”
The REMAP-CAP study is ongoing and updated results will be provided online.
Dr. Auwaerter disclosed that he is a consultant for EMD Serono and a member of the data monitoring safety board for Humanigen. Dr. Gotur, Dr. Fichtenbaum, Dr. Ferner, and Dr. Evans disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Horby reported that Oxford University receives funding for the RECOVERY trial from U.K. Research and Innovation and the National Institute for Health Research. Roche Products and Sanofi supported REMAP-CAP through provision of tocilizumab and sarilumab in the United Kingdom.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
New findings suggest that monoclonal antibodies used to treat RA could improve severe COVID-19 outcomes, including risk for death.
Given within 24 hours of critical illness, tocilizumab (Actemra) was associated with a median of 10 days free of respiratory and cardiovascular support up to day 21, the primary outcome. Similarly, sarilumab (Kevzara) was linked to a median of 11 days. In contrast, the usual care control group experienced zero such days in the hospital.
However, the Randomized, Embedded, Multifactorial Adaptive Platform Trial for Community-Acquired Pneumonia (REMAP-CAP) trial comes with a caveat. The preprint findings have not yet been peer reviewed and “should not be used to guide clinical practice,” the authors stated.
The results were published online Jan. 7 in MedRxiv.
Nevertheless, the trial also revealed a mortality benefit associated with the two interleukin-6 antagonists. The hospital mortality rate was 22% with sarilumab, 28% with tocilizumab, and almost 36% with usual care.
“That’s a big change in survival. They are both lifesaving drugs,” lead coinvestigator Anthony Gordon, an Imperial College London professor of anesthesia and critical care, commented in a recent story by Reuters.
Consider the big picture
“What I think is important is ... this is one of many trials,” Paul Auwaerter, MD, MBA, said in an interview. Many other studies looking at monoclonal antibody therapy for people with COVID-19 were halted because they did not show improvement.
One exception is the EMPACTA trial, which suggested that tocilizumab was effective if given before a person becomes ill enough to be placed on a ventilator, said Dr. Auwaerter, clinical director of the division of infectious diseases at Johns Hopkins Medicine and a contributor to this news organization. “It appeared to reduce the need for mechanical ventilation or death.”
“These two trials are the first randomized, prospective trials that show a benefit on a background of others which have not,” Dr. Auwaerter added.
Interim findings
The REMAP-CAP investigators randomly assigned adults within 24 hours of critical care for COVID-19 to 8 mg/kg tocilizumab, 400 mg sarilumab, or usual care at 113 sites in six countries. There were 353 participants in the tocilizumab arm, 48 in the sarilumab group, and 402 in the control group.
Compared with the control group, the 10 days free of organ support in the tocilizumab cohort was associated with an adjusted odds ratio of 1.64 (95% confidence interval, 1.25-2.14). The 11 days free of organ support in the sarilumab cohort was likewise superior to control (adjusted odds ratio, 1.76; 95% CI, 1.17-2.91).
“All secondary outcomes and analyses supported efficacy of these IL-6 receptor antagonists,” the authors note. These endpoints included 90-day survival, time to intensive care unit discharge, and hospital discharge.
Cautious optimism?
“The results were quite impressive – having 10 or 11 fewer days in the ICU, compared to standard of care,” Deepa Gotur, MD, said in an interview. “Choosing the right patient population and providing the anti-IL-6 treatment at the right time would be the key here.”
In addition to not yet receiving peer review, an open-label design, a relatively short follow-up of 21 days, and steroids becoming standard of care about halfway through the trial are potential limitations, said Dr. Gotur, an intensivist at Houston Methodist Hospital and associate professor of clinical medicine at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York.
“This is an interesting study,” Carl J. Fichtenbaum, MD, professor of clinical medicine at the University of Cincinnati, said in a comment.
Additional detail on how many participants in each group received steroids is warranted, Dr. Fichtenbaum said. “The analysis did not carefully adjust for the use of steroids that might have influenced outcomes.”
Dr. Fichtenbaum said it’s important to look at what is distinctive about REMAP-CAP because “there are several other studies showing opposite results.”
Dr. Gotur was an investigator on a previous study evaluating tocilizumab for patients already on mechanical ventilation. “One of the key differences between this and other studies is that they included more of the ICU population,” she said. “They also included patients within 24 hours of requiring organ support, cardiac, as well as respiratory support.” Some other research included less-acute patients, including all comers into the ED who required oxygen and received tocilizumab.
The prior studies also evaluated cytokine or inflammatory markers. In contrast, REMAP-CAP researchers “looked at organ failure itself ... which I think makes sense,” Dr. Gotur said.
Cytokine release syndrome can cause organ damage or organ failure, she added, “but these markers are all over the place. I’ve seen patients who are very, very sick despite having a low [C-reactive protein] or IL-6 level.”
Backing from the British
Citing the combined 24% decrease in the risk for death associated with these agents in the REMAP-CAP trial, the U.K. government announced Jan. 7 it will work to make tocilizumab and sarilumab available to citizens with severe COVID-19.
Experts in the United Kingdom shared their perspectives on the REMAP-CAP interim findings through the U.K. Science Media Centre.
“There are few treatments for severe COVID-19,” said Robin Ferner, MD, honorary professor of clinical pharmacology at the University of Birmingham (England) and honorary consultant physician at City Hospital Birmingham. “If the published data from REMAP-CAP are supported by further studies, this suggests that two IL-6 receptor antagonists can reduce the death rate in the most severely ill patients.”
Dr. Ferner added that the findings are not a “magic cure,” however. He pointed out that of 401 patients given the drugs, 109 died, and with standard treatment, 144 out of 402 died.
Peter Horby, MD, PhD, was more optimistic. “It is great to see a positive result at a time that we really need good news and more tools to fight COVID. This is great achievement for REMAP-CAP,” he said.
“We hope to soon have results from RECOVERY on the effect of tocilizumab in less severely ill patients in the hospital,” said Dr. Horby, cochief investigator of the RECOVERY trial and professor of emerging infectious diseases at the Centre for Tropical Medicine and Global Health at the University of Oxford (England).
Stephen Evans, BA, MSc, FRCP, professor of pharmacoepidemiology at the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, said, “This is a high-quality trial, and although published as a preprint, is of much higher quality than many non–peer-reviewed papers.”
Dr. Evans also noted the addition of steroid therapy for many participants. “Partway through the trial, the RECOVERY trial findings showed that the corticosteroid drug dexamethasone had notable mortality benefits. Consequently, quite a number of the patients in this trial had also received a corticosteroid.”
“It does look as though these drugs give some additional benefit beyond that given by dexamethasone,” he added.
Awaiting peer review
“We need to wait for the final results and ensure it was adequately powered with enough observations to make us confident in the results,” Dr. Fichtenbaum said.
“We in the United States have to step back and look at the entire set of studies and also, for this particular one, REMAP-CAP, to be in a peer-reviewed publication,” Dr. Auwaerter said. Preprints are often released “in the setting of the pandemic, where there may be important findings, especially if they impact mortality or severity of illness.”
“We need to make sure these findings, as outlined, hold up,” he said.
In the meantime, Dr. Auwaerter added, “Exactly how this will fit in is unclear. But it’s important to me as another potential drug that can help our critically ill patients.”
The REMAP-CAP study is ongoing and updated results will be provided online.
Dr. Auwaerter disclosed that he is a consultant for EMD Serono and a member of the data monitoring safety board for Humanigen. Dr. Gotur, Dr. Fichtenbaum, Dr. Ferner, and Dr. Evans disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Horby reported that Oxford University receives funding for the RECOVERY trial from U.K. Research and Innovation and the National Institute for Health Research. Roche Products and Sanofi supported REMAP-CAP through provision of tocilizumab and sarilumab in the United Kingdom.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
New findings suggest that monoclonal antibodies used to treat RA could improve severe COVID-19 outcomes, including risk for death.
Given within 24 hours of critical illness, tocilizumab (Actemra) was associated with a median of 10 days free of respiratory and cardiovascular support up to day 21, the primary outcome. Similarly, sarilumab (Kevzara) was linked to a median of 11 days. In contrast, the usual care control group experienced zero such days in the hospital.
However, the Randomized, Embedded, Multifactorial Adaptive Platform Trial for Community-Acquired Pneumonia (REMAP-CAP) trial comes with a caveat. The preprint findings have not yet been peer reviewed and “should not be used to guide clinical practice,” the authors stated.
The results were published online Jan. 7 in MedRxiv.
Nevertheless, the trial also revealed a mortality benefit associated with the two interleukin-6 antagonists. The hospital mortality rate was 22% with sarilumab, 28% with tocilizumab, and almost 36% with usual care.
“That’s a big change in survival. They are both lifesaving drugs,” lead coinvestigator Anthony Gordon, an Imperial College London professor of anesthesia and critical care, commented in a recent story by Reuters.
Consider the big picture
“What I think is important is ... this is one of many trials,” Paul Auwaerter, MD, MBA, said in an interview. Many other studies looking at monoclonal antibody therapy for people with COVID-19 were halted because they did not show improvement.
One exception is the EMPACTA trial, which suggested that tocilizumab was effective if given before a person becomes ill enough to be placed on a ventilator, said Dr. Auwaerter, clinical director of the division of infectious diseases at Johns Hopkins Medicine and a contributor to this news organization. “It appeared to reduce the need for mechanical ventilation or death.”
“These two trials are the first randomized, prospective trials that show a benefit on a background of others which have not,” Dr. Auwaerter added.
Interim findings
The REMAP-CAP investigators randomly assigned adults within 24 hours of critical care for COVID-19 to 8 mg/kg tocilizumab, 400 mg sarilumab, or usual care at 113 sites in six countries. There were 353 participants in the tocilizumab arm, 48 in the sarilumab group, and 402 in the control group.
Compared with the control group, the 10 days free of organ support in the tocilizumab cohort was associated with an adjusted odds ratio of 1.64 (95% confidence interval, 1.25-2.14). The 11 days free of organ support in the sarilumab cohort was likewise superior to control (adjusted odds ratio, 1.76; 95% CI, 1.17-2.91).
“All secondary outcomes and analyses supported efficacy of these IL-6 receptor antagonists,” the authors note. These endpoints included 90-day survival, time to intensive care unit discharge, and hospital discharge.
Cautious optimism?
“The results were quite impressive – having 10 or 11 fewer days in the ICU, compared to standard of care,” Deepa Gotur, MD, said in an interview. “Choosing the right patient population and providing the anti-IL-6 treatment at the right time would be the key here.”
In addition to not yet receiving peer review, an open-label design, a relatively short follow-up of 21 days, and steroids becoming standard of care about halfway through the trial are potential limitations, said Dr. Gotur, an intensivist at Houston Methodist Hospital and associate professor of clinical medicine at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York.
“This is an interesting study,” Carl J. Fichtenbaum, MD, professor of clinical medicine at the University of Cincinnati, said in a comment.
Additional detail on how many participants in each group received steroids is warranted, Dr. Fichtenbaum said. “The analysis did not carefully adjust for the use of steroids that might have influenced outcomes.”
Dr. Fichtenbaum said it’s important to look at what is distinctive about REMAP-CAP because “there are several other studies showing opposite results.”
Dr. Gotur was an investigator on a previous study evaluating tocilizumab for patients already on mechanical ventilation. “One of the key differences between this and other studies is that they included more of the ICU population,” she said. “They also included patients within 24 hours of requiring organ support, cardiac, as well as respiratory support.” Some other research included less-acute patients, including all comers into the ED who required oxygen and received tocilizumab.
The prior studies also evaluated cytokine or inflammatory markers. In contrast, REMAP-CAP researchers “looked at organ failure itself ... which I think makes sense,” Dr. Gotur said.
Cytokine release syndrome can cause organ damage or organ failure, she added, “but these markers are all over the place. I’ve seen patients who are very, very sick despite having a low [C-reactive protein] or IL-6 level.”
Backing from the British
Citing the combined 24% decrease in the risk for death associated with these agents in the REMAP-CAP trial, the U.K. government announced Jan. 7 it will work to make tocilizumab and sarilumab available to citizens with severe COVID-19.
Experts in the United Kingdom shared their perspectives on the REMAP-CAP interim findings through the U.K. Science Media Centre.
“There are few treatments for severe COVID-19,” said Robin Ferner, MD, honorary professor of clinical pharmacology at the University of Birmingham (England) and honorary consultant physician at City Hospital Birmingham. “If the published data from REMAP-CAP are supported by further studies, this suggests that two IL-6 receptor antagonists can reduce the death rate in the most severely ill patients.”
Dr. Ferner added that the findings are not a “magic cure,” however. He pointed out that of 401 patients given the drugs, 109 died, and with standard treatment, 144 out of 402 died.
Peter Horby, MD, PhD, was more optimistic. “It is great to see a positive result at a time that we really need good news and more tools to fight COVID. This is great achievement for REMAP-CAP,” he said.
“We hope to soon have results from RECOVERY on the effect of tocilizumab in less severely ill patients in the hospital,” said Dr. Horby, cochief investigator of the RECOVERY trial and professor of emerging infectious diseases at the Centre for Tropical Medicine and Global Health at the University of Oxford (England).
Stephen Evans, BA, MSc, FRCP, professor of pharmacoepidemiology at the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, said, “This is a high-quality trial, and although published as a preprint, is of much higher quality than many non–peer-reviewed papers.”
Dr. Evans also noted the addition of steroid therapy for many participants. “Partway through the trial, the RECOVERY trial findings showed that the corticosteroid drug dexamethasone had notable mortality benefits. Consequently, quite a number of the patients in this trial had also received a corticosteroid.”
“It does look as though these drugs give some additional benefit beyond that given by dexamethasone,” he added.
Awaiting peer review
“We need to wait for the final results and ensure it was adequately powered with enough observations to make us confident in the results,” Dr. Fichtenbaum said.
“We in the United States have to step back and look at the entire set of studies and also, for this particular one, REMAP-CAP, to be in a peer-reviewed publication,” Dr. Auwaerter said. Preprints are often released “in the setting of the pandemic, where there may be important findings, especially if they impact mortality or severity of illness.”
“We need to make sure these findings, as outlined, hold up,” he said.
In the meantime, Dr. Auwaerter added, “Exactly how this will fit in is unclear. But it’s important to me as another potential drug that can help our critically ill patients.”
The REMAP-CAP study is ongoing and updated results will be provided online.
Dr. Auwaerter disclosed that he is a consultant for EMD Serono and a member of the data monitoring safety board for Humanigen. Dr. Gotur, Dr. Fichtenbaum, Dr. Ferner, and Dr. Evans disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Horby reported that Oxford University receives funding for the RECOVERY trial from U.K. Research and Innovation and the National Institute for Health Research. Roche Products and Sanofi supported REMAP-CAP through provision of tocilizumab and sarilumab in the United Kingdom.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Could an osteoporosis drug reduce need for hip revision surgery?
A single injection of denosumab (Prolia, Amgen), frequently used to treat osteoporosis, may reduce the need for revision surgery in patients with symptomatic osteolysis following total hip arthroplasty, a new proof-of-concept study suggests.
Aseptic loosening is the result of wear-induced osteolysis caused by the prosthetic hip and is a major contributor to the need for revision surgery in many parts of the world.
“The only established treatment for prosthesis-related osteolysis after joint replacement is revision surgery, which carries substantially greater morbidity and mortality than primary joint replacement,” Mohit M. Mahatma, MRes, of the University of Sheffield, England, and colleagues wrote in their article, published online Jan. 11 in The Lancet Rheumatology.
As well as an increased risk of infection and other complications, revision surgery is much more costly than a first-time operation, they added.
“The results of this proof-of-concept clinical trial indicate that denosumab is effective at reducing bone resorption activity within osteolytic lesion tissue and is well tolerated within the limitations of the single dose used here,” they concluded.
Commenting on the findings, Antonia Chen, MD, associate professor of orthopedic surgery, Harvard Medical School, Boston, emphasized that further studies are needed to assess the effectiveness of this strategy to reduce the need for hip revision surgery.
Nevertheless, “osteolysis is still unfortunately a problem we do have to deal with and we do not have any other way to prevent it,” she said in an interview. “So it’s a good start ... although further studies are definitely needed,” Dr. Chen added.
In an accompanying editorial, Hannu Aro, MD, Turku University Hospital in Finland, agreed: “Without a doubt, the trial is a breakthrough, but it represents only the first step in the development of pharmacological therapy aiming to slow, prevent, or even reverse the process of wear-induced periprosthetic osteolysis.”
Small single-center study
The phase 2, single-center, randomized, controlled trial involved 22 patients who had previously undergone hip replacement surgery at Sheffield Teaching Hospitals and were scheduled for revision surgery due to symptomatic osteolysis. They were randomized to a single subcutaneous injection of denosumab at a dose of 60 mg, or placebo, on their second hospital visit.
“The primary outcome was the between-group difference in the number of osteoclasts per mm of osteolytic membrane at the osteolytic membrane-bone interface at week 8,” the authors noted.
At this time point, there were 83% fewer osteoclasts at the interface in the denosumab group compared with placebo, at a median of 0.05 per mm in the treatment group compared with 0.30 per mm in the placebo group (P = .011).
Secondary histological outcomes were also significantly improved in favor of the denosumab group compared with placebo.
Potential to prevent half of all hip revision surgeries?
Patients who received denosumab also demonstrated an acute fall in serum and urinary markers of bone resorption following administration of the drug, reaching a nadir at week 4, which was maintained until revision surgery at week 8.
In contrast, “no change in these markers was observed in the placebo group [P < .0003 for all biomarkers],” the investigators noted. Rates of adverse events were comparable in both treatment groups.
As the authors explained, osteolysis occurs following joint replacement surgery when particles of plastic wear off from the prosthesis, triggering an immune reaction that attacks the bone around the implant, causing the joint to loosen.
“It is very clear from our bone biopsies and bone imaging that the [denosumab] injection stops the bone absorbing the microplastic particles from the replacement joint and therefore could prevent the bone from being eaten away and the need for revision surgery,” senior author Mark Wilkinson, MBChB, PhD, honorary consultant orthopedic surgeon, Sheffield Teaching Hospitals, said in a press release from his institution.
“This study is a significant breakthrough as we’ve demonstrated that there is a drug, already available and successful in the treatment of osteoporosis, that has the potential to prevent up to half of all revised replacement surgeries which are caused by osteolysis,” he added.
Dr. Wilkinson and coauthors said their results justify the need for future trials targeting earlier-stage disease to further test the use of denosumab to prevent or reduce the need for revision surgery.
In 2018, aseptic loosening accounted for over half of all revision procedures, as reported to the National Joint Registry in England and Wales.
Older polyethylene prostheses are the main culprit
Commenting further on the study, Dr. Chen noted that osteolysis still plagues orthopedic surgeons because the original polyethylene prostheses were not very good. A better prosthesis developed at Massachusetts General Hospital is made up of highly crossed-link polyethylene and still wears over time but to a much lesser extent than the older polyethylene prostheses.
Metal and ceramic prostheses also can induce osteolysis, but again to a much lesser extent than the older polyethylene implants.
“Any particle can technically cause osteolysis but plastic produces the most particles,” Dr. Chen explained. Although hip revision rates in the United States are low to begin with, aseptic loosening is still one of the main reasons that patients need to undergo revision surgery, she observed.
“A lot of patients are still living with the old plastic [implants] so there is still a need for something like this,” she stressed.
However, many questions about this potential new strategy remain to be answered, including when best to initiate treatment and how to manage patients at risk for osteolysis 20-30 years after they have received their original implant.
In his editorial, Dr. Aro said that serious adverse consequences often become evident 10-20 years after patients have undergone the original hip replacement procedures, when they are potentially less physically fit than they were at the time of the operation and thus less able to withstand the rigors of a difficult revision surgery.
“In this context, the concept of nonsurgical pharmacological treatment of periprosthetic osteolysis ... brings a new hope for the ever-increasing population of patients with total hip arthroplasty to avoid revision surgery,” Dr. Aro suggested.
However, Dr. Aro cautioned that reduction of bone turnover by antiresorptive agents such as denosumab has been associated with the development of atypical femoral fractures.
The study was funded by Amgen. Dr. Wilkinson has reported receiving a grant from Amgen. Dr. Chen has reported serving as a consultant for Striker and b-One Ortho. Dr. Aro has reported receiving a grant to his institution from Amgen Finland and the Academy of Finland. He has also served as a member of an advisory scientific board for Amgen Finland.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
A single injection of denosumab (Prolia, Amgen), frequently used to treat osteoporosis, may reduce the need for revision surgery in patients with symptomatic osteolysis following total hip arthroplasty, a new proof-of-concept study suggests.
Aseptic loosening is the result of wear-induced osteolysis caused by the prosthetic hip and is a major contributor to the need for revision surgery in many parts of the world.
“The only established treatment for prosthesis-related osteolysis after joint replacement is revision surgery, which carries substantially greater morbidity and mortality than primary joint replacement,” Mohit M. Mahatma, MRes, of the University of Sheffield, England, and colleagues wrote in their article, published online Jan. 11 in The Lancet Rheumatology.
As well as an increased risk of infection and other complications, revision surgery is much more costly than a first-time operation, they added.
“The results of this proof-of-concept clinical trial indicate that denosumab is effective at reducing bone resorption activity within osteolytic lesion tissue and is well tolerated within the limitations of the single dose used here,” they concluded.
Commenting on the findings, Antonia Chen, MD, associate professor of orthopedic surgery, Harvard Medical School, Boston, emphasized that further studies are needed to assess the effectiveness of this strategy to reduce the need for hip revision surgery.
Nevertheless, “osteolysis is still unfortunately a problem we do have to deal with and we do not have any other way to prevent it,” she said in an interview. “So it’s a good start ... although further studies are definitely needed,” Dr. Chen added.
In an accompanying editorial, Hannu Aro, MD, Turku University Hospital in Finland, agreed: “Without a doubt, the trial is a breakthrough, but it represents only the first step in the development of pharmacological therapy aiming to slow, prevent, or even reverse the process of wear-induced periprosthetic osteolysis.”
Small single-center study
The phase 2, single-center, randomized, controlled trial involved 22 patients who had previously undergone hip replacement surgery at Sheffield Teaching Hospitals and were scheduled for revision surgery due to symptomatic osteolysis. They were randomized to a single subcutaneous injection of denosumab at a dose of 60 mg, or placebo, on their second hospital visit.
“The primary outcome was the between-group difference in the number of osteoclasts per mm of osteolytic membrane at the osteolytic membrane-bone interface at week 8,” the authors noted.
At this time point, there were 83% fewer osteoclasts at the interface in the denosumab group compared with placebo, at a median of 0.05 per mm in the treatment group compared with 0.30 per mm in the placebo group (P = .011).
Secondary histological outcomes were also significantly improved in favor of the denosumab group compared with placebo.
Potential to prevent half of all hip revision surgeries?
Patients who received denosumab also demonstrated an acute fall in serum and urinary markers of bone resorption following administration of the drug, reaching a nadir at week 4, which was maintained until revision surgery at week 8.
In contrast, “no change in these markers was observed in the placebo group [P < .0003 for all biomarkers],” the investigators noted. Rates of adverse events were comparable in both treatment groups.
As the authors explained, osteolysis occurs following joint replacement surgery when particles of plastic wear off from the prosthesis, triggering an immune reaction that attacks the bone around the implant, causing the joint to loosen.
“It is very clear from our bone biopsies and bone imaging that the [denosumab] injection stops the bone absorbing the microplastic particles from the replacement joint and therefore could prevent the bone from being eaten away and the need for revision surgery,” senior author Mark Wilkinson, MBChB, PhD, honorary consultant orthopedic surgeon, Sheffield Teaching Hospitals, said in a press release from his institution.
“This study is a significant breakthrough as we’ve demonstrated that there is a drug, already available and successful in the treatment of osteoporosis, that has the potential to prevent up to half of all revised replacement surgeries which are caused by osteolysis,” he added.
Dr. Wilkinson and coauthors said their results justify the need for future trials targeting earlier-stage disease to further test the use of denosumab to prevent or reduce the need for revision surgery.
In 2018, aseptic loosening accounted for over half of all revision procedures, as reported to the National Joint Registry in England and Wales.
Older polyethylene prostheses are the main culprit
Commenting further on the study, Dr. Chen noted that osteolysis still plagues orthopedic surgeons because the original polyethylene prostheses were not very good. A better prosthesis developed at Massachusetts General Hospital is made up of highly crossed-link polyethylene and still wears over time but to a much lesser extent than the older polyethylene prostheses.
Metal and ceramic prostheses also can induce osteolysis, but again to a much lesser extent than the older polyethylene implants.
“Any particle can technically cause osteolysis but plastic produces the most particles,” Dr. Chen explained. Although hip revision rates in the United States are low to begin with, aseptic loosening is still one of the main reasons that patients need to undergo revision surgery, she observed.
“A lot of patients are still living with the old plastic [implants] so there is still a need for something like this,” she stressed.
However, many questions about this potential new strategy remain to be answered, including when best to initiate treatment and how to manage patients at risk for osteolysis 20-30 years after they have received their original implant.
In his editorial, Dr. Aro said that serious adverse consequences often become evident 10-20 years after patients have undergone the original hip replacement procedures, when they are potentially less physically fit than they were at the time of the operation and thus less able to withstand the rigors of a difficult revision surgery.
“In this context, the concept of nonsurgical pharmacological treatment of periprosthetic osteolysis ... brings a new hope for the ever-increasing population of patients with total hip arthroplasty to avoid revision surgery,” Dr. Aro suggested.
However, Dr. Aro cautioned that reduction of bone turnover by antiresorptive agents such as denosumab has been associated with the development of atypical femoral fractures.
The study was funded by Amgen. Dr. Wilkinson has reported receiving a grant from Amgen. Dr. Chen has reported serving as a consultant for Striker and b-One Ortho. Dr. Aro has reported receiving a grant to his institution from Amgen Finland and the Academy of Finland. He has also served as a member of an advisory scientific board for Amgen Finland.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
A single injection of denosumab (Prolia, Amgen), frequently used to treat osteoporosis, may reduce the need for revision surgery in patients with symptomatic osteolysis following total hip arthroplasty, a new proof-of-concept study suggests.
Aseptic loosening is the result of wear-induced osteolysis caused by the prosthetic hip and is a major contributor to the need for revision surgery in many parts of the world.
“The only established treatment for prosthesis-related osteolysis after joint replacement is revision surgery, which carries substantially greater morbidity and mortality than primary joint replacement,” Mohit M. Mahatma, MRes, of the University of Sheffield, England, and colleagues wrote in their article, published online Jan. 11 in The Lancet Rheumatology.
As well as an increased risk of infection and other complications, revision surgery is much more costly than a first-time operation, they added.
“The results of this proof-of-concept clinical trial indicate that denosumab is effective at reducing bone resorption activity within osteolytic lesion tissue and is well tolerated within the limitations of the single dose used here,” they concluded.
Commenting on the findings, Antonia Chen, MD, associate professor of orthopedic surgery, Harvard Medical School, Boston, emphasized that further studies are needed to assess the effectiveness of this strategy to reduce the need for hip revision surgery.
Nevertheless, “osteolysis is still unfortunately a problem we do have to deal with and we do not have any other way to prevent it,” she said in an interview. “So it’s a good start ... although further studies are definitely needed,” Dr. Chen added.
In an accompanying editorial, Hannu Aro, MD, Turku University Hospital in Finland, agreed: “Without a doubt, the trial is a breakthrough, but it represents only the first step in the development of pharmacological therapy aiming to slow, prevent, or even reverse the process of wear-induced periprosthetic osteolysis.”
Small single-center study
The phase 2, single-center, randomized, controlled trial involved 22 patients who had previously undergone hip replacement surgery at Sheffield Teaching Hospitals and were scheduled for revision surgery due to symptomatic osteolysis. They were randomized to a single subcutaneous injection of denosumab at a dose of 60 mg, or placebo, on their second hospital visit.
“The primary outcome was the between-group difference in the number of osteoclasts per mm of osteolytic membrane at the osteolytic membrane-bone interface at week 8,” the authors noted.
At this time point, there were 83% fewer osteoclasts at the interface in the denosumab group compared with placebo, at a median of 0.05 per mm in the treatment group compared with 0.30 per mm in the placebo group (P = .011).
Secondary histological outcomes were also significantly improved in favor of the denosumab group compared with placebo.
Potential to prevent half of all hip revision surgeries?
Patients who received denosumab also demonstrated an acute fall in serum and urinary markers of bone resorption following administration of the drug, reaching a nadir at week 4, which was maintained until revision surgery at week 8.
In contrast, “no change in these markers was observed in the placebo group [P < .0003 for all biomarkers],” the investigators noted. Rates of adverse events were comparable in both treatment groups.
As the authors explained, osteolysis occurs following joint replacement surgery when particles of plastic wear off from the prosthesis, triggering an immune reaction that attacks the bone around the implant, causing the joint to loosen.
“It is very clear from our bone biopsies and bone imaging that the [denosumab] injection stops the bone absorbing the microplastic particles from the replacement joint and therefore could prevent the bone from being eaten away and the need for revision surgery,” senior author Mark Wilkinson, MBChB, PhD, honorary consultant orthopedic surgeon, Sheffield Teaching Hospitals, said in a press release from his institution.
“This study is a significant breakthrough as we’ve demonstrated that there is a drug, already available and successful in the treatment of osteoporosis, that has the potential to prevent up to half of all revised replacement surgeries which are caused by osteolysis,” he added.
Dr. Wilkinson and coauthors said their results justify the need for future trials targeting earlier-stage disease to further test the use of denosumab to prevent or reduce the need for revision surgery.
In 2018, aseptic loosening accounted for over half of all revision procedures, as reported to the National Joint Registry in England and Wales.
Older polyethylene prostheses are the main culprit
Commenting further on the study, Dr. Chen noted that osteolysis still plagues orthopedic surgeons because the original polyethylene prostheses were not very good. A better prosthesis developed at Massachusetts General Hospital is made up of highly crossed-link polyethylene and still wears over time but to a much lesser extent than the older polyethylene prostheses.
Metal and ceramic prostheses also can induce osteolysis, but again to a much lesser extent than the older polyethylene implants.
“Any particle can technically cause osteolysis but plastic produces the most particles,” Dr. Chen explained. Although hip revision rates in the United States are low to begin with, aseptic loosening is still one of the main reasons that patients need to undergo revision surgery, she observed.
“A lot of patients are still living with the old plastic [implants] so there is still a need for something like this,” she stressed.
However, many questions about this potential new strategy remain to be answered, including when best to initiate treatment and how to manage patients at risk for osteolysis 20-30 years after they have received their original implant.
In his editorial, Dr. Aro said that serious adverse consequences often become evident 10-20 years after patients have undergone the original hip replacement procedures, when they are potentially less physically fit than they were at the time of the operation and thus less able to withstand the rigors of a difficult revision surgery.
“In this context, the concept of nonsurgical pharmacological treatment of periprosthetic osteolysis ... brings a new hope for the ever-increasing population of patients with total hip arthroplasty to avoid revision surgery,” Dr. Aro suggested.
However, Dr. Aro cautioned that reduction of bone turnover by antiresorptive agents such as denosumab has been associated with the development of atypical femoral fractures.
The study was funded by Amgen. Dr. Wilkinson has reported receiving a grant from Amgen. Dr. Chen has reported serving as a consultant for Striker and b-One Ortho. Dr. Aro has reported receiving a grant to his institution from Amgen Finland and the Academy of Finland. He has also served as a member of an advisory scientific board for Amgen Finland.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Treprostinil offers some benefits for patients with ILD-associated pulmonary hypertension
and was associated with some additional clinical benefits, according to a new study published in the New England Journal of Medicine.
To investigate treprostinil therapy for pulmonary hypertension in this subset of patients with lung disease, Aaron Waxman, MD, PhD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, and his fellow researchers launched the multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled INCREASE trial. They assigned 163 patients to the inhaled treprostinil group – administered via an ultrasonic, pulsed-delivery nebulizer over 16 weeks – and 163 patients to the placebo group. Their average age was 66.5 years, 73% were white, and 47% were female
At baseline, the mean 6-minute walk distance (6MWD) for all patients was 259.6 m. After 16 weeks, the treprostinil group gained a mean of 21.08 m in 6MWD, and the placebo group lost 10.04 m. The least-squares mean difference between the groups from baseline in the 6MWD was 31.12 m (95% confidence interval, 16.85-45.39; P < .001). After sensitivity analysis with multiple imputation, the difference remained significant at 30.97 m (95% CI, 16.53-45.41; P < .001).
In a comparison of N-terminal pro–B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) levels from baseline to 16 weeks, the treprostinil group saw a decrease of 15% while the placebo group’s levels increased by 46% (treatment ratio 0.58; 95% CI, 0.47-0.72; P < .001). Clinical worsening occurred in 37 patients (23%) in the treprostinil group and 54 patients (33%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.40-0.92; P = .04), while serious adverse events occurred in 23.3% of the patients on treprostinil and 25.8% of the patients on placebo. There was no significant difference between groups in patient-reported quality of life, as assessed via the St. George’s Respiratory Questionnaire.
“There was no guarantee that this was going to work in this condition,” said Adriano Tonelli, MD, of the department of pulmonary medicine at the Cleveland Clinic, in an interview. “Several small studies have tried different medications, for pulmonary hypertension or otherwise, in patients with interstitial lung disease with minimal effect, if any. Given that all the prior studies were not categorically positive, the expectation, at least on my end, was that we needed to wait and see.” Dr. Tonelli and coauthors published a post hoc analysis of inhaled treprostinil studied in the TRIUMPH and BEAT trials.
Next steps: Assess clinical outcomes after inhaled treprostinil
Although the results of this study by Waxman et al, are encouraging, and the need for a treatment in this type of pulmonary hypertension is very real, more narrowing down will be needed to confirm the benefits of inhaled treprostinil, wrote Darren B. Taichman, MD, PhD, of the University of Pennsylvania in an accompanying editorial. He wrote, “After all, patients and physicians may reason, ‘It can’t hurt.’ Unfortunately, however, it could. Therapies approved for pulmonary arterial hypertension have been studied in patients with [ILD]-associated pulmonary hypertension and have shown inconsistent results, with some studies showing no benefit or suggesting harm.”
While the 6MWD has been used as an end point in previous drug trials for pulmonary arterial hypertension, Dr. Taichman wrote that improvements in such a variable were “probably too modest to be unequivocally consequential for many patients.” To confirm the benefits – and detriments – of treatments like inhaled treprostinil, it’s time for studies to focus on clinical end points, he stated, including hospitalizations, disease progression, and death.
He also highlighted the disparity between a treatment that led to increased walk distance and decreased clinical worsening yet did not register an improvement in health-related quality of life. He noted that the oft-cited minimal clinically important difference for 6MWD is approximately 30 m – similar to the difference recorded here. That said, he wrote, “prevention of deterioration is not to be ignored, even if it does not make a patient feel better.”
Regarding quality of life, Dr. Tonelli observed that this questionnaire, standard fare in respiratory research, may not have been perfectly suited for this particular study.
“You have to put it in the context of, ‘How good is the questionnaire to capture a difference in this particular disease over a 16-week period?’ ” he said. “It might not be sensitive enough to capture a significant change. The questionnaire was not developed for pulmonary hypertension in interstitial lung disease, of course. It was developed more generically. It may not capture all that you need to show significance.”
The investigators acknowledged the study’s other potential limitations, including a short duration, a notable percentage of patients who discontinued the trial early, and the fact that clinical worsening and exacerbation of disease were investigator reported and not confirmed by an independent committee.
As for next steps in assessing pulmonary hypertension treatments, Dr. Tonelli pointed to the direction of future research. “The other big study that needs to come out in our field, and I believe it’s being worked on, is inhaled treprostinil in pulmonary hypertension due to chronic obstructive pulmonary disease [COPD],” he said. “That’s a major unmet need; the COPD population is larger than the population for interstitial lung disease, and one would wonder whether inhaled treprostinil would benefit those patients as well. At the moment, we have no treatments for that condition. In the future, a COPD study will be needed.”
The study was supported by United Therapeutics. Author disclosures are listed on the New England Journal of Medicine website.
and was associated with some additional clinical benefits, according to a new study published in the New England Journal of Medicine.
To investigate treprostinil therapy for pulmonary hypertension in this subset of patients with lung disease, Aaron Waxman, MD, PhD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, and his fellow researchers launched the multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled INCREASE trial. They assigned 163 patients to the inhaled treprostinil group – administered via an ultrasonic, pulsed-delivery nebulizer over 16 weeks – and 163 patients to the placebo group. Their average age was 66.5 years, 73% were white, and 47% were female
At baseline, the mean 6-minute walk distance (6MWD) for all patients was 259.6 m. After 16 weeks, the treprostinil group gained a mean of 21.08 m in 6MWD, and the placebo group lost 10.04 m. The least-squares mean difference between the groups from baseline in the 6MWD was 31.12 m (95% confidence interval, 16.85-45.39; P < .001). After sensitivity analysis with multiple imputation, the difference remained significant at 30.97 m (95% CI, 16.53-45.41; P < .001).
In a comparison of N-terminal pro–B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) levels from baseline to 16 weeks, the treprostinil group saw a decrease of 15% while the placebo group’s levels increased by 46% (treatment ratio 0.58; 95% CI, 0.47-0.72; P < .001). Clinical worsening occurred in 37 patients (23%) in the treprostinil group and 54 patients (33%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.40-0.92; P = .04), while serious adverse events occurred in 23.3% of the patients on treprostinil and 25.8% of the patients on placebo. There was no significant difference between groups in patient-reported quality of life, as assessed via the St. George’s Respiratory Questionnaire.
“There was no guarantee that this was going to work in this condition,” said Adriano Tonelli, MD, of the department of pulmonary medicine at the Cleveland Clinic, in an interview. “Several small studies have tried different medications, for pulmonary hypertension or otherwise, in patients with interstitial lung disease with minimal effect, if any. Given that all the prior studies were not categorically positive, the expectation, at least on my end, was that we needed to wait and see.” Dr. Tonelli and coauthors published a post hoc analysis of inhaled treprostinil studied in the TRIUMPH and BEAT trials.
Next steps: Assess clinical outcomes after inhaled treprostinil
Although the results of this study by Waxman et al, are encouraging, and the need for a treatment in this type of pulmonary hypertension is very real, more narrowing down will be needed to confirm the benefits of inhaled treprostinil, wrote Darren B. Taichman, MD, PhD, of the University of Pennsylvania in an accompanying editorial. He wrote, “After all, patients and physicians may reason, ‘It can’t hurt.’ Unfortunately, however, it could. Therapies approved for pulmonary arterial hypertension have been studied in patients with [ILD]-associated pulmonary hypertension and have shown inconsistent results, with some studies showing no benefit or suggesting harm.”
While the 6MWD has been used as an end point in previous drug trials for pulmonary arterial hypertension, Dr. Taichman wrote that improvements in such a variable were “probably too modest to be unequivocally consequential for many patients.” To confirm the benefits – and detriments – of treatments like inhaled treprostinil, it’s time for studies to focus on clinical end points, he stated, including hospitalizations, disease progression, and death.
He also highlighted the disparity between a treatment that led to increased walk distance and decreased clinical worsening yet did not register an improvement in health-related quality of life. He noted that the oft-cited minimal clinically important difference for 6MWD is approximately 30 m – similar to the difference recorded here. That said, he wrote, “prevention of deterioration is not to be ignored, even if it does not make a patient feel better.”
Regarding quality of life, Dr. Tonelli observed that this questionnaire, standard fare in respiratory research, may not have been perfectly suited for this particular study.
“You have to put it in the context of, ‘How good is the questionnaire to capture a difference in this particular disease over a 16-week period?’ ” he said. “It might not be sensitive enough to capture a significant change. The questionnaire was not developed for pulmonary hypertension in interstitial lung disease, of course. It was developed more generically. It may not capture all that you need to show significance.”
The investigators acknowledged the study’s other potential limitations, including a short duration, a notable percentage of patients who discontinued the trial early, and the fact that clinical worsening and exacerbation of disease were investigator reported and not confirmed by an independent committee.
As for next steps in assessing pulmonary hypertension treatments, Dr. Tonelli pointed to the direction of future research. “The other big study that needs to come out in our field, and I believe it’s being worked on, is inhaled treprostinil in pulmonary hypertension due to chronic obstructive pulmonary disease [COPD],” he said. “That’s a major unmet need; the COPD population is larger than the population for interstitial lung disease, and one would wonder whether inhaled treprostinil would benefit those patients as well. At the moment, we have no treatments for that condition. In the future, a COPD study will be needed.”
The study was supported by United Therapeutics. Author disclosures are listed on the New England Journal of Medicine website.
and was associated with some additional clinical benefits, according to a new study published in the New England Journal of Medicine.
To investigate treprostinil therapy for pulmonary hypertension in this subset of patients with lung disease, Aaron Waxman, MD, PhD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, and his fellow researchers launched the multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled INCREASE trial. They assigned 163 patients to the inhaled treprostinil group – administered via an ultrasonic, pulsed-delivery nebulizer over 16 weeks – and 163 patients to the placebo group. Their average age was 66.5 years, 73% were white, and 47% were female
At baseline, the mean 6-minute walk distance (6MWD) for all patients was 259.6 m. After 16 weeks, the treprostinil group gained a mean of 21.08 m in 6MWD, and the placebo group lost 10.04 m. The least-squares mean difference between the groups from baseline in the 6MWD was 31.12 m (95% confidence interval, 16.85-45.39; P < .001). After sensitivity analysis with multiple imputation, the difference remained significant at 30.97 m (95% CI, 16.53-45.41; P < .001).
In a comparison of N-terminal pro–B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) levels from baseline to 16 weeks, the treprostinil group saw a decrease of 15% while the placebo group’s levels increased by 46% (treatment ratio 0.58; 95% CI, 0.47-0.72; P < .001). Clinical worsening occurred in 37 patients (23%) in the treprostinil group and 54 patients (33%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.40-0.92; P = .04), while serious adverse events occurred in 23.3% of the patients on treprostinil and 25.8% of the patients on placebo. There was no significant difference between groups in patient-reported quality of life, as assessed via the St. George’s Respiratory Questionnaire.
“There was no guarantee that this was going to work in this condition,” said Adriano Tonelli, MD, of the department of pulmonary medicine at the Cleveland Clinic, in an interview. “Several small studies have tried different medications, for pulmonary hypertension or otherwise, in patients with interstitial lung disease with minimal effect, if any. Given that all the prior studies were not categorically positive, the expectation, at least on my end, was that we needed to wait and see.” Dr. Tonelli and coauthors published a post hoc analysis of inhaled treprostinil studied in the TRIUMPH and BEAT trials.
Next steps: Assess clinical outcomes after inhaled treprostinil
Although the results of this study by Waxman et al, are encouraging, and the need for a treatment in this type of pulmonary hypertension is very real, more narrowing down will be needed to confirm the benefits of inhaled treprostinil, wrote Darren B. Taichman, MD, PhD, of the University of Pennsylvania in an accompanying editorial. He wrote, “After all, patients and physicians may reason, ‘It can’t hurt.’ Unfortunately, however, it could. Therapies approved for pulmonary arterial hypertension have been studied in patients with [ILD]-associated pulmonary hypertension and have shown inconsistent results, with some studies showing no benefit or suggesting harm.”
While the 6MWD has been used as an end point in previous drug trials for pulmonary arterial hypertension, Dr. Taichman wrote that improvements in such a variable were “probably too modest to be unequivocally consequential for many patients.” To confirm the benefits – and detriments – of treatments like inhaled treprostinil, it’s time for studies to focus on clinical end points, he stated, including hospitalizations, disease progression, and death.
He also highlighted the disparity between a treatment that led to increased walk distance and decreased clinical worsening yet did not register an improvement in health-related quality of life. He noted that the oft-cited minimal clinically important difference for 6MWD is approximately 30 m – similar to the difference recorded here. That said, he wrote, “prevention of deterioration is not to be ignored, even if it does not make a patient feel better.”
Regarding quality of life, Dr. Tonelli observed that this questionnaire, standard fare in respiratory research, may not have been perfectly suited for this particular study.
“You have to put it in the context of, ‘How good is the questionnaire to capture a difference in this particular disease over a 16-week period?’ ” he said. “It might not be sensitive enough to capture a significant change. The questionnaire was not developed for pulmonary hypertension in interstitial lung disease, of course. It was developed more generically. It may not capture all that you need to show significance.”
The investigators acknowledged the study’s other potential limitations, including a short duration, a notable percentage of patients who discontinued the trial early, and the fact that clinical worsening and exacerbation of disease were investigator reported and not confirmed by an independent committee.
As for next steps in assessing pulmonary hypertension treatments, Dr. Tonelli pointed to the direction of future research. “The other big study that needs to come out in our field, and I believe it’s being worked on, is inhaled treprostinil in pulmonary hypertension due to chronic obstructive pulmonary disease [COPD],” he said. “That’s a major unmet need; the COPD population is larger than the population for interstitial lung disease, and one would wonder whether inhaled treprostinil would benefit those patients as well. At the moment, we have no treatments for that condition. In the future, a COPD study will be needed.”
The study was supported by United Therapeutics. Author disclosures are listed on the New England Journal of Medicine website.
FROM THE NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE
Averting COVID hospitalizations with monoclonal antibodies
The United States has allocated more than 641,000 monoclonal antibody treatments for outpatients to ease pressure on strained hospitals, but officials from Operation Warp Speed report that more than half of that reserve sits unused as clinicians grapple with best practices.
There are space and personnel limitations in hospitals right now, Janet Woodcock, MD, therapeutics lead on Operation Warp Speed, acknowledges in an interview with this news organization. “Special areas and procedures must be set up.” And the operation is in the process of broadening availability beyond hospitals, she points out.
But for frontline clinicians, questions about treatment efficacy and the logistics of administering intravenous drugs to infectious outpatients loom large.
More than 50 monoclonal antibody products that target SARS-CoV-2 are now in development. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has already issued Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) for two such drugs on the basis of phase 2 trial data – bamlanivimab, made by Eli Lilly, and a cocktail of casirivimab plus imdevimab, made by Regeneron – and another two-antibody cocktail from AstraZeneca, AZD7442, has started phase 3 clinical trials. The Regeneron combination was used to treat President Donald Trump when he contracted COVID-19 in October.
Monoclonal antibody drugs are based on the natural antibodies that the body uses to fight infections. They work by binding to a specific target and then blocking its action or flagging it for destruction by other parts of the immune system. Both bamlanivimab and the casirivimab plus imdevimab combination target the spike protein of the virus and stop it from attaching to and entering human cells.
Targeting the spike protein out of the hospital
The antibody drugs covered by EUAs do not cure COVID-19, but they have been shown to reduce hospitalizations and visits to the emergency department for patients at high risk for disease progression. They are approved to treat patients older than 12 years with mild to moderate COVID-19 who are at high risk of progressing to severe disease or hospitalization. They are not authorized for use in patients who have been hospitalized or who are on ventilators. The hope is that antibody drugs will reduce the number of severe cases of COVID-19 and ease pressure on overstretched hospitals.
Most COVID-19 patients are outpatients, so we need something to keep them from getting worse.
This is important because it targets the greatest need in COVID-19 therapeutics, says Rajesh Gandhi, MD, an infectious disease physician at Harvard Medical School in Boston, who is a member of two panels evaluating COVID-19 treatments: one for the Infectious Disease Society of America and the other for the National Institutes of Health. “Up to now, most of the focus has been on hospitalized patients,” he says, but “most COVID-19 patients are outpatients, so we need something to keep them from getting worse.”
Both panels have said that, despite the EUAs, more evidence is needed to be sure of the efficacy of the drugs and to determine which patients will benefit the most from them.
These aren’t the mature data from drug development that guideline groups are accustomed to working with, Dr. Woodcock points out. “But this is an emergency and the data taken as a whole are pretty convincing,” she says. “As I look at the totality of the evidence, monoclonal antibodies will have a big effect in keeping people out of the hospital and helping them recover faster.”
High-risk patients are eligible for treatment, especially those older than 65 years and those with comorbidities who are younger. Access to the drugs is increasing for clinicians who are able to infuse safely or work with a site that will.
In the Boston area, several hospitals, including Massachusetts General where Dr. Gandhi works, have set up infusion centers where newly diagnosed patients can get the antibody treatment if their doctor thinks it will benefit them. And Coram, a provider of at-home infusion therapy owned by the CVS pharmacy chain, is running a pilot program offering the Eli Lilly drug to people in seven cities – including Boston, Chicago, Los Angeles, and Tampa – and their surrounding communities with a physician referral.
Getting that referral could be tricky, however, for patients without a primary care physician or for those whose doctor isn’t already connected to one of the institutions providing the infusions. The hospitals are sending out communications on how patients and physicians can get the therapy, but Dr. Gandhi says that making information about access available should be a priority. The window for the effective treatment is small – the drugs appear to work best before patients begin to make their own antibodies, says Dr. Gandhi – so it’s vital that doctors act quickly if they have a patient who is eligible.
And rolling out the new therapies to patients around the world will be a major logistical undertaking.
The first hurdle will be making enough of them to go around. Case numbers are skyrocketing around the globe, and producing the drugs is a complex time- and labor-intensive process that requires specialized facilities. Antibodies are produced by cell lines in bioreactors, so a plant that churns out generic aspirin tablets can’t simply be converted into an antibody factory.
“These types of drugs are manufactured in a sterile injectables plant, which is different from a plant where oral solids are made,” says Kim Crabtree, senior director of pharma portfolio management for Henry Schein Medical, a medical supplies distributor. “Those are not as plentiful as a standard pill factory.”
The doses required are also relatively high – 1.2 g of each antibody in Regeneron’s cocktail – which will further strain production capacity. Leah Lipsich, PhD, vice president of strategic program direction at Regeneron, says the company is prepared for high demand and has been able to respond, thanks to its rapid development and manufacturing technology, known as VelociSuite, which allows it to rapidly scale-up from discovery to productions in weeks instead of months.
“We knew supply would be a huge problem for COVID-19, but because we had such confidence in our technology, we went immediately from research-scale to our largest-scale manufacturing,” she says. “We’ve been manufacturing our cocktail for months now.”
The company has also partnered with Roche, the biggest manufacturer and vendor of monoclonal antibodies in the world, to manufacture and supply the drugs. Once full manufacturing capacity is reached in 2021, the companies expect to produce at least 2 million doses a year.
Then there is the issue of getting the drugs from the factories to the places they will be used.
Antibodies are temperature sensitive and need to be refrigerated during transport and storage, so a cold-chain-compliant supply chain is required. Fortunately, they can be kept at standard refrigerator temperatures, ranging from 2° C to 8° C, rather than the ultra-low temperatures required by some COVID-19 vaccines.
Two million doses a year
Medical logistics companies have a lot of experience dealing with products like these and are well prepared to handle the new antibody drugs. “There are quite a few products like these on the market, and the supply chain is used to shipping them,” Ms. Crabtree says.
They will be shipped to distribution centers in refrigerated trucks, repacked into smaller lots that can sustain the correct temperature for 24 hours, and then sent to their final destination, often in something as simple as a Styrofoam cooler filled with dry ice.
The expected rise in demand shouldn’t be too much of an issue for distributors either, says Ms. Crabtree; they have built systems that can deal with short-term surges in volume. The annual flu vaccine, for example, involves shipping a lot of product in a very short time, usually from August to November. “The distribution system is used to seasonal variations and peaks in demand,” she says.
The next question is how the treatments will be administered. Although most patients who will receive monoclonal antibodies will be ambulatory and not hospitalized, the administration requires intravenous infusion. Hospitals, of course, have a lot of experience with intravenous drugs, but typically give them only to inpatients. Most other monoclonal antibody drugs – such as those for cancer and autoimmune disorders – are given in specialized suites in doctor’s offices or in stand-alone infusion clinics.
That means that the places best suited to treat COVID-19 patients with antibodies are those that regularly deal with people who are immunocompromised, and such patients should not be interacting with people who have an infectious disease. “How do we protect the staff and other patients?” Dr. Gandhi asks.
Protecting staff and other patients
This is not an insurmountable obstacle, he points out, but it is one that requires careful thought and planning to accommodate COVID-19 patients without unduly disrupting life-saving treatments for other patients. It might involve, for example, treating COVID-19 patients in sequestered parts of the clinic or at different times of day, with even greater attention paid to cleaning, he explains. “We now have many months of experience with infection control, so we know how to do this; it’s just a question of logistics.”
But even once all the details around manufacturing, transporting, and administering the drugs are sorted out, there is still the issue of how they will be distributed fairly and equitably.
Despite multiple companies working to produce an array of different antibody drugs, demand is still expected to exceed supply for many months. “With more than 200,000 new cases a day in the United States, there won’t be enough antibodies to treat all of the high-risk patients,” says Dr. Gandhi. “Most of us are worried that demand will far outstrip supply. People are talking about lotteries to determine who gets them.”
The Department of Health and Human Services will continue to distribute the drugs to states on the basis of their COVID-19 burdens, and the states will then decide how much to provide to each health care facility.
Although the HHS goal is to ensure that the drugs reach as many patients as possible, no matter where they live and regardless of their income, there are still concerns that larger facilities serving more affluent areas will end up being favored, if only because they are the ones best equipped to deal with the drugs right now.
“We are all aware that this has affected certain communities more, so we need to make sure that the drugs are used equitably and made available to the communities that were hardest hit,” says Dr. Gandhi. The ability to monitor drug distribution should be built into the rollout, so that institutions and governments will have some sense of whether they are being doled out evenly, he adds.
Equity in distribution will be an issue for the rest of the world as well. Currently, 80% of monoclonal antibodies are sold in Canada, Europe, and the United States; few, if any, are available in low- and middle-income countries. The treatments are expensive: the cost of producing one g of marketed monoclonal antibodies is between $95 and $200, which does not include the cost of R&D, packaging, shipping, or administration. The median price for antibody treatment not related to COVID-19 runs from $15,000 to $200,000 per year in the United States.
Regeneron’s Dr. Lipsich says that the company has not yet set a price for its antibody cocktail. The government paid $450 million for its 300,000 doses, but that price includes the costs of research, manufacturing, and distribution, so is not a useful indicator of the eventual per-dose price. “We’re not in a position to talk about how it will be priced yet, but we will do our best to make it affordable and accessible to all,” she says.
There are some projects underway to ensure that the drugs are made available in poorer countries. In April, the COVID-19 Therapeutics Accelerator – an initiative launched by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Wellcome, and Mastercard to speed-up the response to the global pandemic – reserved manufacturing capacity with Fujifilm Diosynth Biotechnologies in Denmark for future monoclonal antibody therapies that will supply low- and middle-income countries. In October, the initiative announced that Eli Lilly would use that reserved capacity to produce its antibody drug starting in April 2021.
In the meantime, Lilly will make some of its product manufactured in other facilities available to lower-income countries. To help keep costs down, the company’s collaborators have agreed to waive their royalties on antibodies distributed in low- and middle-income countries.
“Everyone is looking carefully at how the drugs are distributed to ensure all will get access,” said Dr. Lipsich.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The United States has allocated more than 641,000 monoclonal antibody treatments for outpatients to ease pressure on strained hospitals, but officials from Operation Warp Speed report that more than half of that reserve sits unused as clinicians grapple with best practices.
There are space and personnel limitations in hospitals right now, Janet Woodcock, MD, therapeutics lead on Operation Warp Speed, acknowledges in an interview with this news organization. “Special areas and procedures must be set up.” And the operation is in the process of broadening availability beyond hospitals, she points out.
But for frontline clinicians, questions about treatment efficacy and the logistics of administering intravenous drugs to infectious outpatients loom large.
More than 50 monoclonal antibody products that target SARS-CoV-2 are now in development. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has already issued Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) for two such drugs on the basis of phase 2 trial data – bamlanivimab, made by Eli Lilly, and a cocktail of casirivimab plus imdevimab, made by Regeneron – and another two-antibody cocktail from AstraZeneca, AZD7442, has started phase 3 clinical trials. The Regeneron combination was used to treat President Donald Trump when he contracted COVID-19 in October.
Monoclonal antibody drugs are based on the natural antibodies that the body uses to fight infections. They work by binding to a specific target and then blocking its action or flagging it for destruction by other parts of the immune system. Both bamlanivimab and the casirivimab plus imdevimab combination target the spike protein of the virus and stop it from attaching to and entering human cells.
Targeting the spike protein out of the hospital
The antibody drugs covered by EUAs do not cure COVID-19, but they have been shown to reduce hospitalizations and visits to the emergency department for patients at high risk for disease progression. They are approved to treat patients older than 12 years with mild to moderate COVID-19 who are at high risk of progressing to severe disease or hospitalization. They are not authorized for use in patients who have been hospitalized or who are on ventilators. The hope is that antibody drugs will reduce the number of severe cases of COVID-19 and ease pressure on overstretched hospitals.
Most COVID-19 patients are outpatients, so we need something to keep them from getting worse.
This is important because it targets the greatest need in COVID-19 therapeutics, says Rajesh Gandhi, MD, an infectious disease physician at Harvard Medical School in Boston, who is a member of two panels evaluating COVID-19 treatments: one for the Infectious Disease Society of America and the other for the National Institutes of Health. “Up to now, most of the focus has been on hospitalized patients,” he says, but “most COVID-19 patients are outpatients, so we need something to keep them from getting worse.”
Both panels have said that, despite the EUAs, more evidence is needed to be sure of the efficacy of the drugs and to determine which patients will benefit the most from them.
These aren’t the mature data from drug development that guideline groups are accustomed to working with, Dr. Woodcock points out. “But this is an emergency and the data taken as a whole are pretty convincing,” she says. “As I look at the totality of the evidence, monoclonal antibodies will have a big effect in keeping people out of the hospital and helping them recover faster.”
High-risk patients are eligible for treatment, especially those older than 65 years and those with comorbidities who are younger. Access to the drugs is increasing for clinicians who are able to infuse safely or work with a site that will.
In the Boston area, several hospitals, including Massachusetts General where Dr. Gandhi works, have set up infusion centers where newly diagnosed patients can get the antibody treatment if their doctor thinks it will benefit them. And Coram, a provider of at-home infusion therapy owned by the CVS pharmacy chain, is running a pilot program offering the Eli Lilly drug to people in seven cities – including Boston, Chicago, Los Angeles, and Tampa – and their surrounding communities with a physician referral.
Getting that referral could be tricky, however, for patients without a primary care physician or for those whose doctor isn’t already connected to one of the institutions providing the infusions. The hospitals are sending out communications on how patients and physicians can get the therapy, but Dr. Gandhi says that making information about access available should be a priority. The window for the effective treatment is small – the drugs appear to work best before patients begin to make their own antibodies, says Dr. Gandhi – so it’s vital that doctors act quickly if they have a patient who is eligible.
And rolling out the new therapies to patients around the world will be a major logistical undertaking.
The first hurdle will be making enough of them to go around. Case numbers are skyrocketing around the globe, and producing the drugs is a complex time- and labor-intensive process that requires specialized facilities. Antibodies are produced by cell lines in bioreactors, so a plant that churns out generic aspirin tablets can’t simply be converted into an antibody factory.
“These types of drugs are manufactured in a sterile injectables plant, which is different from a plant where oral solids are made,” says Kim Crabtree, senior director of pharma portfolio management for Henry Schein Medical, a medical supplies distributor. “Those are not as plentiful as a standard pill factory.”
The doses required are also relatively high – 1.2 g of each antibody in Regeneron’s cocktail – which will further strain production capacity. Leah Lipsich, PhD, vice president of strategic program direction at Regeneron, says the company is prepared for high demand and has been able to respond, thanks to its rapid development and manufacturing technology, known as VelociSuite, which allows it to rapidly scale-up from discovery to productions in weeks instead of months.
“We knew supply would be a huge problem for COVID-19, but because we had such confidence in our technology, we went immediately from research-scale to our largest-scale manufacturing,” she says. “We’ve been manufacturing our cocktail for months now.”
The company has also partnered with Roche, the biggest manufacturer and vendor of monoclonal antibodies in the world, to manufacture and supply the drugs. Once full manufacturing capacity is reached in 2021, the companies expect to produce at least 2 million doses a year.
Then there is the issue of getting the drugs from the factories to the places they will be used.
Antibodies are temperature sensitive and need to be refrigerated during transport and storage, so a cold-chain-compliant supply chain is required. Fortunately, they can be kept at standard refrigerator temperatures, ranging from 2° C to 8° C, rather than the ultra-low temperatures required by some COVID-19 vaccines.
Two million doses a year
Medical logistics companies have a lot of experience dealing with products like these and are well prepared to handle the new antibody drugs. “There are quite a few products like these on the market, and the supply chain is used to shipping them,” Ms. Crabtree says.
They will be shipped to distribution centers in refrigerated trucks, repacked into smaller lots that can sustain the correct temperature for 24 hours, and then sent to their final destination, often in something as simple as a Styrofoam cooler filled with dry ice.
The expected rise in demand shouldn’t be too much of an issue for distributors either, says Ms. Crabtree; they have built systems that can deal with short-term surges in volume. The annual flu vaccine, for example, involves shipping a lot of product in a very short time, usually from August to November. “The distribution system is used to seasonal variations and peaks in demand,” she says.
The next question is how the treatments will be administered. Although most patients who will receive monoclonal antibodies will be ambulatory and not hospitalized, the administration requires intravenous infusion. Hospitals, of course, have a lot of experience with intravenous drugs, but typically give them only to inpatients. Most other monoclonal antibody drugs – such as those for cancer and autoimmune disorders – are given in specialized suites in doctor’s offices or in stand-alone infusion clinics.
That means that the places best suited to treat COVID-19 patients with antibodies are those that regularly deal with people who are immunocompromised, and such patients should not be interacting with people who have an infectious disease. “How do we protect the staff and other patients?” Dr. Gandhi asks.
Protecting staff and other patients
This is not an insurmountable obstacle, he points out, but it is one that requires careful thought and planning to accommodate COVID-19 patients without unduly disrupting life-saving treatments for other patients. It might involve, for example, treating COVID-19 patients in sequestered parts of the clinic or at different times of day, with even greater attention paid to cleaning, he explains. “We now have many months of experience with infection control, so we know how to do this; it’s just a question of logistics.”
But even once all the details around manufacturing, transporting, and administering the drugs are sorted out, there is still the issue of how they will be distributed fairly and equitably.
Despite multiple companies working to produce an array of different antibody drugs, demand is still expected to exceed supply for many months. “With more than 200,000 new cases a day in the United States, there won’t be enough antibodies to treat all of the high-risk patients,” says Dr. Gandhi. “Most of us are worried that demand will far outstrip supply. People are talking about lotteries to determine who gets them.”
The Department of Health and Human Services will continue to distribute the drugs to states on the basis of their COVID-19 burdens, and the states will then decide how much to provide to each health care facility.
Although the HHS goal is to ensure that the drugs reach as many patients as possible, no matter where they live and regardless of their income, there are still concerns that larger facilities serving more affluent areas will end up being favored, if only because they are the ones best equipped to deal with the drugs right now.
“We are all aware that this has affected certain communities more, so we need to make sure that the drugs are used equitably and made available to the communities that were hardest hit,” says Dr. Gandhi. The ability to monitor drug distribution should be built into the rollout, so that institutions and governments will have some sense of whether they are being doled out evenly, he adds.
Equity in distribution will be an issue for the rest of the world as well. Currently, 80% of monoclonal antibodies are sold in Canada, Europe, and the United States; few, if any, are available in low- and middle-income countries. The treatments are expensive: the cost of producing one g of marketed monoclonal antibodies is between $95 and $200, which does not include the cost of R&D, packaging, shipping, or administration. The median price for antibody treatment not related to COVID-19 runs from $15,000 to $200,000 per year in the United States.
Regeneron’s Dr. Lipsich says that the company has not yet set a price for its antibody cocktail. The government paid $450 million for its 300,000 doses, but that price includes the costs of research, manufacturing, and distribution, so is not a useful indicator of the eventual per-dose price. “We’re not in a position to talk about how it will be priced yet, but we will do our best to make it affordable and accessible to all,” she says.
There are some projects underway to ensure that the drugs are made available in poorer countries. In April, the COVID-19 Therapeutics Accelerator – an initiative launched by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Wellcome, and Mastercard to speed-up the response to the global pandemic – reserved manufacturing capacity with Fujifilm Diosynth Biotechnologies in Denmark for future monoclonal antibody therapies that will supply low- and middle-income countries. In October, the initiative announced that Eli Lilly would use that reserved capacity to produce its antibody drug starting in April 2021.
In the meantime, Lilly will make some of its product manufactured in other facilities available to lower-income countries. To help keep costs down, the company’s collaborators have agreed to waive their royalties on antibodies distributed in low- and middle-income countries.
“Everyone is looking carefully at how the drugs are distributed to ensure all will get access,” said Dr. Lipsich.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The United States has allocated more than 641,000 monoclonal antibody treatments for outpatients to ease pressure on strained hospitals, but officials from Operation Warp Speed report that more than half of that reserve sits unused as clinicians grapple with best practices.
There are space and personnel limitations in hospitals right now, Janet Woodcock, MD, therapeutics lead on Operation Warp Speed, acknowledges in an interview with this news organization. “Special areas and procedures must be set up.” And the operation is in the process of broadening availability beyond hospitals, she points out.
But for frontline clinicians, questions about treatment efficacy and the logistics of administering intravenous drugs to infectious outpatients loom large.
More than 50 monoclonal antibody products that target SARS-CoV-2 are now in development. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has already issued Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) for two such drugs on the basis of phase 2 trial data – bamlanivimab, made by Eli Lilly, and a cocktail of casirivimab plus imdevimab, made by Regeneron – and another two-antibody cocktail from AstraZeneca, AZD7442, has started phase 3 clinical trials. The Regeneron combination was used to treat President Donald Trump when he contracted COVID-19 in October.
Monoclonal antibody drugs are based on the natural antibodies that the body uses to fight infections. They work by binding to a specific target and then blocking its action or flagging it for destruction by other parts of the immune system. Both bamlanivimab and the casirivimab plus imdevimab combination target the spike protein of the virus and stop it from attaching to and entering human cells.
Targeting the spike protein out of the hospital
The antibody drugs covered by EUAs do not cure COVID-19, but they have been shown to reduce hospitalizations and visits to the emergency department for patients at high risk for disease progression. They are approved to treat patients older than 12 years with mild to moderate COVID-19 who are at high risk of progressing to severe disease or hospitalization. They are not authorized for use in patients who have been hospitalized or who are on ventilators. The hope is that antibody drugs will reduce the number of severe cases of COVID-19 and ease pressure on overstretched hospitals.
Most COVID-19 patients are outpatients, so we need something to keep them from getting worse.
This is important because it targets the greatest need in COVID-19 therapeutics, says Rajesh Gandhi, MD, an infectious disease physician at Harvard Medical School in Boston, who is a member of two panels evaluating COVID-19 treatments: one for the Infectious Disease Society of America and the other for the National Institutes of Health. “Up to now, most of the focus has been on hospitalized patients,” he says, but “most COVID-19 patients are outpatients, so we need something to keep them from getting worse.”
Both panels have said that, despite the EUAs, more evidence is needed to be sure of the efficacy of the drugs and to determine which patients will benefit the most from them.
These aren’t the mature data from drug development that guideline groups are accustomed to working with, Dr. Woodcock points out. “But this is an emergency and the data taken as a whole are pretty convincing,” she says. “As I look at the totality of the evidence, monoclonal antibodies will have a big effect in keeping people out of the hospital and helping them recover faster.”
High-risk patients are eligible for treatment, especially those older than 65 years and those with comorbidities who are younger. Access to the drugs is increasing for clinicians who are able to infuse safely or work with a site that will.
In the Boston area, several hospitals, including Massachusetts General where Dr. Gandhi works, have set up infusion centers where newly diagnosed patients can get the antibody treatment if their doctor thinks it will benefit them. And Coram, a provider of at-home infusion therapy owned by the CVS pharmacy chain, is running a pilot program offering the Eli Lilly drug to people in seven cities – including Boston, Chicago, Los Angeles, and Tampa – and their surrounding communities with a physician referral.
Getting that referral could be tricky, however, for patients without a primary care physician or for those whose doctor isn’t already connected to one of the institutions providing the infusions. The hospitals are sending out communications on how patients and physicians can get the therapy, but Dr. Gandhi says that making information about access available should be a priority. The window for the effective treatment is small – the drugs appear to work best before patients begin to make their own antibodies, says Dr. Gandhi – so it’s vital that doctors act quickly if they have a patient who is eligible.
And rolling out the new therapies to patients around the world will be a major logistical undertaking.
The first hurdle will be making enough of them to go around. Case numbers are skyrocketing around the globe, and producing the drugs is a complex time- and labor-intensive process that requires specialized facilities. Antibodies are produced by cell lines in bioreactors, so a plant that churns out generic aspirin tablets can’t simply be converted into an antibody factory.
“These types of drugs are manufactured in a sterile injectables plant, which is different from a plant where oral solids are made,” says Kim Crabtree, senior director of pharma portfolio management for Henry Schein Medical, a medical supplies distributor. “Those are not as plentiful as a standard pill factory.”
The doses required are also relatively high – 1.2 g of each antibody in Regeneron’s cocktail – which will further strain production capacity. Leah Lipsich, PhD, vice president of strategic program direction at Regeneron, says the company is prepared for high demand and has been able to respond, thanks to its rapid development and manufacturing technology, known as VelociSuite, which allows it to rapidly scale-up from discovery to productions in weeks instead of months.
“We knew supply would be a huge problem for COVID-19, but because we had such confidence in our technology, we went immediately from research-scale to our largest-scale manufacturing,” she says. “We’ve been manufacturing our cocktail for months now.”
The company has also partnered with Roche, the biggest manufacturer and vendor of monoclonal antibodies in the world, to manufacture and supply the drugs. Once full manufacturing capacity is reached in 2021, the companies expect to produce at least 2 million doses a year.
Then there is the issue of getting the drugs from the factories to the places they will be used.
Antibodies are temperature sensitive and need to be refrigerated during transport and storage, so a cold-chain-compliant supply chain is required. Fortunately, they can be kept at standard refrigerator temperatures, ranging from 2° C to 8° C, rather than the ultra-low temperatures required by some COVID-19 vaccines.
Two million doses a year
Medical logistics companies have a lot of experience dealing with products like these and are well prepared to handle the new antibody drugs. “There are quite a few products like these on the market, and the supply chain is used to shipping them,” Ms. Crabtree says.
They will be shipped to distribution centers in refrigerated trucks, repacked into smaller lots that can sustain the correct temperature for 24 hours, and then sent to their final destination, often in something as simple as a Styrofoam cooler filled with dry ice.
The expected rise in demand shouldn’t be too much of an issue for distributors either, says Ms. Crabtree; they have built systems that can deal with short-term surges in volume. The annual flu vaccine, for example, involves shipping a lot of product in a very short time, usually from August to November. “The distribution system is used to seasonal variations and peaks in demand,” she says.
The next question is how the treatments will be administered. Although most patients who will receive monoclonal antibodies will be ambulatory and not hospitalized, the administration requires intravenous infusion. Hospitals, of course, have a lot of experience with intravenous drugs, but typically give them only to inpatients. Most other monoclonal antibody drugs – such as those for cancer and autoimmune disorders – are given in specialized suites in doctor’s offices or in stand-alone infusion clinics.
That means that the places best suited to treat COVID-19 patients with antibodies are those that regularly deal with people who are immunocompromised, and such patients should not be interacting with people who have an infectious disease. “How do we protect the staff and other patients?” Dr. Gandhi asks.
Protecting staff and other patients
This is not an insurmountable obstacle, he points out, but it is one that requires careful thought and planning to accommodate COVID-19 patients without unduly disrupting life-saving treatments for other patients. It might involve, for example, treating COVID-19 patients in sequestered parts of the clinic or at different times of day, with even greater attention paid to cleaning, he explains. “We now have many months of experience with infection control, so we know how to do this; it’s just a question of logistics.”
But even once all the details around manufacturing, transporting, and administering the drugs are sorted out, there is still the issue of how they will be distributed fairly and equitably.
Despite multiple companies working to produce an array of different antibody drugs, demand is still expected to exceed supply for many months. “With more than 200,000 new cases a day in the United States, there won’t be enough antibodies to treat all of the high-risk patients,” says Dr. Gandhi. “Most of us are worried that demand will far outstrip supply. People are talking about lotteries to determine who gets them.”
The Department of Health and Human Services will continue to distribute the drugs to states on the basis of their COVID-19 burdens, and the states will then decide how much to provide to each health care facility.
Although the HHS goal is to ensure that the drugs reach as many patients as possible, no matter where they live and regardless of their income, there are still concerns that larger facilities serving more affluent areas will end up being favored, if only because they are the ones best equipped to deal with the drugs right now.
“We are all aware that this has affected certain communities more, so we need to make sure that the drugs are used equitably and made available to the communities that were hardest hit,” says Dr. Gandhi. The ability to monitor drug distribution should be built into the rollout, so that institutions and governments will have some sense of whether they are being doled out evenly, he adds.
Equity in distribution will be an issue for the rest of the world as well. Currently, 80% of monoclonal antibodies are sold in Canada, Europe, and the United States; few, if any, are available in low- and middle-income countries. The treatments are expensive: the cost of producing one g of marketed monoclonal antibodies is between $95 and $200, which does not include the cost of R&D, packaging, shipping, or administration. The median price for antibody treatment not related to COVID-19 runs from $15,000 to $200,000 per year in the United States.
Regeneron’s Dr. Lipsich says that the company has not yet set a price for its antibody cocktail. The government paid $450 million for its 300,000 doses, but that price includes the costs of research, manufacturing, and distribution, so is not a useful indicator of the eventual per-dose price. “We’re not in a position to talk about how it will be priced yet, but we will do our best to make it affordable and accessible to all,” she says.
There are some projects underway to ensure that the drugs are made available in poorer countries. In April, the COVID-19 Therapeutics Accelerator – an initiative launched by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Wellcome, and Mastercard to speed-up the response to the global pandemic – reserved manufacturing capacity with Fujifilm Diosynth Biotechnologies in Denmark for future monoclonal antibody therapies that will supply low- and middle-income countries. In October, the initiative announced that Eli Lilly would use that reserved capacity to produce its antibody drug starting in April 2021.
In the meantime, Lilly will make some of its product manufactured in other facilities available to lower-income countries. To help keep costs down, the company’s collaborators have agreed to waive their royalties on antibodies distributed in low- and middle-income countries.
“Everyone is looking carefully at how the drugs are distributed to ensure all will get access,” said Dr. Lipsich.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
DOACs look safe in elective endoscopic procedures
Among patients taking direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs), elective endoscopy procedures carry a risk of bleeding and thromboembolic events similar to that seen in those receiving vitamin K antagonists (VKAs), according to a multicenter, prospective observational study conducted at 12 Spanish academic and community centers.
DOACs have several advantages over VKAs, including more predictable pharmacokinetic profiles and fewer food and drug interactions, but they have not been well studied in the elective endoscopy setting. Some previous studies suggested a lower risk with DOACs than with VKAs, but they were retrospective or based on administrative databases.
It also remains unclear when anticoagulant therapy should be resumed following high-risk procedures. The new study, which was led by Enrique Rodríguez de Santiago of Universidad de Alcalá (Spain) and published in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology, suggested that early resumption may be safe. “It certainly showed there was an acceptable rate of clinically significant rate of bleeding for patients on anticoagulants, and the thing I appreciated the most was that there was no statistically significant difference in terms of bleeding depending on when you resumed the anticoagulant,” said Robert Jay Sealock, MD, assistant professor of medicine at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston. Dr. Sealock was not involved in the study.
The researchers examined data from 1,623 patients who underwent 1,874 endoscopic procedures. Among these patients, 62.7% were taking VKAs, and 37.3% were taking DOACs; 58.9% were men, and the mean age was 74.2 years. Overall, 75.5% were on anticoagulant therapy for atrial fibrillation.
The most common procedures were colonoscopy (68.3%) and esophagogastroduodenoscopy (27.3%).
Within 30 days, The risk of bleeding was similar between patients taking VKAs (6.2%; 95% confidence interval, 4.8-7.8%) and DOACs (6.7%; 95% CI, 4.9-9%). This was true regardless of intervention and site. Overall, 1.4% of subjects experienced a thromboembolic event (95% CI, 0.9-2.1%), and there was no significant difference between the VKA group (1.3%; 95% CI, 0.8-2.2%) and the DOAC group (1.5%; 95% CI, 0.8-2.8%).
Clinically significant gastrointestinal bleeding occurred in 6.4% of subjects (95% CI, 5.3-7.7%); 2.7% of clinically significant gastrointestinal bleeding events were intraprocedural and 4.1% were delayed. The lowest risk of bleeding occurred with diagnostic endoscopy (1.1%) and biopsy (2.2%). The risk of bleeding for high-risk procedures was 11.5% (95% CI, 9.4-14%).
The overall mortality was 1.4%, with two deaths related to thromboembolic events, both in the DOAC group. The other deaths were considered to be unrelated to the procedure or periprocedural interruption of anticoagulants.
The researchers also examined the timing of anticoagulant resumption. Overall, 59.2% of subjects received bridging therapy, including 85% of the VKA group and 16% of the DOAC group (P < .001). This was not associated with increased endoscopy-related bleeding in either the VKA (3.3% with bridging therapy vs. 6.4% without; P = .14) or the DOAC group (8.3% vs. 6.4%; P = .48).
A total of 747 patients underwent a high-risk procedure, 46.3% of patients resumed anticoagulant therapy within 24 hours of the procedure, and 46.2% between 24 and 48 hours. After inverse probability of treatment weighting adjustment, a delay in anticoagulant resumption was not associated with a reduction in the frequency of postprocedural clinically significant gastrointestinal bleeding.
Still, the research left some questions unanswered. Most of the high-risk procedures were hot (41.8%) or cold snare polypectomies (39.8%). There weren’t enough data in the study to evaluate risk in patients undergoing other high-risk procedures such as balloon dilation for strictures, endoscopic ultrasound with fine-needle aspiration, and sphincterotomy. “That’s one group that we still don’t really have enough data about, particularly those patients who are on DOACs,” said Dr. Sealock.
The study also found a high number of patients on bridging therapy. “It highlighted the fact that we probably use bridging therapy too much in patients undergoing endoscopy,” said Dr. Sealock. He recommended using tools that generate recommendations for bridging therapy and timing for withholding and resuming anticoagulants based on procedure and patient characteristics.
SOURCE: de Santiago ER et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2020 Dec 03. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2020.11.037.
Among patients taking direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs), elective endoscopy procedures carry a risk of bleeding and thromboembolic events similar to that seen in those receiving vitamin K antagonists (VKAs), according to a multicenter, prospective observational study conducted at 12 Spanish academic and community centers.
DOACs have several advantages over VKAs, including more predictable pharmacokinetic profiles and fewer food and drug interactions, but they have not been well studied in the elective endoscopy setting. Some previous studies suggested a lower risk with DOACs than with VKAs, but they were retrospective or based on administrative databases.
It also remains unclear when anticoagulant therapy should be resumed following high-risk procedures. The new study, which was led by Enrique Rodríguez de Santiago of Universidad de Alcalá (Spain) and published in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology, suggested that early resumption may be safe. “It certainly showed there was an acceptable rate of clinically significant rate of bleeding for patients on anticoagulants, and the thing I appreciated the most was that there was no statistically significant difference in terms of bleeding depending on when you resumed the anticoagulant,” said Robert Jay Sealock, MD, assistant professor of medicine at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston. Dr. Sealock was not involved in the study.
The researchers examined data from 1,623 patients who underwent 1,874 endoscopic procedures. Among these patients, 62.7% were taking VKAs, and 37.3% were taking DOACs; 58.9% were men, and the mean age was 74.2 years. Overall, 75.5% were on anticoagulant therapy for atrial fibrillation.
The most common procedures were colonoscopy (68.3%) and esophagogastroduodenoscopy (27.3%).
Within 30 days, The risk of bleeding was similar between patients taking VKAs (6.2%; 95% confidence interval, 4.8-7.8%) and DOACs (6.7%; 95% CI, 4.9-9%). This was true regardless of intervention and site. Overall, 1.4% of subjects experienced a thromboembolic event (95% CI, 0.9-2.1%), and there was no significant difference between the VKA group (1.3%; 95% CI, 0.8-2.2%) and the DOAC group (1.5%; 95% CI, 0.8-2.8%).
Clinically significant gastrointestinal bleeding occurred in 6.4% of subjects (95% CI, 5.3-7.7%); 2.7% of clinically significant gastrointestinal bleeding events were intraprocedural and 4.1% were delayed. The lowest risk of bleeding occurred with diagnostic endoscopy (1.1%) and biopsy (2.2%). The risk of bleeding for high-risk procedures was 11.5% (95% CI, 9.4-14%).
The overall mortality was 1.4%, with two deaths related to thromboembolic events, both in the DOAC group. The other deaths were considered to be unrelated to the procedure or periprocedural interruption of anticoagulants.
The researchers also examined the timing of anticoagulant resumption. Overall, 59.2% of subjects received bridging therapy, including 85% of the VKA group and 16% of the DOAC group (P < .001). This was not associated with increased endoscopy-related bleeding in either the VKA (3.3% with bridging therapy vs. 6.4% without; P = .14) or the DOAC group (8.3% vs. 6.4%; P = .48).
A total of 747 patients underwent a high-risk procedure, 46.3% of patients resumed anticoagulant therapy within 24 hours of the procedure, and 46.2% between 24 and 48 hours. After inverse probability of treatment weighting adjustment, a delay in anticoagulant resumption was not associated with a reduction in the frequency of postprocedural clinically significant gastrointestinal bleeding.
Still, the research left some questions unanswered. Most of the high-risk procedures were hot (41.8%) or cold snare polypectomies (39.8%). There weren’t enough data in the study to evaluate risk in patients undergoing other high-risk procedures such as balloon dilation for strictures, endoscopic ultrasound with fine-needle aspiration, and sphincterotomy. “That’s one group that we still don’t really have enough data about, particularly those patients who are on DOACs,” said Dr. Sealock.
The study also found a high number of patients on bridging therapy. “It highlighted the fact that we probably use bridging therapy too much in patients undergoing endoscopy,” said Dr. Sealock. He recommended using tools that generate recommendations for bridging therapy and timing for withholding and resuming anticoagulants based on procedure and patient characteristics.
SOURCE: de Santiago ER et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2020 Dec 03. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2020.11.037.
Among patients taking direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs), elective endoscopy procedures carry a risk of bleeding and thromboembolic events similar to that seen in those receiving vitamin K antagonists (VKAs), according to a multicenter, prospective observational study conducted at 12 Spanish academic and community centers.
DOACs have several advantages over VKAs, including more predictable pharmacokinetic profiles and fewer food and drug interactions, but they have not been well studied in the elective endoscopy setting. Some previous studies suggested a lower risk with DOACs than with VKAs, but they were retrospective or based on administrative databases.
It also remains unclear when anticoagulant therapy should be resumed following high-risk procedures. The new study, which was led by Enrique Rodríguez de Santiago of Universidad de Alcalá (Spain) and published in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology, suggested that early resumption may be safe. “It certainly showed there was an acceptable rate of clinically significant rate of bleeding for patients on anticoagulants, and the thing I appreciated the most was that there was no statistically significant difference in terms of bleeding depending on when you resumed the anticoagulant,” said Robert Jay Sealock, MD, assistant professor of medicine at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston. Dr. Sealock was not involved in the study.
The researchers examined data from 1,623 patients who underwent 1,874 endoscopic procedures. Among these patients, 62.7% were taking VKAs, and 37.3% were taking DOACs; 58.9% were men, and the mean age was 74.2 years. Overall, 75.5% were on anticoagulant therapy for atrial fibrillation.
The most common procedures were colonoscopy (68.3%) and esophagogastroduodenoscopy (27.3%).
Within 30 days, The risk of bleeding was similar between patients taking VKAs (6.2%; 95% confidence interval, 4.8-7.8%) and DOACs (6.7%; 95% CI, 4.9-9%). This was true regardless of intervention and site. Overall, 1.4% of subjects experienced a thromboembolic event (95% CI, 0.9-2.1%), and there was no significant difference between the VKA group (1.3%; 95% CI, 0.8-2.2%) and the DOAC group (1.5%; 95% CI, 0.8-2.8%).
Clinically significant gastrointestinal bleeding occurred in 6.4% of subjects (95% CI, 5.3-7.7%); 2.7% of clinically significant gastrointestinal bleeding events were intraprocedural and 4.1% were delayed. The lowest risk of bleeding occurred with diagnostic endoscopy (1.1%) and biopsy (2.2%). The risk of bleeding for high-risk procedures was 11.5% (95% CI, 9.4-14%).
The overall mortality was 1.4%, with two deaths related to thromboembolic events, both in the DOAC group. The other deaths were considered to be unrelated to the procedure or periprocedural interruption of anticoagulants.
The researchers also examined the timing of anticoagulant resumption. Overall, 59.2% of subjects received bridging therapy, including 85% of the VKA group and 16% of the DOAC group (P < .001). This was not associated with increased endoscopy-related bleeding in either the VKA (3.3% with bridging therapy vs. 6.4% without; P = .14) or the DOAC group (8.3% vs. 6.4%; P = .48).
A total of 747 patients underwent a high-risk procedure, 46.3% of patients resumed anticoagulant therapy within 24 hours of the procedure, and 46.2% between 24 and 48 hours. After inverse probability of treatment weighting adjustment, a delay in anticoagulant resumption was not associated with a reduction in the frequency of postprocedural clinically significant gastrointestinal bleeding.
Still, the research left some questions unanswered. Most of the high-risk procedures were hot (41.8%) or cold snare polypectomies (39.8%). There weren’t enough data in the study to evaluate risk in patients undergoing other high-risk procedures such as balloon dilation for strictures, endoscopic ultrasound with fine-needle aspiration, and sphincterotomy. “That’s one group that we still don’t really have enough data about, particularly those patients who are on DOACs,” said Dr. Sealock.
The study also found a high number of patients on bridging therapy. “It highlighted the fact that we probably use bridging therapy too much in patients undergoing endoscopy,” said Dr. Sealock. He recommended using tools that generate recommendations for bridging therapy and timing for withholding and resuming anticoagulants based on procedure and patient characteristics.
SOURCE: de Santiago ER et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2020 Dec 03. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2020.11.037.
FROM CLINICAL GASTROENTEROLOGY AND HEPATOLOGY