User login
Older patients who stop statins may be increasing their cardiovascular risk
Discontinuing statins was associated with an increased risk of hospital admission for a cardiovascular event, according to a study of elderly French patients with no history of heart disease.
“The results of this study suggest potential cardiovascular risk reduction associated with continuing statin therapy after the age of 75 years in persons already taking these drugs for primary prevention,” wrote Philippe Giral, MD, of Hôpital La Pitié Salpêtrière (France) and coauthors. The study was published in the European Heart Journal.
To determine if statins are a cardiovascular benefit or detriment to older people, the researchers reviewed data from 120,173 patients in French health care databases who turned 75 during 2012-2014. Patients with a diagnosis of cardiovascular disease in the previous 2 years were excluded, and all eligible patients were required to have a statin medication possession ratio of at least 80% in each of the previous 2 years.
Over a follow-up period that averaged 2.4 years, 17,204 patients (14.3%) discontinued statins and 5,396 (4.5%) were admitted for a cardiovascular event. The adjusted hazard ratios for admissions after statin discontinuation were 1.33 (95% confidence interval, 1.18-1.50) for a cardiovascular event, 1.46 (95% CI, 1.21-1.75) for a coronary event, 1.26 (95% CI, 1.05-1.51) for a cerebrovascular event, and 1.02 (95% CI, 0.74-1.40) for other vascular events, respectively.
The coauthors acknowledged their study’s limitations, including being unable to account for certain cardiovascular risk factors such as baseline LDL cholesterol level, tobacco use, obesity, and frailty markers. In addition, no information was available as to why patients discontinued statins. However, the presence of other major cardiovascular risk factors was investigated and accounted for, as was discontinuation of other cardiovascular drug therapies.
The study was not funded, and the authors declared no conflicts of interest.
SOURCE: Giral P at al. Eur Heart J. 2019 July 31. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehz458.
Discontinuing statins was associated with an increased risk of hospital admission for a cardiovascular event, according to a study of elderly French patients with no history of heart disease.
“The results of this study suggest potential cardiovascular risk reduction associated with continuing statin therapy after the age of 75 years in persons already taking these drugs for primary prevention,” wrote Philippe Giral, MD, of Hôpital La Pitié Salpêtrière (France) and coauthors. The study was published in the European Heart Journal.
To determine if statins are a cardiovascular benefit or detriment to older people, the researchers reviewed data from 120,173 patients in French health care databases who turned 75 during 2012-2014. Patients with a diagnosis of cardiovascular disease in the previous 2 years were excluded, and all eligible patients were required to have a statin medication possession ratio of at least 80% in each of the previous 2 years.
Over a follow-up period that averaged 2.4 years, 17,204 patients (14.3%) discontinued statins and 5,396 (4.5%) were admitted for a cardiovascular event. The adjusted hazard ratios for admissions after statin discontinuation were 1.33 (95% confidence interval, 1.18-1.50) for a cardiovascular event, 1.46 (95% CI, 1.21-1.75) for a coronary event, 1.26 (95% CI, 1.05-1.51) for a cerebrovascular event, and 1.02 (95% CI, 0.74-1.40) for other vascular events, respectively.
The coauthors acknowledged their study’s limitations, including being unable to account for certain cardiovascular risk factors such as baseline LDL cholesterol level, tobacco use, obesity, and frailty markers. In addition, no information was available as to why patients discontinued statins. However, the presence of other major cardiovascular risk factors was investigated and accounted for, as was discontinuation of other cardiovascular drug therapies.
The study was not funded, and the authors declared no conflicts of interest.
SOURCE: Giral P at al. Eur Heart J. 2019 July 31. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehz458.
Discontinuing statins was associated with an increased risk of hospital admission for a cardiovascular event, according to a study of elderly French patients with no history of heart disease.
“The results of this study suggest potential cardiovascular risk reduction associated with continuing statin therapy after the age of 75 years in persons already taking these drugs for primary prevention,” wrote Philippe Giral, MD, of Hôpital La Pitié Salpêtrière (France) and coauthors. The study was published in the European Heart Journal.
To determine if statins are a cardiovascular benefit or detriment to older people, the researchers reviewed data from 120,173 patients in French health care databases who turned 75 during 2012-2014. Patients with a diagnosis of cardiovascular disease in the previous 2 years were excluded, and all eligible patients were required to have a statin medication possession ratio of at least 80% in each of the previous 2 years.
Over a follow-up period that averaged 2.4 years, 17,204 patients (14.3%) discontinued statins and 5,396 (4.5%) were admitted for a cardiovascular event. The adjusted hazard ratios for admissions after statin discontinuation were 1.33 (95% confidence interval, 1.18-1.50) for a cardiovascular event, 1.46 (95% CI, 1.21-1.75) for a coronary event, 1.26 (95% CI, 1.05-1.51) for a cerebrovascular event, and 1.02 (95% CI, 0.74-1.40) for other vascular events, respectively.
The coauthors acknowledged their study’s limitations, including being unable to account for certain cardiovascular risk factors such as baseline LDL cholesterol level, tobacco use, obesity, and frailty markers. In addition, no information was available as to why patients discontinued statins. However, the presence of other major cardiovascular risk factors was investigated and accounted for, as was discontinuation of other cardiovascular drug therapies.
The study was not funded, and the authors declared no conflicts of interest.
SOURCE: Giral P at al. Eur Heart J. 2019 July 31. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehz458.
FROM THE EUROPEAN HEART JOURNAL
FDA approves darolutamide for nonmetastatic CRPC
The Food and Drug Administration has approved darolutamide for nonmetastatic, castration-resistant prostate cancer.
The approval was based on improved metastasis-free survival (MFS) in the randomized ARAMIS trial of 1,509 patients with nonmetastatic, castration-resistant prostate cancer.
Median MFS was 40.4 months (95% confidence interval, 34.3 months to not reached) for patients treated with darolutamide, compared with 18.4 months (95% CI, 15.5-22.3 months) for those receiving placebo (hazard ratio, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.34-0.50; P less than .0001), according to the FDA.
MFS is defined as the time from randomization to first evidence of distant metastasis or death from any cause within 33 weeks after the last evaluable scan, whichever occurred first.
In ARAMIS, patients were randomized 2:1 to receive either 600 mg darolutamide orally twice daily (n = 955) or matching placebo (n = 554). All patients received a gonadotropin-releasing hormone analog concurrently or had a previous bilateral orchiectomy. Twelve patients with previous seizure histories were treated on the darolutamide arm.
Overall survival data is not yet mature, the FDA said.
The most common adverse reactions in patients who received darolutamide were fatigue, extremity pain, and rash. Ischemic heart disease (4.3%) and heart failure (2.1%) were more common on the darolutamide arm, while seizure incidence was similar in the two arms (0.2%).
The recommended darolutamide dose is 600 mg (two 300-mg tablets) administered orally twice daily with food. Patients should also receive a gonadotropin-releasing hormone analog concurrently or should have had bilateral orchiectomy, the FDA said.
Darolutamide is marketed as Nubeqa by Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals.
The Food and Drug Administration has approved darolutamide for nonmetastatic, castration-resistant prostate cancer.
The approval was based on improved metastasis-free survival (MFS) in the randomized ARAMIS trial of 1,509 patients with nonmetastatic, castration-resistant prostate cancer.
Median MFS was 40.4 months (95% confidence interval, 34.3 months to not reached) for patients treated with darolutamide, compared with 18.4 months (95% CI, 15.5-22.3 months) for those receiving placebo (hazard ratio, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.34-0.50; P less than .0001), according to the FDA.
MFS is defined as the time from randomization to first evidence of distant metastasis or death from any cause within 33 weeks after the last evaluable scan, whichever occurred first.
In ARAMIS, patients were randomized 2:1 to receive either 600 mg darolutamide orally twice daily (n = 955) or matching placebo (n = 554). All patients received a gonadotropin-releasing hormone analog concurrently or had a previous bilateral orchiectomy. Twelve patients with previous seizure histories were treated on the darolutamide arm.
Overall survival data is not yet mature, the FDA said.
The most common adverse reactions in patients who received darolutamide were fatigue, extremity pain, and rash. Ischemic heart disease (4.3%) and heart failure (2.1%) were more common on the darolutamide arm, while seizure incidence was similar in the two arms (0.2%).
The recommended darolutamide dose is 600 mg (two 300-mg tablets) administered orally twice daily with food. Patients should also receive a gonadotropin-releasing hormone analog concurrently or should have had bilateral orchiectomy, the FDA said.
Darolutamide is marketed as Nubeqa by Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals.
The Food and Drug Administration has approved darolutamide for nonmetastatic, castration-resistant prostate cancer.
The approval was based on improved metastasis-free survival (MFS) in the randomized ARAMIS trial of 1,509 patients with nonmetastatic, castration-resistant prostate cancer.
Median MFS was 40.4 months (95% confidence interval, 34.3 months to not reached) for patients treated with darolutamide, compared with 18.4 months (95% CI, 15.5-22.3 months) for those receiving placebo (hazard ratio, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.34-0.50; P less than .0001), according to the FDA.
MFS is defined as the time from randomization to first evidence of distant metastasis or death from any cause within 33 weeks after the last evaluable scan, whichever occurred first.
In ARAMIS, patients were randomized 2:1 to receive either 600 mg darolutamide orally twice daily (n = 955) or matching placebo (n = 554). All patients received a gonadotropin-releasing hormone analog concurrently or had a previous bilateral orchiectomy. Twelve patients with previous seizure histories were treated on the darolutamide arm.
Overall survival data is not yet mature, the FDA said.
The most common adverse reactions in patients who received darolutamide were fatigue, extremity pain, and rash. Ischemic heart disease (4.3%) and heart failure (2.1%) were more common on the darolutamide arm, while seizure incidence was similar in the two arms (0.2%).
The recommended darolutamide dose is 600 mg (two 300-mg tablets) administered orally twice daily with food. Patients should also receive a gonadotropin-releasing hormone analog concurrently or should have had bilateral orchiectomy, the FDA said.
Darolutamide is marketed as Nubeqa by Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals.
Clopidogrel matches aspirin for reducing risk of colorectal cancer
Clopidogrel appears to reduce the risk of colorectal cancer (CRC) as much as low-dose aspirin, based on a case-control study involving more than 15,000 cases.
Source: American Gastroenterological Association
Risk of CRC was reduced by 20%-30% when clopidogrel was given alone or in combination with aspirin, reported lead author Antonio Rodríguez-Miguel of Príncipe de Asturias University Hospital in Madrid and colleagues. This finding adds support to the hypothesis that low-dose aspirin is chemoprotective primarily because of its antiplatelet properties, they noted.
“The mechanism of action of low-dose aspirin to explain its protective effect is subject to debate,” the investigators wrote in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology. “Although aspirin is a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) and these drugs are known to prevent CRC through the inhibition of cyclooxygenase (COX)-2 in epithelial and stromal cells in the large bowel, at low doses (75-300 mg/d) aspirin has only transient effects on this isozyme, while permanently inactivating platelet COX-1 and suppressing thromboxane A2 production. The apparent lack of dose-dependence of the chemoprotective effect of aspirin, as well as the potential role of locally activated platelets in upregulating COX-2 expression in adjacent nucleated cells of the intestinal mucosa, have led [to] the postulation that low-dose aspirin could exert its chemoprotective effect via its antiplatelet action.”
Although previous studies have explored the chemoprotective potential of other antiplatelet agents, such as clopidogrel, the resultant body of evidence remains small. In 2017, for example, Avi Leader, MD, and colleagues reported that the chemoprotective effect of dual-antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) with clopidogrel and aspirin was superior to aspirin monotherapy, based on an additional 8% risk reduction. The present study aimed to build on such findings with evaluation of a Mediterranean cohort, which could reduce confounding lifestyle factors, owing to a lower rate of cardiovascular morbidity than other populations.
The nested, case-control study involved 15,491 cases of CRC and 60,000 controls who were randomly selected and frequency matched by sex, age, and year of indexing. Data were drawn from Base de datos para la Investigación Farmacoepidemiológica en Atención Primaria (BIFAP), a Spanish medical record database with more than 7 million patients. Records of patients involved in the present study were screened for prescription of three antiplatelet agents: low-dose aspirin, clopidogrel, and triflusal. Additional categorization identified current users, recent users, past users, and nonusers. The effects of clopidogrel and aspirin were evaluated separately, as monotherapies, and together, as DAPT.
Demographically, the mean age of the entire study population was 68.6 years, with a slight male predominance (59%). Median follow-up was similar between cases and controls, at approximately 3 years, ranging from about 1.5 to 6 years. Cases showed higher rates of gout, alcohol abuse, acute digestive diseases, and peripheral artery disease, whereas controls were more likely to have histories involving stroke, acute myocardial infarction, chronic digestive diseases, and constipation.
Controls were more likely to be current aspirin users than patients diagnosed with CRC (12.8% vs. 12.2%), giving an associated adjusted odds ratio (AOR) of 0.83. Risk reduction became statistically apparent after 180 days of aspirin usage, with an AOR of 0.79, and more prominent in the 1- to 3-year range, with an AOR of 0.73. This chemoprotective effect faded rapidly with discontinuation.
Current clopidogrel usage led to a comparable level of risk reduction, with an AOR of 0.80. It wasn’t until a year of continuous clopidogrel monotherapy that risk reduction became statistically significant, with an AOR of 0.65, which dropped to 0.57 between years 1 and 3.
Turning to a matched comparison of aspirin or clopidogrel monotherapy versus DAPT, the investigators found similar rates of chemoprotection. Current aspirin usage of any duration offered an adjusted risk reduction of 17%, compared with 25% for clopidogrel, and 29% for DAPT. Beyond 1 year of continuous and current usage, the superiority of DAPT was called into question, as clopidogrel monotherapy offered the greatest risk reduction, at 37%, compared with 22% for aspirin, and 22% for DAPT. Risk analyses involving triflusal lacked statistical significance.
“The results of the present study are compatible with a chemoprotective effect of clopidogrel against CRC, equivalent in magnitude to the one observed for low-dose aspirin,” the investigators wrote. “This finding indirectly supports the hypothesis that the chemoprotective effect of low-dose aspirin is mediated mostly through the permanent inactivation of platelet COX-1.”
The investigators pointed out that the chemoprotective effects of antiplatelet therapy begin to appear early in treatment, independently from lifestyle factors, but risk reduction depends on current usage. Although short-term usage of either aspirin or clopidogrel was associated with an increased risk of CRC, the investigators suggested that this was more likely a perceived risk rather than an actual one. “In our view, this observation could be explained in part by a detection bias, owing to an increased risk of GI bleeding induced by antiplatelet agents that could lead to a greater number of colonoscopies, and, as a result, an early cancer diagnosis,” they wrote.
The study was funded by the Fundación Instituto Teófilo Hernando. Dr. García-Rodríguez disclosed a relationship with CEIFE, which has received funding from Bayer and AstraZeneca.
SOURCE: Rodríguez-Miguel et al. Clin Gastrenterol Hepatol. 2018 Dec 20. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2018.12.012.
The role of aspirin in reducing the risk of colorectal cancer is well established, although the mechanisms of actions are not entirely clear. One possible mechanism is through inhibition of the cyclooxygenase-1 (COX-1) pathway. The authors investigated the role of aspirin but also clopidogrel, another antiplatelet drug that works through inhibition of the COX-1 pathway in reducing the risk of CRC in a case-control study from Spain. CRC cases were randomly matched with cancer-free controls, and the use of aspirin and clopidogrel as a risk factor for CRC was studied. Not surprisingly, aspirin use was associated with reduced risk of CRC by 17%, However, what’s new is that the use of clopidogrel was associated with reduced risk of CRC by 20% also but use of dual therapy (aspirin plus clopidogrel) did not confer additional benefit. The results did not differ by patient age or sex. The caveat is that history of CRC screening or colonoscopy was not known for cases or controls, and many other confounders, such as diet, exercise, and other lifestyle and medication history that may account for the differences could not be easily teased apart. If confirmed by others, these data suggest an additional beneficial effect of antiplatelet agent clopidogrel in reducing risk of CRC, if taken for more than 1 year. The study opens the door to exploring mechanisms by which antiplatelet agents may reduce risk of CRC, and the potential role of other antiplatelet agents in reducing risk of CRC.
Aasma Shaukat, MD, MPH, GI section chief Minneapolis VAMC and professor of medicine, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis. She has no conflicts of interest.
The role of aspirin in reducing the risk of colorectal cancer is well established, although the mechanisms of actions are not entirely clear. One possible mechanism is through inhibition of the cyclooxygenase-1 (COX-1) pathway. The authors investigated the role of aspirin but also clopidogrel, another antiplatelet drug that works through inhibition of the COX-1 pathway in reducing the risk of CRC in a case-control study from Spain. CRC cases were randomly matched with cancer-free controls, and the use of aspirin and clopidogrel as a risk factor for CRC was studied. Not surprisingly, aspirin use was associated with reduced risk of CRC by 17%, However, what’s new is that the use of clopidogrel was associated with reduced risk of CRC by 20% also but use of dual therapy (aspirin plus clopidogrel) did not confer additional benefit. The results did not differ by patient age or sex. The caveat is that history of CRC screening or colonoscopy was not known for cases or controls, and many other confounders, such as diet, exercise, and other lifestyle and medication history that may account for the differences could not be easily teased apart. If confirmed by others, these data suggest an additional beneficial effect of antiplatelet agent clopidogrel in reducing risk of CRC, if taken for more than 1 year. The study opens the door to exploring mechanisms by which antiplatelet agents may reduce risk of CRC, and the potential role of other antiplatelet agents in reducing risk of CRC.
Aasma Shaukat, MD, MPH, GI section chief Minneapolis VAMC and professor of medicine, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis. She has no conflicts of interest.
The role of aspirin in reducing the risk of colorectal cancer is well established, although the mechanisms of actions are not entirely clear. One possible mechanism is through inhibition of the cyclooxygenase-1 (COX-1) pathway. The authors investigated the role of aspirin but also clopidogrel, another antiplatelet drug that works through inhibition of the COX-1 pathway in reducing the risk of CRC in a case-control study from Spain. CRC cases were randomly matched with cancer-free controls, and the use of aspirin and clopidogrel as a risk factor for CRC was studied. Not surprisingly, aspirin use was associated with reduced risk of CRC by 17%, However, what’s new is that the use of clopidogrel was associated with reduced risk of CRC by 20% also but use of dual therapy (aspirin plus clopidogrel) did not confer additional benefit. The results did not differ by patient age or sex. The caveat is that history of CRC screening or colonoscopy was not known for cases or controls, and many other confounders, such as diet, exercise, and other lifestyle and medication history that may account for the differences could not be easily teased apart. If confirmed by others, these data suggest an additional beneficial effect of antiplatelet agent clopidogrel in reducing risk of CRC, if taken for more than 1 year. The study opens the door to exploring mechanisms by which antiplatelet agents may reduce risk of CRC, and the potential role of other antiplatelet agents in reducing risk of CRC.
Aasma Shaukat, MD, MPH, GI section chief Minneapolis VAMC and professor of medicine, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis. She has no conflicts of interest.
Clopidogrel appears to reduce the risk of colorectal cancer (CRC) as much as low-dose aspirin, based on a case-control study involving more than 15,000 cases.
Source: American Gastroenterological Association
Risk of CRC was reduced by 20%-30% when clopidogrel was given alone or in combination with aspirin, reported lead author Antonio Rodríguez-Miguel of Príncipe de Asturias University Hospital in Madrid and colleagues. This finding adds support to the hypothesis that low-dose aspirin is chemoprotective primarily because of its antiplatelet properties, they noted.
“The mechanism of action of low-dose aspirin to explain its protective effect is subject to debate,” the investigators wrote in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology. “Although aspirin is a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) and these drugs are known to prevent CRC through the inhibition of cyclooxygenase (COX)-2 in epithelial and stromal cells in the large bowel, at low doses (75-300 mg/d) aspirin has only transient effects on this isozyme, while permanently inactivating platelet COX-1 and suppressing thromboxane A2 production. The apparent lack of dose-dependence of the chemoprotective effect of aspirin, as well as the potential role of locally activated platelets in upregulating COX-2 expression in adjacent nucleated cells of the intestinal mucosa, have led [to] the postulation that low-dose aspirin could exert its chemoprotective effect via its antiplatelet action.”
Although previous studies have explored the chemoprotective potential of other antiplatelet agents, such as clopidogrel, the resultant body of evidence remains small. In 2017, for example, Avi Leader, MD, and colleagues reported that the chemoprotective effect of dual-antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) with clopidogrel and aspirin was superior to aspirin monotherapy, based on an additional 8% risk reduction. The present study aimed to build on such findings with evaluation of a Mediterranean cohort, which could reduce confounding lifestyle factors, owing to a lower rate of cardiovascular morbidity than other populations.
The nested, case-control study involved 15,491 cases of CRC and 60,000 controls who were randomly selected and frequency matched by sex, age, and year of indexing. Data were drawn from Base de datos para la Investigación Farmacoepidemiológica en Atención Primaria (BIFAP), a Spanish medical record database with more than 7 million patients. Records of patients involved in the present study were screened for prescription of three antiplatelet agents: low-dose aspirin, clopidogrel, and triflusal. Additional categorization identified current users, recent users, past users, and nonusers. The effects of clopidogrel and aspirin were evaluated separately, as monotherapies, and together, as DAPT.
Demographically, the mean age of the entire study population was 68.6 years, with a slight male predominance (59%). Median follow-up was similar between cases and controls, at approximately 3 years, ranging from about 1.5 to 6 years. Cases showed higher rates of gout, alcohol abuse, acute digestive diseases, and peripheral artery disease, whereas controls were more likely to have histories involving stroke, acute myocardial infarction, chronic digestive diseases, and constipation.
Controls were more likely to be current aspirin users than patients diagnosed with CRC (12.8% vs. 12.2%), giving an associated adjusted odds ratio (AOR) of 0.83. Risk reduction became statistically apparent after 180 days of aspirin usage, with an AOR of 0.79, and more prominent in the 1- to 3-year range, with an AOR of 0.73. This chemoprotective effect faded rapidly with discontinuation.
Current clopidogrel usage led to a comparable level of risk reduction, with an AOR of 0.80. It wasn’t until a year of continuous clopidogrel monotherapy that risk reduction became statistically significant, with an AOR of 0.65, which dropped to 0.57 between years 1 and 3.
Turning to a matched comparison of aspirin or clopidogrel monotherapy versus DAPT, the investigators found similar rates of chemoprotection. Current aspirin usage of any duration offered an adjusted risk reduction of 17%, compared with 25% for clopidogrel, and 29% for DAPT. Beyond 1 year of continuous and current usage, the superiority of DAPT was called into question, as clopidogrel monotherapy offered the greatest risk reduction, at 37%, compared with 22% for aspirin, and 22% for DAPT. Risk analyses involving triflusal lacked statistical significance.
“The results of the present study are compatible with a chemoprotective effect of clopidogrel against CRC, equivalent in magnitude to the one observed for low-dose aspirin,” the investigators wrote. “This finding indirectly supports the hypothesis that the chemoprotective effect of low-dose aspirin is mediated mostly through the permanent inactivation of platelet COX-1.”
The investigators pointed out that the chemoprotective effects of antiplatelet therapy begin to appear early in treatment, independently from lifestyle factors, but risk reduction depends on current usage. Although short-term usage of either aspirin or clopidogrel was associated with an increased risk of CRC, the investigators suggested that this was more likely a perceived risk rather than an actual one. “In our view, this observation could be explained in part by a detection bias, owing to an increased risk of GI bleeding induced by antiplatelet agents that could lead to a greater number of colonoscopies, and, as a result, an early cancer diagnosis,” they wrote.
The study was funded by the Fundación Instituto Teófilo Hernando. Dr. García-Rodríguez disclosed a relationship with CEIFE, which has received funding from Bayer and AstraZeneca.
SOURCE: Rodríguez-Miguel et al. Clin Gastrenterol Hepatol. 2018 Dec 20. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2018.12.012.
Clopidogrel appears to reduce the risk of colorectal cancer (CRC) as much as low-dose aspirin, based on a case-control study involving more than 15,000 cases.
Source: American Gastroenterological Association
Risk of CRC was reduced by 20%-30% when clopidogrel was given alone or in combination with aspirin, reported lead author Antonio Rodríguez-Miguel of Príncipe de Asturias University Hospital in Madrid and colleagues. This finding adds support to the hypothesis that low-dose aspirin is chemoprotective primarily because of its antiplatelet properties, they noted.
“The mechanism of action of low-dose aspirin to explain its protective effect is subject to debate,” the investigators wrote in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology. “Although aspirin is a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) and these drugs are known to prevent CRC through the inhibition of cyclooxygenase (COX)-2 in epithelial and stromal cells in the large bowel, at low doses (75-300 mg/d) aspirin has only transient effects on this isozyme, while permanently inactivating platelet COX-1 and suppressing thromboxane A2 production. The apparent lack of dose-dependence of the chemoprotective effect of aspirin, as well as the potential role of locally activated platelets in upregulating COX-2 expression in adjacent nucleated cells of the intestinal mucosa, have led [to] the postulation that low-dose aspirin could exert its chemoprotective effect via its antiplatelet action.”
Although previous studies have explored the chemoprotective potential of other antiplatelet agents, such as clopidogrel, the resultant body of evidence remains small. In 2017, for example, Avi Leader, MD, and colleagues reported that the chemoprotective effect of dual-antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) with clopidogrel and aspirin was superior to aspirin monotherapy, based on an additional 8% risk reduction. The present study aimed to build on such findings with evaluation of a Mediterranean cohort, which could reduce confounding lifestyle factors, owing to a lower rate of cardiovascular morbidity than other populations.
The nested, case-control study involved 15,491 cases of CRC and 60,000 controls who were randomly selected and frequency matched by sex, age, and year of indexing. Data were drawn from Base de datos para la Investigación Farmacoepidemiológica en Atención Primaria (BIFAP), a Spanish medical record database with more than 7 million patients. Records of patients involved in the present study were screened for prescription of three antiplatelet agents: low-dose aspirin, clopidogrel, and triflusal. Additional categorization identified current users, recent users, past users, and nonusers. The effects of clopidogrel and aspirin were evaluated separately, as monotherapies, and together, as DAPT.
Demographically, the mean age of the entire study population was 68.6 years, with a slight male predominance (59%). Median follow-up was similar between cases and controls, at approximately 3 years, ranging from about 1.5 to 6 years. Cases showed higher rates of gout, alcohol abuse, acute digestive diseases, and peripheral artery disease, whereas controls were more likely to have histories involving stroke, acute myocardial infarction, chronic digestive diseases, and constipation.
Controls were more likely to be current aspirin users than patients diagnosed with CRC (12.8% vs. 12.2%), giving an associated adjusted odds ratio (AOR) of 0.83. Risk reduction became statistically apparent after 180 days of aspirin usage, with an AOR of 0.79, and more prominent in the 1- to 3-year range, with an AOR of 0.73. This chemoprotective effect faded rapidly with discontinuation.
Current clopidogrel usage led to a comparable level of risk reduction, with an AOR of 0.80. It wasn’t until a year of continuous clopidogrel monotherapy that risk reduction became statistically significant, with an AOR of 0.65, which dropped to 0.57 between years 1 and 3.
Turning to a matched comparison of aspirin or clopidogrel monotherapy versus DAPT, the investigators found similar rates of chemoprotection. Current aspirin usage of any duration offered an adjusted risk reduction of 17%, compared with 25% for clopidogrel, and 29% for DAPT. Beyond 1 year of continuous and current usage, the superiority of DAPT was called into question, as clopidogrel monotherapy offered the greatest risk reduction, at 37%, compared with 22% for aspirin, and 22% for DAPT. Risk analyses involving triflusal lacked statistical significance.
“The results of the present study are compatible with a chemoprotective effect of clopidogrel against CRC, equivalent in magnitude to the one observed for low-dose aspirin,” the investigators wrote. “This finding indirectly supports the hypothesis that the chemoprotective effect of low-dose aspirin is mediated mostly through the permanent inactivation of platelet COX-1.”
The investigators pointed out that the chemoprotective effects of antiplatelet therapy begin to appear early in treatment, independently from lifestyle factors, but risk reduction depends on current usage. Although short-term usage of either aspirin or clopidogrel was associated with an increased risk of CRC, the investigators suggested that this was more likely a perceived risk rather than an actual one. “In our view, this observation could be explained in part by a detection bias, owing to an increased risk of GI bleeding induced by antiplatelet agents that could lead to a greater number of colonoscopies, and, as a result, an early cancer diagnosis,” they wrote.
The study was funded by the Fundación Instituto Teófilo Hernando. Dr. García-Rodríguez disclosed a relationship with CEIFE, which has received funding from Bayer and AstraZeneca.
SOURCE: Rodríguez-Miguel et al. Clin Gastrenterol Hepatol. 2018 Dec 20. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2018.12.012.
FROM CLINICAL GASTROENTEROLOGY AND HEPATOLOGY
Key clinical point: Clopidogrel usage appears to reduce the risk of colorectal cancer as much as low-dose aspirin.
Major finding: Current clopidogrel usage was associated with a 20% reduced risk of colorectal cancer (adjusted odds ratio, 0.8).
Study details: A nested case-control study involving 15,491 cases of colorectal cancer and 60,000 controls.
Disclosures: The study was funded by the Fundación Instituto Teófilo Hernando. Dr. García-Rodríguez disclosed a relationship with CEIFE, which has received funding from Bayer and AstraZeneca.
Source: Rodríguez-Miguel A et al. Clin Gastrenterol Hepatol. 2018 Dec 20. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2018.12.012.
No increase in UTI risk with SGLT-2 inhibitors
Sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors do not appear to increase the risk of urinary tract infections, compared with other antidiabetic medications, new research has found.
In a paper published in Annals of Internal Medicine, researchers reported the outcomes of a population-based, propensity-matched cohort study in which the analyzed data from 235,730 individuals newly prescribed sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT-2) inhibitors, dipeptidyl peptidase–4 (DPP-4) inhibitors, and glucagonlike peptide–1 receptor (GLP-1) agonists.
In the first cohort, comparing SGLT-2 inhibitors with DDP-4 inhibitors, there were no significant differences between the two groups in the incidence rate of severe urinary tract infections (UTIs) (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.98; 95% confidence interval, 0.68-1.41).
In the second cohort, which compared patients taking GLP-1 receptor agonists with those taking SGLT-2 inhibitors, researchers saw a slightly lower incidence of severe UTIs among individuals on SGLT-2 inhibitors (HR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.53-0.99; P = .04).
The analysis also failed to find any evidence that SGLT-2 inhibitors were associated with an increase in the risk of hospitalization or outpatient treatment for a UTI.
Chintan V. Dave, PharmD – now at Rutgers University, New Brunswick, N.J. – and colleagues from Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, wrote that the findings have significant clinical implications.
“Patients who may be good candidates to receive SGLT-2 inhibitors for diabetes control but who have a history of recurrent UTIs may be precluded from being prescribed these agents; because UTIs are highly prevalent in patients with diabetes, this could exclude a substantial number of patients from receiving an entire class of medications that has been shown to decrease risk for major cardiovascular events and death,” they wrote.
The researchers stressed that “other factors beyond risk for UTI events should be considered in decisions about whether to prescribe SGLT-2 therapy for patients with diabetes.”
The authors did note that their study was subject to the usual limitations of observational studies, such as susceptibility to confounding, and was also limited to people with health insurance.
An accompanying editorial by Kristian B. Filion, PhD, and Oriana H. Yu, MD, of McGill University, Montreal, commented that the data provided reassuring, real-world evidence on the potential safety issue of UTI risk with SGLT-2 inhibitors.
However, they also stressed that the study excluded individuals at high risk or with a history of UTIs, and that these were subgroups who required further investigation.
The study was supported by the Harvard Medical School and the National Institute on Aging. Three authors reported support from private industry outside the submitted work.
SOURCE: Dave CV et al. Ann Intern Med. 2019 Jul 29. doi: 10.7326/M18-3136.
Sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors do not appear to increase the risk of urinary tract infections, compared with other antidiabetic medications, new research has found.
In a paper published in Annals of Internal Medicine, researchers reported the outcomes of a population-based, propensity-matched cohort study in which the analyzed data from 235,730 individuals newly prescribed sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT-2) inhibitors, dipeptidyl peptidase–4 (DPP-4) inhibitors, and glucagonlike peptide–1 receptor (GLP-1) agonists.
In the first cohort, comparing SGLT-2 inhibitors with DDP-4 inhibitors, there were no significant differences between the two groups in the incidence rate of severe urinary tract infections (UTIs) (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.98; 95% confidence interval, 0.68-1.41).
In the second cohort, which compared patients taking GLP-1 receptor agonists with those taking SGLT-2 inhibitors, researchers saw a slightly lower incidence of severe UTIs among individuals on SGLT-2 inhibitors (HR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.53-0.99; P = .04).
The analysis also failed to find any evidence that SGLT-2 inhibitors were associated with an increase in the risk of hospitalization or outpatient treatment for a UTI.
Chintan V. Dave, PharmD – now at Rutgers University, New Brunswick, N.J. – and colleagues from Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, wrote that the findings have significant clinical implications.
“Patients who may be good candidates to receive SGLT-2 inhibitors for diabetes control but who have a history of recurrent UTIs may be precluded from being prescribed these agents; because UTIs are highly prevalent in patients with diabetes, this could exclude a substantial number of patients from receiving an entire class of medications that has been shown to decrease risk for major cardiovascular events and death,” they wrote.
The researchers stressed that “other factors beyond risk for UTI events should be considered in decisions about whether to prescribe SGLT-2 therapy for patients with diabetes.”
The authors did note that their study was subject to the usual limitations of observational studies, such as susceptibility to confounding, and was also limited to people with health insurance.
An accompanying editorial by Kristian B. Filion, PhD, and Oriana H. Yu, MD, of McGill University, Montreal, commented that the data provided reassuring, real-world evidence on the potential safety issue of UTI risk with SGLT-2 inhibitors.
However, they also stressed that the study excluded individuals at high risk or with a history of UTIs, and that these were subgroups who required further investigation.
The study was supported by the Harvard Medical School and the National Institute on Aging. Three authors reported support from private industry outside the submitted work.
SOURCE: Dave CV et al. Ann Intern Med. 2019 Jul 29. doi: 10.7326/M18-3136.
Sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors do not appear to increase the risk of urinary tract infections, compared with other antidiabetic medications, new research has found.
In a paper published in Annals of Internal Medicine, researchers reported the outcomes of a population-based, propensity-matched cohort study in which the analyzed data from 235,730 individuals newly prescribed sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT-2) inhibitors, dipeptidyl peptidase–4 (DPP-4) inhibitors, and glucagonlike peptide–1 receptor (GLP-1) agonists.
In the first cohort, comparing SGLT-2 inhibitors with DDP-4 inhibitors, there were no significant differences between the two groups in the incidence rate of severe urinary tract infections (UTIs) (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.98; 95% confidence interval, 0.68-1.41).
In the second cohort, which compared patients taking GLP-1 receptor agonists with those taking SGLT-2 inhibitors, researchers saw a slightly lower incidence of severe UTIs among individuals on SGLT-2 inhibitors (HR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.53-0.99; P = .04).
The analysis also failed to find any evidence that SGLT-2 inhibitors were associated with an increase in the risk of hospitalization or outpatient treatment for a UTI.
Chintan V. Dave, PharmD – now at Rutgers University, New Brunswick, N.J. – and colleagues from Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, wrote that the findings have significant clinical implications.
“Patients who may be good candidates to receive SGLT-2 inhibitors for diabetes control but who have a history of recurrent UTIs may be precluded from being prescribed these agents; because UTIs are highly prevalent in patients with diabetes, this could exclude a substantial number of patients from receiving an entire class of medications that has been shown to decrease risk for major cardiovascular events and death,” they wrote.
The researchers stressed that “other factors beyond risk for UTI events should be considered in decisions about whether to prescribe SGLT-2 therapy for patients with diabetes.”
The authors did note that their study was subject to the usual limitations of observational studies, such as susceptibility to confounding, and was also limited to people with health insurance.
An accompanying editorial by Kristian B. Filion, PhD, and Oriana H. Yu, MD, of McGill University, Montreal, commented that the data provided reassuring, real-world evidence on the potential safety issue of UTI risk with SGLT-2 inhibitors.
However, they also stressed that the study excluded individuals at high risk or with a history of UTIs, and that these were subgroups who required further investigation.
The study was supported by the Harvard Medical School and the National Institute on Aging. Three authors reported support from private industry outside the submitted work.
SOURCE: Dave CV et al. Ann Intern Med. 2019 Jul 29. doi: 10.7326/M18-3136.
FROM ANNALS OF INTERNAL MEDICINE
Key clinical point: Sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors are not associated with a greater risk of urinary tract infections, compared with dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors or glucagonlike peptide–1 receptor agonists.
Major finding: The incidence of severe urinary tract infections is similar among patients taking sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors, dipeptidyl peptidase–4, inhibitors or glucagonlike peptide–1 receptor agonists.
Study details: A population-based, propensity-matched cohort study in 235,730 individuals with type 2 diabetes.
Disclosures: The study was supported by the Harvard Medical School and the National Institute on Aging. Three authors reported support from private industry outside the submitted work.
Source: Dave CV et al. Ann Intern Med. 2019 Jul 29. doi: 10.7326/M18-3136.
Real-world data for immunotherapy-treated NSCLC found robust
Real-world outcome data from patients with advanced non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) treated with immunotherapy are robust enough to use for regulatory and payer decisions, suggests an analysis of six data sets and more than 13,000 patients.
“Study of routinely collected health care data is increasingly important for various stakeholders who are interested in better understanding particular patient populations, evaluating drug safety in the postmarketing setting, measuring health care use and clinical outcomes, performing comparative effectiveness research, and optimizing drug pricing models,” noted lead investigator Mark Stewart, PhD, Friends of Cancer Research, Washington, and coinvestigators. “However, before [real-world data] finds widespread use as an adjunct to – or in unique settings, an alternative for – [randomized clinical trials], the validity of readily extractable clinical outcomes measures – real-world endpoints – must be established.”
The investigators undertook a retrospective cohort study using administrative claims and electronic health records for patients with advanced NSCLC treated with inhibitors of programmed death 1 (PD-1) or programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) between January 2011 and October 2017 in real-world settings. They analyzed six data sets having 269 to 6,924 patients each (13,639 patients total).
Results reported in JCO Clinical Cancer Informatics showed that the real-world intermediate endpoints of time to treatment discontinuation and time to next treatment were moderately to highly correlated with real-world overall survival (Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient, 0.36 to 0.89, with most values 0.60 or higher).
In real-world settings, the 1-year rate of overall survival after starting immunotherapy ranged from 40% to 57%. Real-world data and trial data were similar with respect to median overall survival (8.6-13.5 months vs. 9.2-12.7 months).
The data sources used for the study have been extensively used for research and are curated on an ongoing basis to ensure the data are accurate and as complete as possible, Dr. Stewart and coinvestigators noted.
“These findings demonstrate that real-world endpoints are generally consistent with each other and with outcomes observed in randomized clinical trials, which substantiates the potential validity of real-world data to support regulatory and payer decision-making,” they maintained. “Differences observed likely reflect true differences between real-world and protocol-driven practices.
“Additional studies are needed to further support the use of [real-world evidence] and inform the development of regulatory guidance,” the investigators concluded. “Standardizing definitions for real-world endpoints and determining appropriate analytic methodologies for [real-world data] will be critical for broader adoption of real-world studies and will provide greater confidence in associated findings. As more refined and standardized approaches are developed that incorporate deep clinical and bioinformatics expertise, the greater the utility of [real-world data] will be for detecting even small, but important, differences in treatment effects.”
Dr. Stewart disclosed no conflicts of interest. The study was supported in part by the National Cancer Institute and the Patient Centered Outcomes Research Institute.
SOURCE: Stewart M et al. JCO Clin Cancer Inform. 2019 July 23. doi: 10.1200/CCI.18.00155.
Real-world outcome data from patients with advanced non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) treated with immunotherapy are robust enough to use for regulatory and payer decisions, suggests an analysis of six data sets and more than 13,000 patients.
“Study of routinely collected health care data is increasingly important for various stakeholders who are interested in better understanding particular patient populations, evaluating drug safety in the postmarketing setting, measuring health care use and clinical outcomes, performing comparative effectiveness research, and optimizing drug pricing models,” noted lead investigator Mark Stewart, PhD, Friends of Cancer Research, Washington, and coinvestigators. “However, before [real-world data] finds widespread use as an adjunct to – or in unique settings, an alternative for – [randomized clinical trials], the validity of readily extractable clinical outcomes measures – real-world endpoints – must be established.”
The investigators undertook a retrospective cohort study using administrative claims and electronic health records for patients with advanced NSCLC treated with inhibitors of programmed death 1 (PD-1) or programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) between January 2011 and October 2017 in real-world settings. They analyzed six data sets having 269 to 6,924 patients each (13,639 patients total).
Results reported in JCO Clinical Cancer Informatics showed that the real-world intermediate endpoints of time to treatment discontinuation and time to next treatment were moderately to highly correlated with real-world overall survival (Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient, 0.36 to 0.89, with most values 0.60 or higher).
In real-world settings, the 1-year rate of overall survival after starting immunotherapy ranged from 40% to 57%. Real-world data and trial data were similar with respect to median overall survival (8.6-13.5 months vs. 9.2-12.7 months).
The data sources used for the study have been extensively used for research and are curated on an ongoing basis to ensure the data are accurate and as complete as possible, Dr. Stewart and coinvestigators noted.
“These findings demonstrate that real-world endpoints are generally consistent with each other and with outcomes observed in randomized clinical trials, which substantiates the potential validity of real-world data to support regulatory and payer decision-making,” they maintained. “Differences observed likely reflect true differences between real-world and protocol-driven practices.
“Additional studies are needed to further support the use of [real-world evidence] and inform the development of regulatory guidance,” the investigators concluded. “Standardizing definitions for real-world endpoints and determining appropriate analytic methodologies for [real-world data] will be critical for broader adoption of real-world studies and will provide greater confidence in associated findings. As more refined and standardized approaches are developed that incorporate deep clinical and bioinformatics expertise, the greater the utility of [real-world data] will be for detecting even small, but important, differences in treatment effects.”
Dr. Stewart disclosed no conflicts of interest. The study was supported in part by the National Cancer Institute and the Patient Centered Outcomes Research Institute.
SOURCE: Stewart M et al. JCO Clin Cancer Inform. 2019 July 23. doi: 10.1200/CCI.18.00155.
Real-world outcome data from patients with advanced non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) treated with immunotherapy are robust enough to use for regulatory and payer decisions, suggests an analysis of six data sets and more than 13,000 patients.
“Study of routinely collected health care data is increasingly important for various stakeholders who are interested in better understanding particular patient populations, evaluating drug safety in the postmarketing setting, measuring health care use and clinical outcomes, performing comparative effectiveness research, and optimizing drug pricing models,” noted lead investigator Mark Stewart, PhD, Friends of Cancer Research, Washington, and coinvestigators. “However, before [real-world data] finds widespread use as an adjunct to – or in unique settings, an alternative for – [randomized clinical trials], the validity of readily extractable clinical outcomes measures – real-world endpoints – must be established.”
The investigators undertook a retrospective cohort study using administrative claims and electronic health records for patients with advanced NSCLC treated with inhibitors of programmed death 1 (PD-1) or programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) between January 2011 and October 2017 in real-world settings. They analyzed six data sets having 269 to 6,924 patients each (13,639 patients total).
Results reported in JCO Clinical Cancer Informatics showed that the real-world intermediate endpoints of time to treatment discontinuation and time to next treatment were moderately to highly correlated with real-world overall survival (Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient, 0.36 to 0.89, with most values 0.60 or higher).
In real-world settings, the 1-year rate of overall survival after starting immunotherapy ranged from 40% to 57%. Real-world data and trial data were similar with respect to median overall survival (8.6-13.5 months vs. 9.2-12.7 months).
The data sources used for the study have been extensively used for research and are curated on an ongoing basis to ensure the data are accurate and as complete as possible, Dr. Stewart and coinvestigators noted.
“These findings demonstrate that real-world endpoints are generally consistent with each other and with outcomes observed in randomized clinical trials, which substantiates the potential validity of real-world data to support regulatory and payer decision-making,” they maintained. “Differences observed likely reflect true differences between real-world and protocol-driven practices.
“Additional studies are needed to further support the use of [real-world evidence] and inform the development of regulatory guidance,” the investigators concluded. “Standardizing definitions for real-world endpoints and determining appropriate analytic methodologies for [real-world data] will be critical for broader adoption of real-world studies and will provide greater confidence in associated findings. As more refined and standardized approaches are developed that incorporate deep clinical and bioinformatics expertise, the greater the utility of [real-world data] will be for detecting even small, but important, differences in treatment effects.”
Dr. Stewart disclosed no conflicts of interest. The study was supported in part by the National Cancer Institute and the Patient Centered Outcomes Research Institute.
SOURCE: Stewart M et al. JCO Clin Cancer Inform. 2019 July 23. doi: 10.1200/CCI.18.00155.
FROM JCO CLINICAL CANCER INFORMATICS
FDA advisors recommend nintedanib for SSc interstitial lung disease
The Food and Drug Administration Arthritis Advisory Committee recommended approval of nintedanib for the treatment of interstitial lung disease in patients with systemic sclerosis by a 10-7 vote on July 25, 2019. If the FDA acts in accord with the panel’s recommendation, it would make nintedanib (Ofev) the first drug to receive marketing approval for this indication.
Nintedanib has had FDA approval for treating idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis since 2014, and the manufacturer, Boehringer Ingelheim, designed the current pivotal trial with 576 patients to broaden the indication to patients with a different but similar fibrotic lung disease, interstitial lung disease (ILD), that is a common and eventually lethal complication of systemic sclerosis. The results of the pivotal study, the SENSCIS (Safety and Efficacy of Nintedanib in Systemic Sclerosis) trial, recently appeared in print and showed that patients randomized to receive 150 mg of nintedanib orally twice daily had an average 41-mL cut in the rate of loss of forced vital capacity (FVC) during 52 weeks on treatment, compared with those randomized to placebo. This was a 44% relative reduction in rate of FVC loss that was statistically significant for the study’s primary endpoint (N Engl J Med. 2019 June 27;380[26]:2518-28).
Votes in favor of FDA approval for many on the panel seemed to stem from a combination of the fact that nintedanib met the pivotal trial’s primary endpoint; which had been developed in consultation with the FDA, as well as the absence of any new safety signals when compared with prior experience using the drug; the lack of any treatment specifically recognized as beneficial to systemic sclerosis patients who develop the terminal complication of ILD; and the challenge of running a second trial in an orphan disease with an estimated U.S. prevalence of no more than 100,000 patients. Several committee members who voted in favor of nintedanib’s approval also voiced concern that the case in favor of its benefit/risk balance was not open and shut.
“I have a fair amount of apprehension,” admitted the committee’s chair, Daniel H. Solomon, MD, a rheumatologist and professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston. “I support the needs of patients, but we don’t want to give them false hope. We need to be able to say who will benefit, and the single study [SENSCIS] results don’t tell us how to use the drug. I want to understand which patient subgroups benefit.” He suggested that the FDA mandate further data collection through postmarketing studies.
Comments from panel members who voted against recommending approval generally focused on what was generally agreed to be a very modest treatment effect with a 41-mL average difference in FVC decline that has marginal clinical meaningfulness. Although the SENSCIS results met the study’s primary endpoint it was neutral for all prespecified secondary endpoints, including a measure of quality of life, although many on the panel agreed that a good measure of quality of life in the target patient population is lacking. Some sensitivity analyses run by FDA staffers also failed to confirm the primary result. Fewer questions arose about safety, although some panelists expressed concern about gastrointestinal effects, especially diarrhea, that seemed to link with treatment, as well as a signal for an increased incidence of pneumonia among patients on nintedanib. The data also showed a possible signal of reduced efficacy among patients who also received treatment with the immunosuppressive agent mycophenolate mofetil, often used off label to treat systemic sclerosis patients with ILD. However, a statistician involved in the discussion warned against overinterpreting this or other subgroup analyses.
Dr. Solomon has received research support from AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Genentech, Janssen, and Pfizer.
The Food and Drug Administration Arthritis Advisory Committee recommended approval of nintedanib for the treatment of interstitial lung disease in patients with systemic sclerosis by a 10-7 vote on July 25, 2019. If the FDA acts in accord with the panel’s recommendation, it would make nintedanib (Ofev) the first drug to receive marketing approval for this indication.
Nintedanib has had FDA approval for treating idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis since 2014, and the manufacturer, Boehringer Ingelheim, designed the current pivotal trial with 576 patients to broaden the indication to patients with a different but similar fibrotic lung disease, interstitial lung disease (ILD), that is a common and eventually lethal complication of systemic sclerosis. The results of the pivotal study, the SENSCIS (Safety and Efficacy of Nintedanib in Systemic Sclerosis) trial, recently appeared in print and showed that patients randomized to receive 150 mg of nintedanib orally twice daily had an average 41-mL cut in the rate of loss of forced vital capacity (FVC) during 52 weeks on treatment, compared with those randomized to placebo. This was a 44% relative reduction in rate of FVC loss that was statistically significant for the study’s primary endpoint (N Engl J Med. 2019 June 27;380[26]:2518-28).
Votes in favor of FDA approval for many on the panel seemed to stem from a combination of the fact that nintedanib met the pivotal trial’s primary endpoint; which had been developed in consultation with the FDA, as well as the absence of any new safety signals when compared with prior experience using the drug; the lack of any treatment specifically recognized as beneficial to systemic sclerosis patients who develop the terminal complication of ILD; and the challenge of running a second trial in an orphan disease with an estimated U.S. prevalence of no more than 100,000 patients. Several committee members who voted in favor of nintedanib’s approval also voiced concern that the case in favor of its benefit/risk balance was not open and shut.
“I have a fair amount of apprehension,” admitted the committee’s chair, Daniel H. Solomon, MD, a rheumatologist and professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston. “I support the needs of patients, but we don’t want to give them false hope. We need to be able to say who will benefit, and the single study [SENSCIS] results don’t tell us how to use the drug. I want to understand which patient subgroups benefit.” He suggested that the FDA mandate further data collection through postmarketing studies.
Comments from panel members who voted against recommending approval generally focused on what was generally agreed to be a very modest treatment effect with a 41-mL average difference in FVC decline that has marginal clinical meaningfulness. Although the SENSCIS results met the study’s primary endpoint it was neutral for all prespecified secondary endpoints, including a measure of quality of life, although many on the panel agreed that a good measure of quality of life in the target patient population is lacking. Some sensitivity analyses run by FDA staffers also failed to confirm the primary result. Fewer questions arose about safety, although some panelists expressed concern about gastrointestinal effects, especially diarrhea, that seemed to link with treatment, as well as a signal for an increased incidence of pneumonia among patients on nintedanib. The data also showed a possible signal of reduced efficacy among patients who also received treatment with the immunosuppressive agent mycophenolate mofetil, often used off label to treat systemic sclerosis patients with ILD. However, a statistician involved in the discussion warned against overinterpreting this or other subgroup analyses.
Dr. Solomon has received research support from AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Genentech, Janssen, and Pfizer.
The Food and Drug Administration Arthritis Advisory Committee recommended approval of nintedanib for the treatment of interstitial lung disease in patients with systemic sclerosis by a 10-7 vote on July 25, 2019. If the FDA acts in accord with the panel’s recommendation, it would make nintedanib (Ofev) the first drug to receive marketing approval for this indication.
Nintedanib has had FDA approval for treating idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis since 2014, and the manufacturer, Boehringer Ingelheim, designed the current pivotal trial with 576 patients to broaden the indication to patients with a different but similar fibrotic lung disease, interstitial lung disease (ILD), that is a common and eventually lethal complication of systemic sclerosis. The results of the pivotal study, the SENSCIS (Safety and Efficacy of Nintedanib in Systemic Sclerosis) trial, recently appeared in print and showed that patients randomized to receive 150 mg of nintedanib orally twice daily had an average 41-mL cut in the rate of loss of forced vital capacity (FVC) during 52 weeks on treatment, compared with those randomized to placebo. This was a 44% relative reduction in rate of FVC loss that was statistically significant for the study’s primary endpoint (N Engl J Med. 2019 June 27;380[26]:2518-28).
Votes in favor of FDA approval for many on the panel seemed to stem from a combination of the fact that nintedanib met the pivotal trial’s primary endpoint; which had been developed in consultation with the FDA, as well as the absence of any new safety signals when compared with prior experience using the drug; the lack of any treatment specifically recognized as beneficial to systemic sclerosis patients who develop the terminal complication of ILD; and the challenge of running a second trial in an orphan disease with an estimated U.S. prevalence of no more than 100,000 patients. Several committee members who voted in favor of nintedanib’s approval also voiced concern that the case in favor of its benefit/risk balance was not open and shut.
“I have a fair amount of apprehension,” admitted the committee’s chair, Daniel H. Solomon, MD, a rheumatologist and professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston. “I support the needs of patients, but we don’t want to give them false hope. We need to be able to say who will benefit, and the single study [SENSCIS] results don’t tell us how to use the drug. I want to understand which patient subgroups benefit.” He suggested that the FDA mandate further data collection through postmarketing studies.
Comments from panel members who voted against recommending approval generally focused on what was generally agreed to be a very modest treatment effect with a 41-mL average difference in FVC decline that has marginal clinical meaningfulness. Although the SENSCIS results met the study’s primary endpoint it was neutral for all prespecified secondary endpoints, including a measure of quality of life, although many on the panel agreed that a good measure of quality of life in the target patient population is lacking. Some sensitivity analyses run by FDA staffers also failed to confirm the primary result. Fewer questions arose about safety, although some panelists expressed concern about gastrointestinal effects, especially diarrhea, that seemed to link with treatment, as well as a signal for an increased incidence of pneumonia among patients on nintedanib. The data also showed a possible signal of reduced efficacy among patients who also received treatment with the immunosuppressive agent mycophenolate mofetil, often used off label to treat systemic sclerosis patients with ILD. However, a statistician involved in the discussion warned against overinterpreting this or other subgroup analyses.
Dr. Solomon has received research support from AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Genentech, Janssen, and Pfizer.
Antiretroviral-eluting implant could provide HIV prophylaxis for a year or more
An implant that elutes an investigational antiretroviral agent provided drug release that should be sufficient for HIV prophylaxis for 12 months or more, according to results of a phase 1 clinical trial just presented here at the International AIDS Society Conference on HIV Science.
The islatravir-eluting arm implant was safe and generally well tolerated, with drug concentrations that remained above the target level needed for protection throughout the randomized, placebo-controlled study, said investigator Randolph P. Matthews, MD, PhD, senior principal scientist at Merck, Kenilworth, N.J.
“Based on this study, the islatravir-eluting implant appears to be a potentially important option for preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP) as an agent that could be effective with yearly dosing,” Dr. Matthews said in an IAS press conference.
This drug-eluting implant, inserted subdermally in the skin of the upper arm, could represent a “meaningful option” for many individuals at high risk of HIV infection, particularly those who have adherence challenges, said Dr. Matthews.
“Many at-risk individuals face adherence challenges with the existing daily oral PrEP therapy,” he added. “A high degree of adherence is required for it to be effective, and daily adherence is challenging for many, particularly for women.”
Islatravir, formerly known as MK-8591, is a nucleoside reverse transcriptase translocation inhibitor (NRTTI) being evaluated in clinical trials not only for PrEP, but also for treatment of HIV-1 infection in combination with other antiretrovirals.
In preclinical trials, islatravir demonstrated high potency, a high barrier to resistance, and a long half-life, according to Dr. Matthews.
The phase 1, single-site, double-blind study included a total of 16 healthy adult volunteers who received implants of islatravir at one of two doses (54 mg and 62 mg) or placebo for 12 weeks.
Both active doses of islatravir led to concentrations above the target level at 12 weeks, and based on data modeling, the higher-dose implant would still be above the target level for at least a year, Dr. Matthews said in the press conference.
The projected duration above the target ranged from 12 to 16 months for the 62-mg dose of islatravir, and from 8 to 10 months for the 54-mg dose, according to the reported data.
All drug-related adverse events were mild or moderate in severity, and none of the volunteers discontinued the study because of an adverse event, Dr. Matthews said.
Taken together, these data support the continued progression of the implant clinical development program, said Dr. Matthews, who is an employee of Merck, which sponsored the study.
SOURCE: Matthews RP et al. IAS 2019, Abstract TUAC0401LB.
An implant that elutes an investigational antiretroviral agent provided drug release that should be sufficient for HIV prophylaxis for 12 months or more, according to results of a phase 1 clinical trial just presented here at the International AIDS Society Conference on HIV Science.
The islatravir-eluting arm implant was safe and generally well tolerated, with drug concentrations that remained above the target level needed for protection throughout the randomized, placebo-controlled study, said investigator Randolph P. Matthews, MD, PhD, senior principal scientist at Merck, Kenilworth, N.J.
“Based on this study, the islatravir-eluting implant appears to be a potentially important option for preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP) as an agent that could be effective with yearly dosing,” Dr. Matthews said in an IAS press conference.
This drug-eluting implant, inserted subdermally in the skin of the upper arm, could represent a “meaningful option” for many individuals at high risk of HIV infection, particularly those who have adherence challenges, said Dr. Matthews.
“Many at-risk individuals face adherence challenges with the existing daily oral PrEP therapy,” he added. “A high degree of adherence is required for it to be effective, and daily adherence is challenging for many, particularly for women.”
Islatravir, formerly known as MK-8591, is a nucleoside reverse transcriptase translocation inhibitor (NRTTI) being evaluated in clinical trials not only for PrEP, but also for treatment of HIV-1 infection in combination with other antiretrovirals.
In preclinical trials, islatravir demonstrated high potency, a high barrier to resistance, and a long half-life, according to Dr. Matthews.
The phase 1, single-site, double-blind study included a total of 16 healthy adult volunteers who received implants of islatravir at one of two doses (54 mg and 62 mg) or placebo for 12 weeks.
Both active doses of islatravir led to concentrations above the target level at 12 weeks, and based on data modeling, the higher-dose implant would still be above the target level for at least a year, Dr. Matthews said in the press conference.
The projected duration above the target ranged from 12 to 16 months for the 62-mg dose of islatravir, and from 8 to 10 months for the 54-mg dose, according to the reported data.
All drug-related adverse events were mild or moderate in severity, and none of the volunteers discontinued the study because of an adverse event, Dr. Matthews said.
Taken together, these data support the continued progression of the implant clinical development program, said Dr. Matthews, who is an employee of Merck, which sponsored the study.
SOURCE: Matthews RP et al. IAS 2019, Abstract TUAC0401LB.
An implant that elutes an investigational antiretroviral agent provided drug release that should be sufficient for HIV prophylaxis for 12 months or more, according to results of a phase 1 clinical trial just presented here at the International AIDS Society Conference on HIV Science.
The islatravir-eluting arm implant was safe and generally well tolerated, with drug concentrations that remained above the target level needed for protection throughout the randomized, placebo-controlled study, said investigator Randolph P. Matthews, MD, PhD, senior principal scientist at Merck, Kenilworth, N.J.
“Based on this study, the islatravir-eluting implant appears to be a potentially important option for preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP) as an agent that could be effective with yearly dosing,” Dr. Matthews said in an IAS press conference.
This drug-eluting implant, inserted subdermally in the skin of the upper arm, could represent a “meaningful option” for many individuals at high risk of HIV infection, particularly those who have adherence challenges, said Dr. Matthews.
“Many at-risk individuals face adherence challenges with the existing daily oral PrEP therapy,” he added. “A high degree of adherence is required for it to be effective, and daily adherence is challenging for many, particularly for women.”
Islatravir, formerly known as MK-8591, is a nucleoside reverse transcriptase translocation inhibitor (NRTTI) being evaluated in clinical trials not only for PrEP, but also for treatment of HIV-1 infection in combination with other antiretrovirals.
In preclinical trials, islatravir demonstrated high potency, a high barrier to resistance, and a long half-life, according to Dr. Matthews.
The phase 1, single-site, double-blind study included a total of 16 healthy adult volunteers who received implants of islatravir at one of two doses (54 mg and 62 mg) or placebo for 12 weeks.
Both active doses of islatravir led to concentrations above the target level at 12 weeks, and based on data modeling, the higher-dose implant would still be above the target level for at least a year, Dr. Matthews said in the press conference.
The projected duration above the target ranged from 12 to 16 months for the 62-mg dose of islatravir, and from 8 to 10 months for the 54-mg dose, according to the reported data.
All drug-related adverse events were mild or moderate in severity, and none of the volunteers discontinued the study because of an adverse event, Dr. Matthews said.
Taken together, these data support the continued progression of the implant clinical development program, said Dr. Matthews, who is an employee of Merck, which sponsored the study.
SOURCE: Matthews RP et al. IAS 2019, Abstract TUAC0401LB.
FROM IAS 2019
FDA approves Baqsimi nasal powder for emergency hypoglycemia treatment
in patients aged 4 years and older.
Injectable glucagon has been approved in the United States for several decades.
The safety and efficacy of the Baqsimi powder was assessed in two studies with adults with diabetes and one with pediatric patients. In all three studies, a single dose of Baqsimi was compared with a single dose of glucagon injection, and Baqsimi adequately raised blood sugar levels in response to insulin-induced hypoglycemia.
The most common adverse events associated with Baqsimi include nausea, vomiting, headache, upper respiratory tract irritation, watery eyes, redness of eyes, and itchiness. The safety profile is similar to that of injectable glucagon, with the addition of nasal- and eye-related symptoms because of the method of delivery.
“There are many products on the market for those who need insulin, but until now, people suffering from a severe hypoglycemic episode had to be treated with a glucagon injection that first had to be mixed in a several-step process. This new way to administer glucagon may simplify the process, which can be critical during an episode, especially since the patient may have lost consciousness or may be having a seizure. In those situations, we want the process to treat the suffering person to be as simple as possible,” Janet Woodcock, MD, director of the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, said in the press release.
Find the full press release on the FDA website.
in patients aged 4 years and older.
Injectable glucagon has been approved in the United States for several decades.
The safety and efficacy of the Baqsimi powder was assessed in two studies with adults with diabetes and one with pediatric patients. In all three studies, a single dose of Baqsimi was compared with a single dose of glucagon injection, and Baqsimi adequately raised blood sugar levels in response to insulin-induced hypoglycemia.
The most common adverse events associated with Baqsimi include nausea, vomiting, headache, upper respiratory tract irritation, watery eyes, redness of eyes, and itchiness. The safety profile is similar to that of injectable glucagon, with the addition of nasal- and eye-related symptoms because of the method of delivery.
“There are many products on the market for those who need insulin, but until now, people suffering from a severe hypoglycemic episode had to be treated with a glucagon injection that first had to be mixed in a several-step process. This new way to administer glucagon may simplify the process, which can be critical during an episode, especially since the patient may have lost consciousness or may be having a seizure. In those situations, we want the process to treat the suffering person to be as simple as possible,” Janet Woodcock, MD, director of the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, said in the press release.
Find the full press release on the FDA website.
in patients aged 4 years and older.
Injectable glucagon has been approved in the United States for several decades.
The safety and efficacy of the Baqsimi powder was assessed in two studies with adults with diabetes and one with pediatric patients. In all three studies, a single dose of Baqsimi was compared with a single dose of glucagon injection, and Baqsimi adequately raised blood sugar levels in response to insulin-induced hypoglycemia.
The most common adverse events associated with Baqsimi include nausea, vomiting, headache, upper respiratory tract irritation, watery eyes, redness of eyes, and itchiness. The safety profile is similar to that of injectable glucagon, with the addition of nasal- and eye-related symptoms because of the method of delivery.
“There are many products on the market for those who need insulin, but until now, people suffering from a severe hypoglycemic episode had to be treated with a glucagon injection that first had to be mixed in a several-step process. This new way to administer glucagon may simplify the process, which can be critical during an episode, especially since the patient may have lost consciousness or may be having a seizure. In those situations, we want the process to treat the suffering person to be as simple as possible,” Janet Woodcock, MD, director of the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, said in the press release.
Find the full press release on the FDA website.
Increased cardiovascular risk seen early on with testosterone replacement therapy
Testosterone replacement therapy is associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events in older men, particularly during the first 2 years of use, a study in the American Journal of Medicine has found.
Simone Y. Loo of the Lady Davis Institute for Medical Research at the Jewish General Hospital in Montreal and colleagues looked at a cohort of 15,401 men aged 45 years or older with low testosterone levels, of whom 4,485 (29.1%) were prescribed testosterone replacement therapy on at least one occasion during a mean follow-up of 4.7 years. They saw that individuals who were currently using testosterone replacement therapy had a 21% increase in the risk of the composite outcome of ischemic stroke, transient ischemic attack, or myocardial infarction, compared with those who had not had hormone therapy.
In the first 6 months to 2 years after initiation of continuous treatment, the risk was even higher – at 35% – and was particularly high in individuals aged 45-59 years (at 44%).
However, the study also noted a significant 36% reduction in the risk of all-cause mortality in individuals currently using testosterone replacement therapy and a significant 28% higher risk of all-cause mortality in past users, compared with nonusers.
Concerns about the safety of testosterone replacement therapy had previously been kindled by the outcomes of the Testosterone in Older Men trial, which was stopped early because of the higher number of cardiovascular events in the treatment group. However, other randomized controlled trials have not seen that effect, the authors said.
They noted that the protective effect of current hormone replacement use on mortality was surprising, but suggested it could be the result of reverse causality, “in which physicians may discontinue TRT based on perceived deterioration of health or imminent death, because TRT is not a vital medication.”
“Moreover, TRT may be less frequently initiated among men with a higher baseline risk of mortality, particularly in the elderly, and those who received TRT may have been healthier overall, compared with their untreated counterparts,” the authors wrote.
Despite this, they suggested that larger observational studies were still needed to investigate the potential harms of testosterone replacement therapy. In the meantime, they advised that potential harms should be weighed against perceived benefits and caution be applied to prescribing.
The study was supported by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. No conflicts of interest were reported.
SOURCE: Loo S et al. Am J Med 2019 Apr 3. doi: 10.1016/j.amjmed.2019.03.022.
Testosterone replacement therapy is associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events in older men, particularly during the first 2 years of use, a study in the American Journal of Medicine has found.
Simone Y. Loo of the Lady Davis Institute for Medical Research at the Jewish General Hospital in Montreal and colleagues looked at a cohort of 15,401 men aged 45 years or older with low testosterone levels, of whom 4,485 (29.1%) were prescribed testosterone replacement therapy on at least one occasion during a mean follow-up of 4.7 years. They saw that individuals who were currently using testosterone replacement therapy had a 21% increase in the risk of the composite outcome of ischemic stroke, transient ischemic attack, or myocardial infarction, compared with those who had not had hormone therapy.
In the first 6 months to 2 years after initiation of continuous treatment, the risk was even higher – at 35% – and was particularly high in individuals aged 45-59 years (at 44%).
However, the study also noted a significant 36% reduction in the risk of all-cause mortality in individuals currently using testosterone replacement therapy and a significant 28% higher risk of all-cause mortality in past users, compared with nonusers.
Concerns about the safety of testosterone replacement therapy had previously been kindled by the outcomes of the Testosterone in Older Men trial, which was stopped early because of the higher number of cardiovascular events in the treatment group. However, other randomized controlled trials have not seen that effect, the authors said.
They noted that the protective effect of current hormone replacement use on mortality was surprising, but suggested it could be the result of reverse causality, “in which physicians may discontinue TRT based on perceived deterioration of health or imminent death, because TRT is not a vital medication.”
“Moreover, TRT may be less frequently initiated among men with a higher baseline risk of mortality, particularly in the elderly, and those who received TRT may have been healthier overall, compared with their untreated counterparts,” the authors wrote.
Despite this, they suggested that larger observational studies were still needed to investigate the potential harms of testosterone replacement therapy. In the meantime, they advised that potential harms should be weighed against perceived benefits and caution be applied to prescribing.
The study was supported by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. No conflicts of interest were reported.
SOURCE: Loo S et al. Am J Med 2019 Apr 3. doi: 10.1016/j.amjmed.2019.03.022.
Testosterone replacement therapy is associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events in older men, particularly during the first 2 years of use, a study in the American Journal of Medicine has found.
Simone Y. Loo of the Lady Davis Institute for Medical Research at the Jewish General Hospital in Montreal and colleagues looked at a cohort of 15,401 men aged 45 years or older with low testosterone levels, of whom 4,485 (29.1%) were prescribed testosterone replacement therapy on at least one occasion during a mean follow-up of 4.7 years. They saw that individuals who were currently using testosterone replacement therapy had a 21% increase in the risk of the composite outcome of ischemic stroke, transient ischemic attack, or myocardial infarction, compared with those who had not had hormone therapy.
In the first 6 months to 2 years after initiation of continuous treatment, the risk was even higher – at 35% – and was particularly high in individuals aged 45-59 years (at 44%).
However, the study also noted a significant 36% reduction in the risk of all-cause mortality in individuals currently using testosterone replacement therapy and a significant 28% higher risk of all-cause mortality in past users, compared with nonusers.
Concerns about the safety of testosterone replacement therapy had previously been kindled by the outcomes of the Testosterone in Older Men trial, which was stopped early because of the higher number of cardiovascular events in the treatment group. However, other randomized controlled trials have not seen that effect, the authors said.
They noted that the protective effect of current hormone replacement use on mortality was surprising, but suggested it could be the result of reverse causality, “in which physicians may discontinue TRT based on perceived deterioration of health or imminent death, because TRT is not a vital medication.”
“Moreover, TRT may be less frequently initiated among men with a higher baseline risk of mortality, particularly in the elderly, and those who received TRT may have been healthier overall, compared with their untreated counterparts,” the authors wrote.
Despite this, they suggested that larger observational studies were still needed to investigate the potential harms of testosterone replacement therapy. In the meantime, they advised that potential harms should be weighed against perceived benefits and caution be applied to prescribing.
The study was supported by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. No conflicts of interest were reported.
SOURCE: Loo S et al. Am J Med 2019 Apr 3. doi: 10.1016/j.amjmed.2019.03.022.
FROM THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF MEDICINE
POEM outperforms pneumatic dilation in randomized achalasia trial
Peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) had a success rate exceeding 90%, versus just about 50% for standard balloon dilation in what investigators say is, to their knowledge, the first-ever randomized trial to evaluate POEM as a first-line modality for this esophageal motility disorder.
Reflux esophagitis was the major downside of POEM, according to investigators, who reported the complication in 41% of patients at a 2-year follow-up, as compared to just 7% of patients undergoing the standard balloon dilation.
Nevertheless, there were no serious adverse events among 63 POEM-treated patients, while one patient out of 63 undergoing pneumatic dilation had a perforation that required endoscopic closure and hospitalization, according to senior study author Albert J. Bredenoord, MD, PhD, of Amsterdam University Medical Center.
“These findings support consideration of POEM as an initial treatment option for patients with achalasia,” Dr. Bredenoord and coinvestigators said in a report on the study appearing in JAMA.
While endoscopic pneumatic dilation is the usual treatment for achalasia, POEM has become more commonly used following case series showing high rates of efficacy, according to the authors.
The POEM procedure also offers advantages over laparoscopic Heller myotomy, which is invasive and associated with severe complications, including a transmural perforation rate of 4%-10%, they said in their report.
Their randomized trial included 133 adults with newly diagnosed achalasia enrolled at one of six hospitals in Germany, Hong Kong, Italy, Netherlands, and the United States.
Patients were randomly assigned to undergo 1-2 pneumatic dilations performed by an endoscopist who had performed at least 20 such procedures in the past, or to a POEM procedure likewise performed by an expert who had already done more than 20 such procedures.
At baseline, patients’ Eckardt symptom scores ranged from 6 to 9 on a scale with 0 indicating the lowest severity, to 12 indicating the highest. The median Eckardt scores were 8 in the POEM group and 7 in the pneumatic dilation group.
Treatment success, defined as an Eckardt score under 3 and no severe complications or retreatment at 2 years, was achieved by 58 of 63 patients (92%) in the POEM group, compared with 34 of 63 patients (54%) in the pneumatic dilation group (P less than .001), investigators reported.
Reflux esophagitis was observed in 22 of 54 POEM-treated patients (41%) who underwent endoscopy at a 2-year evaluation, compared with only 2 of 29 patients (7%) who had received the balloon dilation procedure (P = .002). In line with that finding, both reflux symptoms and daily proton pump inhibitor use were more common in the POEM group, investigators said.
However, there were no differences between POEM and pneumatic dilation groups in quality of life and other secondary endpoints, including median barium column height and median integrated relaxation pressure, they reported.
Two serious adverse events related to treatment were seen, according to investigators, including one perforation requiring an endoscopic closure plus antibiotics and hospitalization for 13 days, and one hospital admission for a night because of severe chest pain with no signs of perforation.
“Although POEM is more invasive and requires more technical endoscopic skills, the risk of severe complications was not higher than with pneumatic dilation, especially when performed by experienced endoscopists,” Dr. Bredenoord and coauthors said in their report.
However, these results do not imply that the traditional dilation procedure should be abandoned, they said, as POEM is more invasive, more involved, and more likely to result in reflux esophagitis.
“It seems reasonable to offer both options to treatment-naive patients with achalasia and counsel them to select treatment based on the patient’s characteristics, personal preference, comorbidity, and disease subtype,” they said.
Funding for the study came from Fonds NutsOhra and the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Dr. Bredenoord reported disclosures related to Norgine, Laborie, Medtronic, Diversatek, Nutricia, Regeneron, Celgene, Bayer, and Dr. Falk Pharma.
SOURCE: Ponds FA et al. JAMA. 2019;322(2):134-44. doi: 10.1001/jama.2019.8859.
Peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) had a success rate exceeding 90%, versus just about 50% for standard balloon dilation in what investigators say is, to their knowledge, the first-ever randomized trial to evaluate POEM as a first-line modality for this esophageal motility disorder.
Reflux esophagitis was the major downside of POEM, according to investigators, who reported the complication in 41% of patients at a 2-year follow-up, as compared to just 7% of patients undergoing the standard balloon dilation.
Nevertheless, there were no serious adverse events among 63 POEM-treated patients, while one patient out of 63 undergoing pneumatic dilation had a perforation that required endoscopic closure and hospitalization, according to senior study author Albert J. Bredenoord, MD, PhD, of Amsterdam University Medical Center.
“These findings support consideration of POEM as an initial treatment option for patients with achalasia,” Dr. Bredenoord and coinvestigators said in a report on the study appearing in JAMA.
While endoscopic pneumatic dilation is the usual treatment for achalasia, POEM has become more commonly used following case series showing high rates of efficacy, according to the authors.
The POEM procedure also offers advantages over laparoscopic Heller myotomy, which is invasive and associated with severe complications, including a transmural perforation rate of 4%-10%, they said in their report.
Their randomized trial included 133 adults with newly diagnosed achalasia enrolled at one of six hospitals in Germany, Hong Kong, Italy, Netherlands, and the United States.
Patients were randomly assigned to undergo 1-2 pneumatic dilations performed by an endoscopist who had performed at least 20 such procedures in the past, or to a POEM procedure likewise performed by an expert who had already done more than 20 such procedures.
At baseline, patients’ Eckardt symptom scores ranged from 6 to 9 on a scale with 0 indicating the lowest severity, to 12 indicating the highest. The median Eckardt scores were 8 in the POEM group and 7 in the pneumatic dilation group.
Treatment success, defined as an Eckardt score under 3 and no severe complications or retreatment at 2 years, was achieved by 58 of 63 patients (92%) in the POEM group, compared with 34 of 63 patients (54%) in the pneumatic dilation group (P less than .001), investigators reported.
Reflux esophagitis was observed in 22 of 54 POEM-treated patients (41%) who underwent endoscopy at a 2-year evaluation, compared with only 2 of 29 patients (7%) who had received the balloon dilation procedure (P = .002). In line with that finding, both reflux symptoms and daily proton pump inhibitor use were more common in the POEM group, investigators said.
However, there were no differences between POEM and pneumatic dilation groups in quality of life and other secondary endpoints, including median barium column height and median integrated relaxation pressure, they reported.
Two serious adverse events related to treatment were seen, according to investigators, including one perforation requiring an endoscopic closure plus antibiotics and hospitalization for 13 days, and one hospital admission for a night because of severe chest pain with no signs of perforation.
“Although POEM is more invasive and requires more technical endoscopic skills, the risk of severe complications was not higher than with pneumatic dilation, especially when performed by experienced endoscopists,” Dr. Bredenoord and coauthors said in their report.
However, these results do not imply that the traditional dilation procedure should be abandoned, they said, as POEM is more invasive, more involved, and more likely to result in reflux esophagitis.
“It seems reasonable to offer both options to treatment-naive patients with achalasia and counsel them to select treatment based on the patient’s characteristics, personal preference, comorbidity, and disease subtype,” they said.
Funding for the study came from Fonds NutsOhra and the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Dr. Bredenoord reported disclosures related to Norgine, Laborie, Medtronic, Diversatek, Nutricia, Regeneron, Celgene, Bayer, and Dr. Falk Pharma.
SOURCE: Ponds FA et al. JAMA. 2019;322(2):134-44. doi: 10.1001/jama.2019.8859.
Peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) had a success rate exceeding 90%, versus just about 50% for standard balloon dilation in what investigators say is, to their knowledge, the first-ever randomized trial to evaluate POEM as a first-line modality for this esophageal motility disorder.
Reflux esophagitis was the major downside of POEM, according to investigators, who reported the complication in 41% of patients at a 2-year follow-up, as compared to just 7% of patients undergoing the standard balloon dilation.
Nevertheless, there were no serious adverse events among 63 POEM-treated patients, while one patient out of 63 undergoing pneumatic dilation had a perforation that required endoscopic closure and hospitalization, according to senior study author Albert J. Bredenoord, MD, PhD, of Amsterdam University Medical Center.
“These findings support consideration of POEM as an initial treatment option for patients with achalasia,” Dr. Bredenoord and coinvestigators said in a report on the study appearing in JAMA.
While endoscopic pneumatic dilation is the usual treatment for achalasia, POEM has become more commonly used following case series showing high rates of efficacy, according to the authors.
The POEM procedure also offers advantages over laparoscopic Heller myotomy, which is invasive and associated with severe complications, including a transmural perforation rate of 4%-10%, they said in their report.
Their randomized trial included 133 adults with newly diagnosed achalasia enrolled at one of six hospitals in Germany, Hong Kong, Italy, Netherlands, and the United States.
Patients were randomly assigned to undergo 1-2 pneumatic dilations performed by an endoscopist who had performed at least 20 such procedures in the past, or to a POEM procedure likewise performed by an expert who had already done more than 20 such procedures.
At baseline, patients’ Eckardt symptom scores ranged from 6 to 9 on a scale with 0 indicating the lowest severity, to 12 indicating the highest. The median Eckardt scores were 8 in the POEM group and 7 in the pneumatic dilation group.
Treatment success, defined as an Eckardt score under 3 and no severe complications or retreatment at 2 years, was achieved by 58 of 63 patients (92%) in the POEM group, compared with 34 of 63 patients (54%) in the pneumatic dilation group (P less than .001), investigators reported.
Reflux esophagitis was observed in 22 of 54 POEM-treated patients (41%) who underwent endoscopy at a 2-year evaluation, compared with only 2 of 29 patients (7%) who had received the balloon dilation procedure (P = .002). In line with that finding, both reflux symptoms and daily proton pump inhibitor use were more common in the POEM group, investigators said.
However, there were no differences between POEM and pneumatic dilation groups in quality of life and other secondary endpoints, including median barium column height and median integrated relaxation pressure, they reported.
Two serious adverse events related to treatment were seen, according to investigators, including one perforation requiring an endoscopic closure plus antibiotics and hospitalization for 13 days, and one hospital admission for a night because of severe chest pain with no signs of perforation.
“Although POEM is more invasive and requires more technical endoscopic skills, the risk of severe complications was not higher than with pneumatic dilation, especially when performed by experienced endoscopists,” Dr. Bredenoord and coauthors said in their report.
However, these results do not imply that the traditional dilation procedure should be abandoned, they said, as POEM is more invasive, more involved, and more likely to result in reflux esophagitis.
“It seems reasonable to offer both options to treatment-naive patients with achalasia and counsel them to select treatment based on the patient’s characteristics, personal preference, comorbidity, and disease subtype,” they said.
Funding for the study came from Fonds NutsOhra and the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Dr. Bredenoord reported disclosures related to Norgine, Laborie, Medtronic, Diversatek, Nutricia, Regeneron, Celgene, Bayer, and Dr. Falk Pharma.
SOURCE: Ponds FA et al. JAMA. 2019;322(2):134-44. doi: 10.1001/jama.2019.8859.
FROM JAMA