User login
FDA approves new Merkel cell carcinoma treatment
the agency announced.
This marks the first regulatory approval for the PD-1 inhibitor. The FDA granted accelerated approval for the drug on the basis of tumor response rate and duration of response from the POD1UM-201 trial. Drugmaker Incyte said that “continued approval of Zynyz for this indication may be contingent upon verification and description of clinical benefit in confirmatory trials.”
MCC is a rare and aggressive skin cancer with a high rate of metastatic disease and an estimated 5-year overall survival of just 14% among those who present with metastatic disease. Incidence is rapidly increasing in the United States, particularly among adults older than 65 years, Incyte noted.
“More than a third of patients with MCC present with regional or distant metastases, which are associated with high rates of mortality,” principal author Shailender Bhatia, MD, of the University of Washington and Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, both in Seattle, said in a news release. “The approval of Zynyz offers health care providers another first-line treatment option against MCC that can result in durable responses in patients with metastatic disease.”
POD1UM-201 was an open-label, single-arm, phase 2 study that evaluated the agent in 65 systemic treatment–naive adults with metastatic or recurrent locally advanced MCC.
Overall, 52% of patients had an objective response rate. A complete response was observed in 12 patients (18%), and a partial response was observed in 22 patients (34%).
Duration of response ranged from 1.1 to 24.9 months; 76% of responders experienced responses of 6 months or longer, and 62% experienced responses of 12 months or longer.
Study participants received a 500-mg dose of retifanlimab every 4 weeks for up to 24 weeks or until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Serious adverse events occurred in 22% of patients and most often included fatigue, arrhythmia, and pneumonitis; 11% of patients discontinued treatment because of serious adverse events.
Retifanlimab may cause a severe or life-threatening immune response during treatment or after discontinuation. Patients should be advised to immediately report any new or worsening signs or symptoms to their health care provider. Side effects can also be reported to the FDA.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
the agency announced.
This marks the first regulatory approval for the PD-1 inhibitor. The FDA granted accelerated approval for the drug on the basis of tumor response rate and duration of response from the POD1UM-201 trial. Drugmaker Incyte said that “continued approval of Zynyz for this indication may be contingent upon verification and description of clinical benefit in confirmatory trials.”
MCC is a rare and aggressive skin cancer with a high rate of metastatic disease and an estimated 5-year overall survival of just 14% among those who present with metastatic disease. Incidence is rapidly increasing in the United States, particularly among adults older than 65 years, Incyte noted.
“More than a third of patients with MCC present with regional or distant metastases, which are associated with high rates of mortality,” principal author Shailender Bhatia, MD, of the University of Washington and Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, both in Seattle, said in a news release. “The approval of Zynyz offers health care providers another first-line treatment option against MCC that can result in durable responses in patients with metastatic disease.”
POD1UM-201 was an open-label, single-arm, phase 2 study that evaluated the agent in 65 systemic treatment–naive adults with metastatic or recurrent locally advanced MCC.
Overall, 52% of patients had an objective response rate. A complete response was observed in 12 patients (18%), and a partial response was observed in 22 patients (34%).
Duration of response ranged from 1.1 to 24.9 months; 76% of responders experienced responses of 6 months or longer, and 62% experienced responses of 12 months or longer.
Study participants received a 500-mg dose of retifanlimab every 4 weeks for up to 24 weeks or until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Serious adverse events occurred in 22% of patients and most often included fatigue, arrhythmia, and pneumonitis; 11% of patients discontinued treatment because of serious adverse events.
Retifanlimab may cause a severe or life-threatening immune response during treatment or after discontinuation. Patients should be advised to immediately report any new or worsening signs or symptoms to their health care provider. Side effects can also be reported to the FDA.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
the agency announced.
This marks the first regulatory approval for the PD-1 inhibitor. The FDA granted accelerated approval for the drug on the basis of tumor response rate and duration of response from the POD1UM-201 trial. Drugmaker Incyte said that “continued approval of Zynyz for this indication may be contingent upon verification and description of clinical benefit in confirmatory trials.”
MCC is a rare and aggressive skin cancer with a high rate of metastatic disease and an estimated 5-year overall survival of just 14% among those who present with metastatic disease. Incidence is rapidly increasing in the United States, particularly among adults older than 65 years, Incyte noted.
“More than a third of patients with MCC present with regional or distant metastases, which are associated with high rates of mortality,” principal author Shailender Bhatia, MD, of the University of Washington and Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, both in Seattle, said in a news release. “The approval of Zynyz offers health care providers another first-line treatment option against MCC that can result in durable responses in patients with metastatic disease.”
POD1UM-201 was an open-label, single-arm, phase 2 study that evaluated the agent in 65 systemic treatment–naive adults with metastatic or recurrent locally advanced MCC.
Overall, 52% of patients had an objective response rate. A complete response was observed in 12 patients (18%), and a partial response was observed in 22 patients (34%).
Duration of response ranged from 1.1 to 24.9 months; 76% of responders experienced responses of 6 months or longer, and 62% experienced responses of 12 months or longer.
Study participants received a 500-mg dose of retifanlimab every 4 weeks for up to 24 weeks or until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Serious adverse events occurred in 22% of patients and most often included fatigue, arrhythmia, and pneumonitis; 11% of patients discontinued treatment because of serious adverse events.
Retifanlimab may cause a severe or life-threatening immune response during treatment or after discontinuation. Patients should be advised to immediately report any new or worsening signs or symptoms to their health care provider. Side effects can also be reported to the FDA.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Tyrosine kinase inhibitors – a new weapon against respiratory viruses?
Five different nonreceptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors were effective against viral replication of pandemic viruses and seasonal influenza viruses in an ex vivo lung model.
Influenza viruses remain a high cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide as viral mutations outwit vaccine efficacy, Robert Meineke, PhD, of the University of Veterinary Medicine in Hannover, Germany, and colleagues wrote.
“As with previous influenza pandemics and the current SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, effective vaccines are not readily available at early stages of a pandemic,” they noted. To help manage the limitations of timing and effectiveness of current vaccines, the researchers proposed repurposing nonreceptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors (NRTKIs) to block seasonal flu and COVID-19 viral replication.
In a study published in iScience, the researchers identified six NRTKIs currently approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration that showed in vitro inhibition of both pandemic viruses (H1N1) and seasonal influenza viruses (H3N2). These included defactinib, acalabrutinib, saracatinib, and bosutinib, all of which reduced hPCLS infectivity by approximately 50%. In addition, ibrutinib and bosutinib had the largest impact on viral titers. The antiviral effects of NRTKIs appeared to be independent of multiplicity of infection.
The researchers then tested the NRIKIs on an ex vivo model of human precision-cut lung slices to validate the effects of NRTKIs as antivirals against influenza A viruses (IAVs).
In this model, the highest peak titers were achieved at 48 hpi following infection with virus strains NL09 and NL11. The hPCLS models also showed consistent tolerability to 1x concentrations. “Our cytotoxicity cut-off was 20% of the positive control treatment; none of the NRTKIs surpassed this cutoff at [1x] max,” the researchers wrote.
Five of the six identified NRTKIs were validated in the ex vivo setting. All five reduced viral titers by at least 10-fold to more than 1,000-fold. Of these, ibrutinib, bosutinib, and bosutinib showed a significant effect at all concentrations, while treatments with acalabrutinib and defactinib were significant at 24 hpi and 48 hpi. The NRTKs also showed a high genetic barrier against emerging resistant virus mutations.
The study demonstrates the ability of NRTKIs to target kinases required for replication of IAV, the researchers wrote, and that NRTKIs “represent promising drugs for the development of the next generation of antivirals.”
More research is needed to determine the therapeutic window given that NRTKIs are targeting host factors versus virus-targeted antivirals, but the advantages of NRTKIs include localized delivery that can limit possible cytotoxic effects, and their safety and bioavailability are well established, they said.
The findings were limited by several factors including the use of lung tissue mainly from older donors with lung cancer, the researchers noted. However, this population could be considered at increased risk for IAVs and therefore the data are more clinically applicable.
In addition, “because many viruses utilize the same (or related) host kinases to facilitate replication and transmission, our studies have broader implications for the potential use of these SMKIs to treat infections by other viruses,” they concluded.
The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.
Five different nonreceptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors were effective against viral replication of pandemic viruses and seasonal influenza viruses in an ex vivo lung model.
Influenza viruses remain a high cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide as viral mutations outwit vaccine efficacy, Robert Meineke, PhD, of the University of Veterinary Medicine in Hannover, Germany, and colleagues wrote.
“As with previous influenza pandemics and the current SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, effective vaccines are not readily available at early stages of a pandemic,” they noted. To help manage the limitations of timing and effectiveness of current vaccines, the researchers proposed repurposing nonreceptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors (NRTKIs) to block seasonal flu and COVID-19 viral replication.
In a study published in iScience, the researchers identified six NRTKIs currently approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration that showed in vitro inhibition of both pandemic viruses (H1N1) and seasonal influenza viruses (H3N2). These included defactinib, acalabrutinib, saracatinib, and bosutinib, all of which reduced hPCLS infectivity by approximately 50%. In addition, ibrutinib and bosutinib had the largest impact on viral titers. The antiviral effects of NRTKIs appeared to be independent of multiplicity of infection.
The researchers then tested the NRIKIs on an ex vivo model of human precision-cut lung slices to validate the effects of NRTKIs as antivirals against influenza A viruses (IAVs).
In this model, the highest peak titers were achieved at 48 hpi following infection with virus strains NL09 and NL11. The hPCLS models also showed consistent tolerability to 1x concentrations. “Our cytotoxicity cut-off was 20% of the positive control treatment; none of the NRTKIs surpassed this cutoff at [1x] max,” the researchers wrote.
Five of the six identified NRTKIs were validated in the ex vivo setting. All five reduced viral titers by at least 10-fold to more than 1,000-fold. Of these, ibrutinib, bosutinib, and bosutinib showed a significant effect at all concentrations, while treatments with acalabrutinib and defactinib were significant at 24 hpi and 48 hpi. The NRTKs also showed a high genetic barrier against emerging resistant virus mutations.
The study demonstrates the ability of NRTKIs to target kinases required for replication of IAV, the researchers wrote, and that NRTKIs “represent promising drugs for the development of the next generation of antivirals.”
More research is needed to determine the therapeutic window given that NRTKIs are targeting host factors versus virus-targeted antivirals, but the advantages of NRTKIs include localized delivery that can limit possible cytotoxic effects, and their safety and bioavailability are well established, they said.
The findings were limited by several factors including the use of lung tissue mainly from older donors with lung cancer, the researchers noted. However, this population could be considered at increased risk for IAVs and therefore the data are more clinically applicable.
In addition, “because many viruses utilize the same (or related) host kinases to facilitate replication and transmission, our studies have broader implications for the potential use of these SMKIs to treat infections by other viruses,” they concluded.
The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.
Five different nonreceptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors were effective against viral replication of pandemic viruses and seasonal influenza viruses in an ex vivo lung model.
Influenza viruses remain a high cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide as viral mutations outwit vaccine efficacy, Robert Meineke, PhD, of the University of Veterinary Medicine in Hannover, Germany, and colleagues wrote.
“As with previous influenza pandemics and the current SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, effective vaccines are not readily available at early stages of a pandemic,” they noted. To help manage the limitations of timing and effectiveness of current vaccines, the researchers proposed repurposing nonreceptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors (NRTKIs) to block seasonal flu and COVID-19 viral replication.
In a study published in iScience, the researchers identified six NRTKIs currently approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration that showed in vitro inhibition of both pandemic viruses (H1N1) and seasonal influenza viruses (H3N2). These included defactinib, acalabrutinib, saracatinib, and bosutinib, all of which reduced hPCLS infectivity by approximately 50%. In addition, ibrutinib and bosutinib had the largest impact on viral titers. The antiviral effects of NRTKIs appeared to be independent of multiplicity of infection.
The researchers then tested the NRIKIs on an ex vivo model of human precision-cut lung slices to validate the effects of NRTKIs as antivirals against influenza A viruses (IAVs).
In this model, the highest peak titers were achieved at 48 hpi following infection with virus strains NL09 and NL11. The hPCLS models also showed consistent tolerability to 1x concentrations. “Our cytotoxicity cut-off was 20% of the positive control treatment; none of the NRTKIs surpassed this cutoff at [1x] max,” the researchers wrote.
Five of the six identified NRTKIs were validated in the ex vivo setting. All five reduced viral titers by at least 10-fold to more than 1,000-fold. Of these, ibrutinib, bosutinib, and bosutinib showed a significant effect at all concentrations, while treatments with acalabrutinib and defactinib were significant at 24 hpi and 48 hpi. The NRTKs also showed a high genetic barrier against emerging resistant virus mutations.
The study demonstrates the ability of NRTKIs to target kinases required for replication of IAV, the researchers wrote, and that NRTKIs “represent promising drugs for the development of the next generation of antivirals.”
More research is needed to determine the therapeutic window given that NRTKIs are targeting host factors versus virus-targeted antivirals, but the advantages of NRTKIs include localized delivery that can limit possible cytotoxic effects, and their safety and bioavailability are well established, they said.
The findings were limited by several factors including the use of lung tissue mainly from older donors with lung cancer, the researchers noted. However, this population could be considered at increased risk for IAVs and therefore the data are more clinically applicable.
In addition, “because many viruses utilize the same (or related) host kinases to facilitate replication and transmission, our studies have broader implications for the potential use of these SMKIs to treat infections by other viruses,” they concluded.
The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.
FROM ISCIENCE
FDA expands evinacumab approval to younger kids with HoFH
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has expanded the indicated age range for evinacumab-dgnb (Evkeeza, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals), which was approved 2 years ago as an adjunct to other lipid-lowering therapies for homozygous familial hypercholesterolemia (HoFH) in patients aged 12 and older.
The antibody-based agent’s indication now also covers patients aged 5-11 years with the rare genetic disorder, Regeneron announced. It blocks angiopoietin-like 3 (ANGPTL3), inhibiting lipoprotein lipase and endothelial lipase, thereby cutting LDL-cholesterol levels by mechanisms not directly involving the LDL receptor.
The expanded indication is based on a study that saw a 48% drop in LDL-cholesterol levels over 24 weeks, the primary endpoint, across 20 HoFH patients aged 5-11 years who received evinacumab-dgnb on top of maximally tolerated standard lipid-modifying therapy, the company reports.
Levels of apolipoprotein B, non-HDL cholesterol, and total cholesterol also fell significantly in the trial, which was completed in January.
The drug’s efficacy and safety resembled those of a previously reported larger study of patients with HoFH aged 12 years and older (mean age about 40 years) that led to its initial approval.
“The safety and effectiveness of Evkeeza have not been established in patients with other causes of hypercholesterolemia, including those with heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia,” the company states. Nor is it known whether the drug affects clinical outcomes.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has expanded the indicated age range for evinacumab-dgnb (Evkeeza, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals), which was approved 2 years ago as an adjunct to other lipid-lowering therapies for homozygous familial hypercholesterolemia (HoFH) in patients aged 12 and older.
The antibody-based agent’s indication now also covers patients aged 5-11 years with the rare genetic disorder, Regeneron announced. It blocks angiopoietin-like 3 (ANGPTL3), inhibiting lipoprotein lipase and endothelial lipase, thereby cutting LDL-cholesterol levels by mechanisms not directly involving the LDL receptor.
The expanded indication is based on a study that saw a 48% drop in LDL-cholesterol levels over 24 weeks, the primary endpoint, across 20 HoFH patients aged 5-11 years who received evinacumab-dgnb on top of maximally tolerated standard lipid-modifying therapy, the company reports.
Levels of apolipoprotein B, non-HDL cholesterol, and total cholesterol also fell significantly in the trial, which was completed in January.
The drug’s efficacy and safety resembled those of a previously reported larger study of patients with HoFH aged 12 years and older (mean age about 40 years) that led to its initial approval.
“The safety and effectiveness of Evkeeza have not been established in patients with other causes of hypercholesterolemia, including those with heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia,” the company states. Nor is it known whether the drug affects clinical outcomes.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has expanded the indicated age range for evinacumab-dgnb (Evkeeza, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals), which was approved 2 years ago as an adjunct to other lipid-lowering therapies for homozygous familial hypercholesterolemia (HoFH) in patients aged 12 and older.
The antibody-based agent’s indication now also covers patients aged 5-11 years with the rare genetic disorder, Regeneron announced. It blocks angiopoietin-like 3 (ANGPTL3), inhibiting lipoprotein lipase and endothelial lipase, thereby cutting LDL-cholesterol levels by mechanisms not directly involving the LDL receptor.
The expanded indication is based on a study that saw a 48% drop in LDL-cholesterol levels over 24 weeks, the primary endpoint, across 20 HoFH patients aged 5-11 years who received evinacumab-dgnb on top of maximally tolerated standard lipid-modifying therapy, the company reports.
Levels of apolipoprotein B, non-HDL cholesterol, and total cholesterol also fell significantly in the trial, which was completed in January.
The drug’s efficacy and safety resembled those of a previously reported larger study of patients with HoFH aged 12 years and older (mean age about 40 years) that led to its initial approval.
“The safety and effectiveness of Evkeeza have not been established in patients with other causes of hypercholesterolemia, including those with heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia,” the company states. Nor is it known whether the drug affects clinical outcomes.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
LAA closure device shown safe in groups omitted in trials
WASHINGTON – Left atrial appendage closure can be performed safely and effectively in older patients, those with end-stage renal disease, and likely others not included in the pivotal clinical trials, according to a series of new studies, including a late-breaker, presented on the both older and newer Watchman devices at the Cardiovascular Research Technologies conference.
In the case of the late-breaking clinical trial report, which included more than 60,000 patients, the goal was to look at the safety of the Watchman FLX, which is the newest of the devices in real-world practice, according to Samir R. Kapadia, MD, chairman of the department of cardiovascular medicine at the Cleveland Clinic.
In the SURPASS registry, the number of patients discharged on the Watchman FLX climbed from zero in August 2020, when data accrual began, to 66,894 by March 2022. For the current analysis, 45-day follow-up was available for 61,963 patients and 1-year follow-up was available for 18,233.
Based on this number of patients treated by more than 2,300 clinicians at more than 740 sites, the SURPASS registry establishes that Watchman FLX “can be accomplished safely with clinical outcomes similar to pivotal trials at 45 days and 1 year,” Dr. Kapadia reported.
No surprises found in real-world outcome
At 7 days or hospital discharge (whichever came last), the rate of all-cause death was 0.18%, the rate of ischemic stroke was 0.13%, and there were no systemic emboli. By 45 days, the rate of all-cause death (0.84%) and stroke of any kind (0.32%) remained less than 1% and there were still no systemic emboli. Major bleeding events, of which about one-third occurred during hospitalization, had reached 3.34% by day 45.
By 1 year, all-cause mortality had risen to 8.3%, the stroke rate was 1.6%, and major bleeding reached 6.7%. The rate of systemic emboli remained very low (0.1%). The rates of death and stroke rose at a slow but steady rate throughout the 1-year follow-up. In contrast, major bleeding events rose steeply in the first 90 days and were followed by a much slower accrual subsequently.
At 1 year, 84.4% of patients had a complete seal. Leaks ≤ 3 mm were observed in 12.1%. The remaining leaks were larger, but just 0.7% had a leak > 5 mm.
Relative to the first-generation Watchman, the Watchman FLX has numerous design changes, including a shorter profile, more struts, and a reduced metal exposure. Most of these changes were performed to make the device easier to deploy.
When the SURPASS data are compared to the pivotal trials with Watchman FLX or to the Ewolution and National Cardiovascular Data (NCD) registries, which were created to monitor efficacy and safety with the earlier generation Watchman, the outcomes are similar or, in many cases, numerically favorable for such outcomes as bleeding and rates of stroke.
In addition to providing reassurance for the real-world safety of Watchman FLX, Dr. Kapadia said that these data establish reasonable benchmarks for centers tracking in-hospital and 1-year outcomes.
Dr. Kapadia also reported that outcomes overall in SURPASS were similar in women and men with the exception of major bleeding, a finding common to other interventional studies.
The late-breaker panelists generally agreed that SURPASS provides a robust set of data by which to be reassured, but David J. Cohen, MD, director of Clinical and Outcomes Research at the Cardiovascular Research Foundation in New York, said that he thinks the rate of bleeding is unnecessarily high.
“You really need to figure out a way to get the rate of bleeding at 45 days down,” Dr. Cohen said. He called for studies of anticoagulation in the post-procedural period that offer a better benefit-to-risk ratio.
Elderly patients benefit equally from Watchman
Yet, Watchman devices are generally regarded as a success story, and this has led investigators to evaluate safety in patients not well represented or explicitly excluded from clinical trials, such as the elderly and those with end-stage renal disease (ESRD). New data derived from experience in both of these groups were presented at the conference, which was sponsored by MedStar Heart & Vascular Institute.
To tease out the relative safety of Watchman in octogenarians, Samian Sulaiman, MD, a cardiology fellow at West Virginia University Heart and Vascular Institute, Morgantown, performed a competing risk analysis to study the relative benefit of Watchman devices after controlling for the greater overall risk of complications in the elderly.
In raw data comparisons of those 80 years of age or older to those younger in published trials, the not-surprising result is that overall rates of death and ischemic events are far higher in the elderly, according to Dr. Sulaiman, but it’s an “unfair comparison,” he said.
“It is easy to mistakenly conclude that left atrial appendage closure is associated with worse outcomes, but older patients have far higher rates of these events independent of other factors,” Dr. Sulaiman noted.
In fact, in his comparison of 472 older patients to 1,404 younger patients, the seal rates at 45 days, 6 months, and 12 months are almost identical. Moreover, after the extensive adjustments performed for competing risk analysis, the rates of death, stroke, and bleeding were also almost identical for those 80 years or older whether or not they received a Watchman.
Although he acknowledged the risk for residual confounding, Dr. Sulaiman concluded that elderly patients derive about the same benefits as younger patients from the Watchman. He concluded age alone should not be a factor in selecting candidates for this device.
ESRD is not Watchman contraindication
A similar point was made about ESRD based on analysis of 237 patients who received either an earlier generation Watchman or the Watchman FLX. Initiated in Spain, the study was amended to collect data from centers elsewhere in Europe, the United States, and Australia.
Successful implantation was achieved in 99.2% of the patients, reported Armando Perez de Prado, MD, PhD, head of interventional cardiology at the University of Leon, Spain.
After a median follow-up of 480 days, stroke or transient ischemic attacks were observed in 3.1%, leaks > 5 mm were observed in 1.4%, and systemic emboli were observed in 0.9%. Major bleeding (BARC > 2) occurred in 13.3%.
Although the all-cause mortality over the period of follow-up was high (37.4%), most of the deaths (61.2%) were of noncardiovascular origin, according to Dr. Sulaiman. He said mortality and adverse events linked to the Watchman appeared to be roughly comparable to those seen in patients with ESRD.
“The Watchman device for patients on hemodialysis with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation is an effective and safe intervention to prevent embolic events,” he said. However, he also cautioned these the ESRD and the accompanying comorbidities place these patients at high risk of a limited life expectancy.
“Given the high mortality rate of this population, proper selection of candidates is paramount to ensure the optimal clinical benefit,” he cautioned.
Dr. Samir reported no potential conflicts of interest but stated that this study was funded by Boston Scientific. Dr. Cohen reported financial ties with Abbott Vascular, Boston Scientific, Corvia Medical, Edwards Lifesciences, Impulse Dynamics, MyoKardia, Phillips, Svelte, V-Wave, and Zoll. Dr. Sulaiman reported no potential conflicts of interest. Dr. Perez de Prado reported no potential conflicts of interest but stated that this study was funded by Boston Scientific.
WASHINGTON – Left atrial appendage closure can be performed safely and effectively in older patients, those with end-stage renal disease, and likely others not included in the pivotal clinical trials, according to a series of new studies, including a late-breaker, presented on the both older and newer Watchman devices at the Cardiovascular Research Technologies conference.
In the case of the late-breaking clinical trial report, which included more than 60,000 patients, the goal was to look at the safety of the Watchman FLX, which is the newest of the devices in real-world practice, according to Samir R. Kapadia, MD, chairman of the department of cardiovascular medicine at the Cleveland Clinic.
In the SURPASS registry, the number of patients discharged on the Watchman FLX climbed from zero in August 2020, when data accrual began, to 66,894 by March 2022. For the current analysis, 45-day follow-up was available for 61,963 patients and 1-year follow-up was available for 18,233.
Based on this number of patients treated by more than 2,300 clinicians at more than 740 sites, the SURPASS registry establishes that Watchman FLX “can be accomplished safely with clinical outcomes similar to pivotal trials at 45 days and 1 year,” Dr. Kapadia reported.
No surprises found in real-world outcome
At 7 days or hospital discharge (whichever came last), the rate of all-cause death was 0.18%, the rate of ischemic stroke was 0.13%, and there were no systemic emboli. By 45 days, the rate of all-cause death (0.84%) and stroke of any kind (0.32%) remained less than 1% and there were still no systemic emboli. Major bleeding events, of which about one-third occurred during hospitalization, had reached 3.34% by day 45.
By 1 year, all-cause mortality had risen to 8.3%, the stroke rate was 1.6%, and major bleeding reached 6.7%. The rate of systemic emboli remained very low (0.1%). The rates of death and stroke rose at a slow but steady rate throughout the 1-year follow-up. In contrast, major bleeding events rose steeply in the first 90 days and were followed by a much slower accrual subsequently.
At 1 year, 84.4% of patients had a complete seal. Leaks ≤ 3 mm were observed in 12.1%. The remaining leaks were larger, but just 0.7% had a leak > 5 mm.
Relative to the first-generation Watchman, the Watchman FLX has numerous design changes, including a shorter profile, more struts, and a reduced metal exposure. Most of these changes were performed to make the device easier to deploy.
When the SURPASS data are compared to the pivotal trials with Watchman FLX or to the Ewolution and National Cardiovascular Data (NCD) registries, which were created to monitor efficacy and safety with the earlier generation Watchman, the outcomes are similar or, in many cases, numerically favorable for such outcomes as bleeding and rates of stroke.
In addition to providing reassurance for the real-world safety of Watchman FLX, Dr. Kapadia said that these data establish reasonable benchmarks for centers tracking in-hospital and 1-year outcomes.
Dr. Kapadia also reported that outcomes overall in SURPASS were similar in women and men with the exception of major bleeding, a finding common to other interventional studies.
The late-breaker panelists generally agreed that SURPASS provides a robust set of data by which to be reassured, but David J. Cohen, MD, director of Clinical and Outcomes Research at the Cardiovascular Research Foundation in New York, said that he thinks the rate of bleeding is unnecessarily high.
“You really need to figure out a way to get the rate of bleeding at 45 days down,” Dr. Cohen said. He called for studies of anticoagulation in the post-procedural period that offer a better benefit-to-risk ratio.
Elderly patients benefit equally from Watchman
Yet, Watchman devices are generally regarded as a success story, and this has led investigators to evaluate safety in patients not well represented or explicitly excluded from clinical trials, such as the elderly and those with end-stage renal disease (ESRD). New data derived from experience in both of these groups were presented at the conference, which was sponsored by MedStar Heart & Vascular Institute.
To tease out the relative safety of Watchman in octogenarians, Samian Sulaiman, MD, a cardiology fellow at West Virginia University Heart and Vascular Institute, Morgantown, performed a competing risk analysis to study the relative benefit of Watchman devices after controlling for the greater overall risk of complications in the elderly.
In raw data comparisons of those 80 years of age or older to those younger in published trials, the not-surprising result is that overall rates of death and ischemic events are far higher in the elderly, according to Dr. Sulaiman, but it’s an “unfair comparison,” he said.
“It is easy to mistakenly conclude that left atrial appendage closure is associated with worse outcomes, but older patients have far higher rates of these events independent of other factors,” Dr. Sulaiman noted.
In fact, in his comparison of 472 older patients to 1,404 younger patients, the seal rates at 45 days, 6 months, and 12 months are almost identical. Moreover, after the extensive adjustments performed for competing risk analysis, the rates of death, stroke, and bleeding were also almost identical for those 80 years or older whether or not they received a Watchman.
Although he acknowledged the risk for residual confounding, Dr. Sulaiman concluded that elderly patients derive about the same benefits as younger patients from the Watchman. He concluded age alone should not be a factor in selecting candidates for this device.
ESRD is not Watchman contraindication
A similar point was made about ESRD based on analysis of 237 patients who received either an earlier generation Watchman or the Watchman FLX. Initiated in Spain, the study was amended to collect data from centers elsewhere in Europe, the United States, and Australia.
Successful implantation was achieved in 99.2% of the patients, reported Armando Perez de Prado, MD, PhD, head of interventional cardiology at the University of Leon, Spain.
After a median follow-up of 480 days, stroke or transient ischemic attacks were observed in 3.1%, leaks > 5 mm were observed in 1.4%, and systemic emboli were observed in 0.9%. Major bleeding (BARC > 2) occurred in 13.3%.
Although the all-cause mortality over the period of follow-up was high (37.4%), most of the deaths (61.2%) were of noncardiovascular origin, according to Dr. Sulaiman. He said mortality and adverse events linked to the Watchman appeared to be roughly comparable to those seen in patients with ESRD.
“The Watchman device for patients on hemodialysis with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation is an effective and safe intervention to prevent embolic events,” he said. However, he also cautioned these the ESRD and the accompanying comorbidities place these patients at high risk of a limited life expectancy.
“Given the high mortality rate of this population, proper selection of candidates is paramount to ensure the optimal clinical benefit,” he cautioned.
Dr. Samir reported no potential conflicts of interest but stated that this study was funded by Boston Scientific. Dr. Cohen reported financial ties with Abbott Vascular, Boston Scientific, Corvia Medical, Edwards Lifesciences, Impulse Dynamics, MyoKardia, Phillips, Svelte, V-Wave, and Zoll. Dr. Sulaiman reported no potential conflicts of interest. Dr. Perez de Prado reported no potential conflicts of interest but stated that this study was funded by Boston Scientific.
WASHINGTON – Left atrial appendage closure can be performed safely and effectively in older patients, those with end-stage renal disease, and likely others not included in the pivotal clinical trials, according to a series of new studies, including a late-breaker, presented on the both older and newer Watchman devices at the Cardiovascular Research Technologies conference.
In the case of the late-breaking clinical trial report, which included more than 60,000 patients, the goal was to look at the safety of the Watchman FLX, which is the newest of the devices in real-world practice, according to Samir R. Kapadia, MD, chairman of the department of cardiovascular medicine at the Cleveland Clinic.
In the SURPASS registry, the number of patients discharged on the Watchman FLX climbed from zero in August 2020, when data accrual began, to 66,894 by March 2022. For the current analysis, 45-day follow-up was available for 61,963 patients and 1-year follow-up was available for 18,233.
Based on this number of patients treated by more than 2,300 clinicians at more than 740 sites, the SURPASS registry establishes that Watchman FLX “can be accomplished safely with clinical outcomes similar to pivotal trials at 45 days and 1 year,” Dr. Kapadia reported.
No surprises found in real-world outcome
At 7 days or hospital discharge (whichever came last), the rate of all-cause death was 0.18%, the rate of ischemic stroke was 0.13%, and there were no systemic emboli. By 45 days, the rate of all-cause death (0.84%) and stroke of any kind (0.32%) remained less than 1% and there were still no systemic emboli. Major bleeding events, of which about one-third occurred during hospitalization, had reached 3.34% by day 45.
By 1 year, all-cause mortality had risen to 8.3%, the stroke rate was 1.6%, and major bleeding reached 6.7%. The rate of systemic emboli remained very low (0.1%). The rates of death and stroke rose at a slow but steady rate throughout the 1-year follow-up. In contrast, major bleeding events rose steeply in the first 90 days and were followed by a much slower accrual subsequently.
At 1 year, 84.4% of patients had a complete seal. Leaks ≤ 3 mm were observed in 12.1%. The remaining leaks were larger, but just 0.7% had a leak > 5 mm.
Relative to the first-generation Watchman, the Watchman FLX has numerous design changes, including a shorter profile, more struts, and a reduced metal exposure. Most of these changes were performed to make the device easier to deploy.
When the SURPASS data are compared to the pivotal trials with Watchman FLX or to the Ewolution and National Cardiovascular Data (NCD) registries, which were created to monitor efficacy and safety with the earlier generation Watchman, the outcomes are similar or, in many cases, numerically favorable for such outcomes as bleeding and rates of stroke.
In addition to providing reassurance for the real-world safety of Watchman FLX, Dr. Kapadia said that these data establish reasonable benchmarks for centers tracking in-hospital and 1-year outcomes.
Dr. Kapadia also reported that outcomes overall in SURPASS were similar in women and men with the exception of major bleeding, a finding common to other interventional studies.
The late-breaker panelists generally agreed that SURPASS provides a robust set of data by which to be reassured, but David J. Cohen, MD, director of Clinical and Outcomes Research at the Cardiovascular Research Foundation in New York, said that he thinks the rate of bleeding is unnecessarily high.
“You really need to figure out a way to get the rate of bleeding at 45 days down,” Dr. Cohen said. He called for studies of anticoagulation in the post-procedural period that offer a better benefit-to-risk ratio.
Elderly patients benefit equally from Watchman
Yet, Watchman devices are generally regarded as a success story, and this has led investigators to evaluate safety in patients not well represented or explicitly excluded from clinical trials, such as the elderly and those with end-stage renal disease (ESRD). New data derived from experience in both of these groups were presented at the conference, which was sponsored by MedStar Heart & Vascular Institute.
To tease out the relative safety of Watchman in octogenarians, Samian Sulaiman, MD, a cardiology fellow at West Virginia University Heart and Vascular Institute, Morgantown, performed a competing risk analysis to study the relative benefit of Watchman devices after controlling for the greater overall risk of complications in the elderly.
In raw data comparisons of those 80 years of age or older to those younger in published trials, the not-surprising result is that overall rates of death and ischemic events are far higher in the elderly, according to Dr. Sulaiman, but it’s an “unfair comparison,” he said.
“It is easy to mistakenly conclude that left atrial appendage closure is associated with worse outcomes, but older patients have far higher rates of these events independent of other factors,” Dr. Sulaiman noted.
In fact, in his comparison of 472 older patients to 1,404 younger patients, the seal rates at 45 days, 6 months, and 12 months are almost identical. Moreover, after the extensive adjustments performed for competing risk analysis, the rates of death, stroke, and bleeding were also almost identical for those 80 years or older whether or not they received a Watchman.
Although he acknowledged the risk for residual confounding, Dr. Sulaiman concluded that elderly patients derive about the same benefits as younger patients from the Watchman. He concluded age alone should not be a factor in selecting candidates for this device.
ESRD is not Watchman contraindication
A similar point was made about ESRD based on analysis of 237 patients who received either an earlier generation Watchman or the Watchman FLX. Initiated in Spain, the study was amended to collect data from centers elsewhere in Europe, the United States, and Australia.
Successful implantation was achieved in 99.2% of the patients, reported Armando Perez de Prado, MD, PhD, head of interventional cardiology at the University of Leon, Spain.
After a median follow-up of 480 days, stroke or transient ischemic attacks were observed in 3.1%, leaks > 5 mm were observed in 1.4%, and systemic emboli were observed in 0.9%. Major bleeding (BARC > 2) occurred in 13.3%.
Although the all-cause mortality over the period of follow-up was high (37.4%), most of the deaths (61.2%) were of noncardiovascular origin, according to Dr. Sulaiman. He said mortality and adverse events linked to the Watchman appeared to be roughly comparable to those seen in patients with ESRD.
“The Watchman device for patients on hemodialysis with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation is an effective and safe intervention to prevent embolic events,” he said. However, he also cautioned these the ESRD and the accompanying comorbidities place these patients at high risk of a limited life expectancy.
“Given the high mortality rate of this population, proper selection of candidates is paramount to ensure the optimal clinical benefit,” he cautioned.
Dr. Samir reported no potential conflicts of interest but stated that this study was funded by Boston Scientific. Dr. Cohen reported financial ties with Abbott Vascular, Boston Scientific, Corvia Medical, Edwards Lifesciences, Impulse Dynamics, MyoKardia, Phillips, Svelte, V-Wave, and Zoll. Dr. Sulaiman reported no potential conflicts of interest. Dr. Perez de Prado reported no potential conflicts of interest but stated that this study was funded by Boston Scientific.
AT CRT 2023
Liquid albuterol shortage effects reduced by alternative drugs, similar shortages may be increasingly common
The shortage of 0.5% albuterol sulfate inhalation solution, first reported by the FDA last October, gained increasing attention earlier this month when Akorn Pharmaceuticals – one of just two companies making the product – shut down after years of financial and regulatory troubles.
The other manufacturer, Nephron Pharmaceuticals, is producing 0.5% albuterol “as fast as possible” to overcome the shortage, CEO Lou Kennedy said in a written comment.
Meanwhile, the more commonly used version of liquid albuterol, with a concentration of 0.083%, remains in “good supply from several manufacturers,” according to an FDA spokesperson.
Still, headlines concerning the shortage have caused “a bit of a panic” for patients with asthma and parents with asthmatic children, according to David R. Stukus, MD, professor of clinical pediatrics in the division of allergy and immunology at Nationwide Children’s, Columbus, Ohio.
Much of the media coverage has lacked context, causing unnecessary worry, he said, as the shortage only affects one type of albuterol generally reserved for inpatient and emergency use.
“The shortage has not impacted our albuterol inhalers thus far,” Dr. Stukus said in an interview. “So I certainly don’t want people with asthma to panic that they’re going to run out of their inhaler anytime soon.”
Even infants and toddlers can use inhalers
Although Dr. Stukus noted that certain patients do require nebulizers, such as those with conditions that physically limit their breathing, like muscular dystrophy, most patients can use inhalers just fine. He said it’s a “pretty common misconception, even among medical professionals,” that infants and toddlers need nebulizers instead.
“In our institution, for example, we rarely ever start babies on a nebulizer when we diagnose them with asthma,” Dr. Stukus said. “We often just start right away with an inhaler with a spacer and a face mask.”
The shortage of liquid albuterol may therefore have a silver lining, he suggested, as it prompts clinicians to reconsider their routine practice.
“When situations like this arise, it’s a great opportunity for all of us to just take a step back and reevaluate the way we do things,” Dr. Stukus said. “Sometimes we just get caught up with inertia and we continue to do things the same way even though new options are available, or evidence has changed to the contrary.”
Nathan Rabinovitch, MD, professor of pediatrics in the division of pediatric allergy and clinical immunology at National Jewish Health, Denver, said that his center had trouble obtaining liquid albuterol about 2 weeks ago, so they pivoted to the more expensive levalbuterol for about a week and a half, until their albuterol supply was restored.
While Dr. Rabinovitch agreed that most children don’t need a nebulizer, he said about 5%-10% of kids with severe asthma should have one on hand in case their inhaler fails to control an exacerbation.
Personal preferences may also considered, he added.
“If [a parent] says, ‘I like to use the nebulizer. The kid likes it,’ I’m fine if they just use a nebulizer.”
One possible downside of relying on a nebulizer, however, is portability, according to Kelly O’Shea, MD, assistant professor in the division of allergy and clinical immunology at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
“If you’re out at the park or out at a soccer game with your kids, and they are having trouble breathing ... and they need their albuterol, you don’t have that ability if you are tied to a nebulizer,” Dr. O’Shea said in an interview. “As long as a parent feels comfortable – they feel like [their child] can get deep breaths in, I agree that you can use [an inhaler] in the infant and toddler population.”
She also agreed that a nebulizer may serve as a kind of second step if an inhaler isn’t controlling an exacerbation; however, she emphasized that a nebulizer should not be considered a replacement for professional care, and should not give a false sense of security.
“I caution parents to make sure that when they need it, they also take the next step and head over to the emergency room,” Dr. O’Shea said.
Generic drug shortages becoming more common
While the present scarcity of liquid albuterol appears relatively mild in terms of clinical impact, it brings up broader concerns about generic drug supply, and why shortages like this are becoming more common, according to Katie J. Suda, PharmD, MS, professor of medicine and pharmacy, and associate director, center for pharmaceutical policy and prescribing at the University of Pittsburgh.
“Drug shortages continue to increase in frequency, and the duration and severity of the shortages are also getting worse,” Dr. Suda said in an interview.
The reasons for these shortages can be elusive, according to 2022 report by the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists, which found that more than half of shortages came with no explanation from manufacturers.
The same report showed that only 5% of shortages were due to a “business decision,” but this factor is likely more central than publicly stated.
A recent FDA analysis on drug shortages, for instance, lists “lack of incentives to produce less profitable drugs,” as the first “root cause,” and Dr. Suda agrees.
“It’s important that we have generic medicines to decrease costs to our health systems, as well as for our patients,” Dr. Suda said. “But frequently, with those generic products, the price is driven so low that it increases the risk of a shortage.”
The drive to maintain profit margins may motivate companies to cut corners in production, Dr. Suda explained. She emphasized that this connection is speculative, because motivations are effectively unknowable, but the rationale is supported by past and present shortages.
Akorn Pharmaceuticals, for example, received a warning letter from the FDA in 2019 because of a variety of manufacturing issues, including defective bottles, questionable data, and metal shavings on aseptic filling equipment.
When a manufacturer like Akorn fails, the effects can be far-reaching, Dr. Suda said, noting their broad catalog of agents. Beyond liquid albuterol, Akorn was producing cardiac drugs, antibiotics, vitamins, local anesthetics, eye products, and others.
Drug shortages cause “a significant strain on our health care system,” Dr. Suda said, and substituting other medications increases risk of medical errors.
Fortunately, the increasing number of drug shortages is not going unnoticed, according to Dr. Suda. The FDA and multiple other organizations, including the ASHP, American Medical Association, and National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, are all taking steps to ensure that essential medicines are in steady supply, including moves to gather more data from manufacturers.
“I hope that a lot of the efforts that are moving forward ... will help us decrease the impact of shortages on our patients,” Dr. Suda said.
Lou Kennedy is the CEO of Nephron Pharmaceuticals, which commercially produces liquid albuterol. The other interviewees disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.
The shortage of 0.5% albuterol sulfate inhalation solution, first reported by the FDA last October, gained increasing attention earlier this month when Akorn Pharmaceuticals – one of just two companies making the product – shut down after years of financial and regulatory troubles.
The other manufacturer, Nephron Pharmaceuticals, is producing 0.5% albuterol “as fast as possible” to overcome the shortage, CEO Lou Kennedy said in a written comment.
Meanwhile, the more commonly used version of liquid albuterol, with a concentration of 0.083%, remains in “good supply from several manufacturers,” according to an FDA spokesperson.
Still, headlines concerning the shortage have caused “a bit of a panic” for patients with asthma and parents with asthmatic children, according to David R. Stukus, MD, professor of clinical pediatrics in the division of allergy and immunology at Nationwide Children’s, Columbus, Ohio.
Much of the media coverage has lacked context, causing unnecessary worry, he said, as the shortage only affects one type of albuterol generally reserved for inpatient and emergency use.
“The shortage has not impacted our albuterol inhalers thus far,” Dr. Stukus said in an interview. “So I certainly don’t want people with asthma to panic that they’re going to run out of their inhaler anytime soon.”
Even infants and toddlers can use inhalers
Although Dr. Stukus noted that certain patients do require nebulizers, such as those with conditions that physically limit their breathing, like muscular dystrophy, most patients can use inhalers just fine. He said it’s a “pretty common misconception, even among medical professionals,” that infants and toddlers need nebulizers instead.
“In our institution, for example, we rarely ever start babies on a nebulizer when we diagnose them with asthma,” Dr. Stukus said. “We often just start right away with an inhaler with a spacer and a face mask.”
The shortage of liquid albuterol may therefore have a silver lining, he suggested, as it prompts clinicians to reconsider their routine practice.
“When situations like this arise, it’s a great opportunity for all of us to just take a step back and reevaluate the way we do things,” Dr. Stukus said. “Sometimes we just get caught up with inertia and we continue to do things the same way even though new options are available, or evidence has changed to the contrary.”
Nathan Rabinovitch, MD, professor of pediatrics in the division of pediatric allergy and clinical immunology at National Jewish Health, Denver, said that his center had trouble obtaining liquid albuterol about 2 weeks ago, so they pivoted to the more expensive levalbuterol for about a week and a half, until their albuterol supply was restored.
While Dr. Rabinovitch agreed that most children don’t need a nebulizer, he said about 5%-10% of kids with severe asthma should have one on hand in case their inhaler fails to control an exacerbation.
Personal preferences may also considered, he added.
“If [a parent] says, ‘I like to use the nebulizer. The kid likes it,’ I’m fine if they just use a nebulizer.”
One possible downside of relying on a nebulizer, however, is portability, according to Kelly O’Shea, MD, assistant professor in the division of allergy and clinical immunology at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
“If you’re out at the park or out at a soccer game with your kids, and they are having trouble breathing ... and they need their albuterol, you don’t have that ability if you are tied to a nebulizer,” Dr. O’Shea said in an interview. “As long as a parent feels comfortable – they feel like [their child] can get deep breaths in, I agree that you can use [an inhaler] in the infant and toddler population.”
She also agreed that a nebulizer may serve as a kind of second step if an inhaler isn’t controlling an exacerbation; however, she emphasized that a nebulizer should not be considered a replacement for professional care, and should not give a false sense of security.
“I caution parents to make sure that when they need it, they also take the next step and head over to the emergency room,” Dr. O’Shea said.
Generic drug shortages becoming more common
While the present scarcity of liquid albuterol appears relatively mild in terms of clinical impact, it brings up broader concerns about generic drug supply, and why shortages like this are becoming more common, according to Katie J. Suda, PharmD, MS, professor of medicine and pharmacy, and associate director, center for pharmaceutical policy and prescribing at the University of Pittsburgh.
“Drug shortages continue to increase in frequency, and the duration and severity of the shortages are also getting worse,” Dr. Suda said in an interview.
The reasons for these shortages can be elusive, according to 2022 report by the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists, which found that more than half of shortages came with no explanation from manufacturers.
The same report showed that only 5% of shortages were due to a “business decision,” but this factor is likely more central than publicly stated.
A recent FDA analysis on drug shortages, for instance, lists “lack of incentives to produce less profitable drugs,” as the first “root cause,” and Dr. Suda agrees.
“It’s important that we have generic medicines to decrease costs to our health systems, as well as for our patients,” Dr. Suda said. “But frequently, with those generic products, the price is driven so low that it increases the risk of a shortage.”
The drive to maintain profit margins may motivate companies to cut corners in production, Dr. Suda explained. She emphasized that this connection is speculative, because motivations are effectively unknowable, but the rationale is supported by past and present shortages.
Akorn Pharmaceuticals, for example, received a warning letter from the FDA in 2019 because of a variety of manufacturing issues, including defective bottles, questionable data, and metal shavings on aseptic filling equipment.
When a manufacturer like Akorn fails, the effects can be far-reaching, Dr. Suda said, noting their broad catalog of agents. Beyond liquid albuterol, Akorn was producing cardiac drugs, antibiotics, vitamins, local anesthetics, eye products, and others.
Drug shortages cause “a significant strain on our health care system,” Dr. Suda said, and substituting other medications increases risk of medical errors.
Fortunately, the increasing number of drug shortages is not going unnoticed, according to Dr. Suda. The FDA and multiple other organizations, including the ASHP, American Medical Association, and National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, are all taking steps to ensure that essential medicines are in steady supply, including moves to gather more data from manufacturers.
“I hope that a lot of the efforts that are moving forward ... will help us decrease the impact of shortages on our patients,” Dr. Suda said.
Lou Kennedy is the CEO of Nephron Pharmaceuticals, which commercially produces liquid albuterol. The other interviewees disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.
The shortage of 0.5% albuterol sulfate inhalation solution, first reported by the FDA last October, gained increasing attention earlier this month when Akorn Pharmaceuticals – one of just two companies making the product – shut down after years of financial and regulatory troubles.
The other manufacturer, Nephron Pharmaceuticals, is producing 0.5% albuterol “as fast as possible” to overcome the shortage, CEO Lou Kennedy said in a written comment.
Meanwhile, the more commonly used version of liquid albuterol, with a concentration of 0.083%, remains in “good supply from several manufacturers,” according to an FDA spokesperson.
Still, headlines concerning the shortage have caused “a bit of a panic” for patients with asthma and parents with asthmatic children, according to David R. Stukus, MD, professor of clinical pediatrics in the division of allergy and immunology at Nationwide Children’s, Columbus, Ohio.
Much of the media coverage has lacked context, causing unnecessary worry, he said, as the shortage only affects one type of albuterol generally reserved for inpatient and emergency use.
“The shortage has not impacted our albuterol inhalers thus far,” Dr. Stukus said in an interview. “So I certainly don’t want people with asthma to panic that they’re going to run out of their inhaler anytime soon.”
Even infants and toddlers can use inhalers
Although Dr. Stukus noted that certain patients do require nebulizers, such as those with conditions that physically limit their breathing, like muscular dystrophy, most patients can use inhalers just fine. He said it’s a “pretty common misconception, even among medical professionals,” that infants and toddlers need nebulizers instead.
“In our institution, for example, we rarely ever start babies on a nebulizer when we diagnose them with asthma,” Dr. Stukus said. “We often just start right away with an inhaler with a spacer and a face mask.”
The shortage of liquid albuterol may therefore have a silver lining, he suggested, as it prompts clinicians to reconsider their routine practice.
“When situations like this arise, it’s a great opportunity for all of us to just take a step back and reevaluate the way we do things,” Dr. Stukus said. “Sometimes we just get caught up with inertia and we continue to do things the same way even though new options are available, or evidence has changed to the contrary.”
Nathan Rabinovitch, MD, professor of pediatrics in the division of pediatric allergy and clinical immunology at National Jewish Health, Denver, said that his center had trouble obtaining liquid albuterol about 2 weeks ago, so they pivoted to the more expensive levalbuterol for about a week and a half, until their albuterol supply was restored.
While Dr. Rabinovitch agreed that most children don’t need a nebulizer, he said about 5%-10% of kids with severe asthma should have one on hand in case their inhaler fails to control an exacerbation.
Personal preferences may also considered, he added.
“If [a parent] says, ‘I like to use the nebulizer. The kid likes it,’ I’m fine if they just use a nebulizer.”
One possible downside of relying on a nebulizer, however, is portability, according to Kelly O’Shea, MD, assistant professor in the division of allergy and clinical immunology at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
“If you’re out at the park or out at a soccer game with your kids, and they are having trouble breathing ... and they need their albuterol, you don’t have that ability if you are tied to a nebulizer,” Dr. O’Shea said in an interview. “As long as a parent feels comfortable – they feel like [their child] can get deep breaths in, I agree that you can use [an inhaler] in the infant and toddler population.”
She also agreed that a nebulizer may serve as a kind of second step if an inhaler isn’t controlling an exacerbation; however, she emphasized that a nebulizer should not be considered a replacement for professional care, and should not give a false sense of security.
“I caution parents to make sure that when they need it, they also take the next step and head over to the emergency room,” Dr. O’Shea said.
Generic drug shortages becoming more common
While the present scarcity of liquid albuterol appears relatively mild in terms of clinical impact, it brings up broader concerns about generic drug supply, and why shortages like this are becoming more common, according to Katie J. Suda, PharmD, MS, professor of medicine and pharmacy, and associate director, center for pharmaceutical policy and prescribing at the University of Pittsburgh.
“Drug shortages continue to increase in frequency, and the duration and severity of the shortages are also getting worse,” Dr. Suda said in an interview.
The reasons for these shortages can be elusive, according to 2022 report by the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists, which found that more than half of shortages came with no explanation from manufacturers.
The same report showed that only 5% of shortages were due to a “business decision,” but this factor is likely more central than publicly stated.
A recent FDA analysis on drug shortages, for instance, lists “lack of incentives to produce less profitable drugs,” as the first “root cause,” and Dr. Suda agrees.
“It’s important that we have generic medicines to decrease costs to our health systems, as well as for our patients,” Dr. Suda said. “But frequently, with those generic products, the price is driven so low that it increases the risk of a shortage.”
The drive to maintain profit margins may motivate companies to cut corners in production, Dr. Suda explained. She emphasized that this connection is speculative, because motivations are effectively unknowable, but the rationale is supported by past and present shortages.
Akorn Pharmaceuticals, for example, received a warning letter from the FDA in 2019 because of a variety of manufacturing issues, including defective bottles, questionable data, and metal shavings on aseptic filling equipment.
When a manufacturer like Akorn fails, the effects can be far-reaching, Dr. Suda said, noting their broad catalog of agents. Beyond liquid albuterol, Akorn was producing cardiac drugs, antibiotics, vitamins, local anesthetics, eye products, and others.
Drug shortages cause “a significant strain on our health care system,” Dr. Suda said, and substituting other medications increases risk of medical errors.
Fortunately, the increasing number of drug shortages is not going unnoticed, according to Dr. Suda. The FDA and multiple other organizations, including the ASHP, American Medical Association, and National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, are all taking steps to ensure that essential medicines are in steady supply, including moves to gather more data from manufacturers.
“I hope that a lot of the efforts that are moving forward ... will help us decrease the impact of shortages on our patients,” Dr. Suda said.
Lou Kennedy is the CEO of Nephron Pharmaceuticals, which commercially produces liquid albuterol. The other interviewees disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.
New hope for MDS, with AML treatments
Until just over a year ago, Pat Trueman, an 82-year-old in New Hampshire, had always been a “go-go-go” kind of person. Then she started feeling tired easily, even while doing basic housework.
“I had no stamina,” Ms. Trueman said. “I didn’t feel that bad, but I just couldn’t do anything.” She had also begun noticing black and blue bruises appearing on her body, so she met with her cardiologist. But when switching medications and getting a pacemaker didn’t rid Ms. Trueman of the symptoms, her doctor referred her to a hematologist oncologist.
A bone marrow biopsy eventually revealed that Ms. Trueman had myelodysplastic neoplasms, or MDS, a blood cancer affecting an estimated 60,000-170,000 people in the United States, mostly over age 60. MDS includes several bone marrow disorders in which the bone marrow does not produce enough healthy, normal blood cells. Cytopenias are therefore a key feature of MDS, whether it’s anemia (in Ms. Trueman’s case), neutropenia, or thrombocytopenia.
Jamie Koprivnikar, MD, a hematologist oncologist at Hackensack (N.J) University Medical Center, describes the condition to her patients using a factory metaphor: “Our bone marrow is the factory where the red blood cells, white blood cells, and platelets are made, and MDS is where the machinery of the factory is broken, so the factory is making defective parts and not enough parts.”
The paradox of MDS is that too many cells are in the bone marrow while too few are in the blood, since most in the marrow die before reaching the blood, explained Azra Raza, MD, a professor of medicine and director of the MDS Center at Columbia University Medical Center, New York, and author of The First Cell (New York: Basic Books, 2019).
“We’re looking at taking a lot of the therapies that we’ve used to treat AML and then trying to apply them to MDS,” Dr. Koprivnikar said. “With all the improvement that we’re seeing there with leukemia, we’re definitely expecting this trickle-down effect to also help our high-risk MDS patients.”
Workup begins with risk stratification
While different types of MDS exist, based on morphology of the blood cells, after diagnosis the most important determination to make is of the patient’s risk level, based on the International Prognostic Scoring System–Revised (IPSS-R), updated in 2022.
While there are six MDS risk levels, patients generally fall into the high-risk and low-risk categories. The risk-level workup includes “a bone marrow biopsy with morphology, looking at how many blasts they have, looking for dysplasia, cytogenetics, and a full spectrum myeloid mutation testing, or molecular testing,” according to Anna Halpern, MD, an assistant professor of hematology in the clinical research division at Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, Seattle. ”I use that information and along with their age, in some cases to calculate an IPSS-M or IPPS-R score, and what goes into that risk stratification includes how low their blood counts are as well as any adverse risks features we might see in their marrow, like adverse risk genetics, adverse risk mutations or increased blasts.”
Treatment decisions then turn on whether a patient is high risk – about a third of MDS patients – or low risk, because those treatment goals differ.
“With low-risk, the goal is to improve quality of life,” Dr. Raza said. “For higher-risk MDS, the goal is to prolong survival and delay progression to acute leukemia” since nearly a third of MDS patients will eventually develop AML.
More specifically, the aim with low-risk MDS is “to foster transfusion independence, either to prevent transfusions or to decrease the need for transfusions in people already receiving them,” explained Ellen Ritchie, MD, an assistant professor of medicine and hematologist-oncologist at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York. “We’re not hoping so much to cure the myelofibrosis at that point, but rather to improve blood counts.”
Sometimes, Dr. Halpern said, such treatment means active surveillance monitoring of blood counts, and at other times, it means treating cytopenia – most often anemia. The erythropoiesis-stimulating agents used to treat anemia are epoetin alfa (Epogen/Procrit) or darbepoetin alfa (Aranesp).
Ms. Trueman, whose MDS is low risk, started taking Aranesp, but she didn’t feel well on the drug and didn’t think it was helping much. She was taken off that drug and now relies only on transfusions for treatment, when her blood counts fall too low.
A newer anemia medication, luspatercept (Reblozyl), was approved in 2020 but is reserved primarily for those who fail one of the other erythropoiesis-stimulating agents and have a subtype of MDS with ring sideroblasts. Although white blood cell and platelet growth factors exist for other cytopenias, they’re rarely used because they offer little survival benefit and carry risks, Dr. Halpern said. The only other medication typically used for low-risk MDS is lenalidomide (Revlimid), which is reserved only for those with 5q-deletion syndrome.
The goal of treating high-risk MDS, on the other hand, is to cure it – when possible.
“The only curative approach for MDS is an allogeneic stem cell transplant or bone marrow transplant,” Dr. Halpern said, but transplants carry high rates of morbidity and mortality and therefore require a base level of physical fitness for a patient to consider it.
Dr. Koprivnikar observed that “MDS is certainly a disease of the elderly, and with each increasing decade of life, incidence increases. So there are a lot of patients who do not qualify for transplant.”
Age is not the sole determining factor, however. Dr. Ritchie noted that transplants can be offered to patients up to age 75 and sometimes older, depending on their physical condition. “It all depends upon the patient, their fitness, how much caretaker support they have, and what their comorbid illnesses are.”
If a transplant isn’t an option, Dr. Halpern and Dr. Raza said, they steer patients toward clinical trial participation. Otherwise, the first-line treatment is chemotherapy with hypomethylating agents to hopefully put patients in remission, Dr. Ritchie said.
The main chemo agents for high-risk patients ineligible for transplant are azacitidine (Vidaza) or decitabine (Dacogen), offered indefinitely until patients stop responding or experience progression or intolerance, Dr. Koprivnikar said. The only recently approved drug in this space is Inqovi, which is not a new agent, but it provides decitabine and cedazuridine in an oral pill form, so that patients can avoid infusions.
Treatment gaps
Few treatments options currently exist for patients with MDS, beyond erythropoiesis-stimulating agents for low-risk MDS and chemotherapy or transplant for high-risk MDS, as well as lenalidomide and luspatercept for specific subpopulations. With few breakthroughs occurring, Dr. Halpern expects that progress will only happen gradually, with new treatments coming primarily in the form of AML therapies.
“The biggest gap in our MDS regimen is treatment that can successfully treat or alter the natural history of TP53-mutated disease,” said Dr. Halpern, referring to an adverse risk mutation that can occur spontaneously or as a result of exposure to chemotherapy or radiation. “TP53-mutated MDS is very challenging to treat, and we have not had any successful therapy, so that is the biggest area of need.”
The most promising possibility in that area is an anti-CD47 drug called magrolimab, a drug being tested in a trial of which Dr. Halpern is a principal investigator. Not yet approved, magrolimab has been showing promise for AML when given with azacitidine (Vidaza) and venetoclax (Venclexta).
Venetoclax, currently used for AML, is another drug that Dr. Halpern expects to be approved for MDS soon. A phase 1b trial presented at the 2021 annual meeting of the American Hematology Society found that more than three-quarters of patients with high-risk MDS responded to the combination of venetoclax and azacitidine.
Unlike so many other cancers, MDS has seen little success with immunotherapy, which tends to have too much toxicity for patients with MDS. While Dr. Halpern sees potential for more exploration in this realm, she doesn’t anticipate immunotherapy or chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy becoming treatments for MDS in the near future.
“What I do think is, hopefully, we will have better treatment for TP53-mutated disease,” she said, while adding that there are currently no standard options for patients who stopped responding or don’t respond to hypomethylating agents.
Similarly, few new treatments have emerged for low-risk MDS, but there a couple of possibilities on the horizon.
“For a while, low-risk, transfusion-dependent MDS was an area that was being overlooked, and we are starting to see more activity in that area as well, with more drugs being developed,” Dr. Koprivnikar said. Drugs showing promise include imetelstat – an investigative telomerase inhibitor – and IRAK inhibitors. A phase 3 trial of imetelstat recently met its primary endpoint of 8 weeks of transfusion independence in low-risk MDS patients who aren’t responding to or cannot take erythropoiesis-stimulating agents, like Ms. Trueman. If effective and approved, a drug like imetelstat may allow patients like Ms. Trueman to resume some activities that she misses now.
“I have so much energy in my head, and I want to do so much, but I can’t,” Ms. Trueman said. “Now I think I’m getting lazy and I don’t like it because I’m not that kind of person. It’s pretty hard.”
Dr. Raza disclosed relationships with Epizyme, Grail, Vor, Taiho, RareCells, and TFC Therapeutics. Dr Ritchie reported ties with Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Novartis, Takeda, Incyte, AbbVie, Astellas, and Imago Biosciences. Dr. Halpern disclosed relationships with AbbVie, Notable Labs, Imago, Bayer, Gilead, Jazz, Incyte, Karyopharm, and Disc Medicine.
Until just over a year ago, Pat Trueman, an 82-year-old in New Hampshire, had always been a “go-go-go” kind of person. Then she started feeling tired easily, even while doing basic housework.
“I had no stamina,” Ms. Trueman said. “I didn’t feel that bad, but I just couldn’t do anything.” She had also begun noticing black and blue bruises appearing on her body, so she met with her cardiologist. But when switching medications and getting a pacemaker didn’t rid Ms. Trueman of the symptoms, her doctor referred her to a hematologist oncologist.
A bone marrow biopsy eventually revealed that Ms. Trueman had myelodysplastic neoplasms, or MDS, a blood cancer affecting an estimated 60,000-170,000 people in the United States, mostly over age 60. MDS includes several bone marrow disorders in which the bone marrow does not produce enough healthy, normal blood cells. Cytopenias are therefore a key feature of MDS, whether it’s anemia (in Ms. Trueman’s case), neutropenia, or thrombocytopenia.
Jamie Koprivnikar, MD, a hematologist oncologist at Hackensack (N.J) University Medical Center, describes the condition to her patients using a factory metaphor: “Our bone marrow is the factory where the red blood cells, white blood cells, and platelets are made, and MDS is where the machinery of the factory is broken, so the factory is making defective parts and not enough parts.”
The paradox of MDS is that too many cells are in the bone marrow while too few are in the blood, since most in the marrow die before reaching the blood, explained Azra Raza, MD, a professor of medicine and director of the MDS Center at Columbia University Medical Center, New York, and author of The First Cell (New York: Basic Books, 2019).
“We’re looking at taking a lot of the therapies that we’ve used to treat AML and then trying to apply them to MDS,” Dr. Koprivnikar said. “With all the improvement that we’re seeing there with leukemia, we’re definitely expecting this trickle-down effect to also help our high-risk MDS patients.”
Workup begins with risk stratification
While different types of MDS exist, based on morphology of the blood cells, after diagnosis the most important determination to make is of the patient’s risk level, based on the International Prognostic Scoring System–Revised (IPSS-R), updated in 2022.
While there are six MDS risk levels, patients generally fall into the high-risk and low-risk categories. The risk-level workup includes “a bone marrow biopsy with morphology, looking at how many blasts they have, looking for dysplasia, cytogenetics, and a full spectrum myeloid mutation testing, or molecular testing,” according to Anna Halpern, MD, an assistant professor of hematology in the clinical research division at Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, Seattle. ”I use that information and along with their age, in some cases to calculate an IPSS-M or IPPS-R score, and what goes into that risk stratification includes how low their blood counts are as well as any adverse risks features we might see in their marrow, like adverse risk genetics, adverse risk mutations or increased blasts.”
Treatment decisions then turn on whether a patient is high risk – about a third of MDS patients – or low risk, because those treatment goals differ.
“With low-risk, the goal is to improve quality of life,” Dr. Raza said. “For higher-risk MDS, the goal is to prolong survival and delay progression to acute leukemia” since nearly a third of MDS patients will eventually develop AML.
More specifically, the aim with low-risk MDS is “to foster transfusion independence, either to prevent transfusions or to decrease the need for transfusions in people already receiving them,” explained Ellen Ritchie, MD, an assistant professor of medicine and hematologist-oncologist at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York. “We’re not hoping so much to cure the myelofibrosis at that point, but rather to improve blood counts.”
Sometimes, Dr. Halpern said, such treatment means active surveillance monitoring of blood counts, and at other times, it means treating cytopenia – most often anemia. The erythropoiesis-stimulating agents used to treat anemia are epoetin alfa (Epogen/Procrit) or darbepoetin alfa (Aranesp).
Ms. Trueman, whose MDS is low risk, started taking Aranesp, but she didn’t feel well on the drug and didn’t think it was helping much. She was taken off that drug and now relies only on transfusions for treatment, when her blood counts fall too low.
A newer anemia medication, luspatercept (Reblozyl), was approved in 2020 but is reserved primarily for those who fail one of the other erythropoiesis-stimulating agents and have a subtype of MDS with ring sideroblasts. Although white blood cell and platelet growth factors exist for other cytopenias, they’re rarely used because they offer little survival benefit and carry risks, Dr. Halpern said. The only other medication typically used for low-risk MDS is lenalidomide (Revlimid), which is reserved only for those with 5q-deletion syndrome.
The goal of treating high-risk MDS, on the other hand, is to cure it – when possible.
“The only curative approach for MDS is an allogeneic stem cell transplant or bone marrow transplant,” Dr. Halpern said, but transplants carry high rates of morbidity and mortality and therefore require a base level of physical fitness for a patient to consider it.
Dr. Koprivnikar observed that “MDS is certainly a disease of the elderly, and with each increasing decade of life, incidence increases. So there are a lot of patients who do not qualify for transplant.”
Age is not the sole determining factor, however. Dr. Ritchie noted that transplants can be offered to patients up to age 75 and sometimes older, depending on their physical condition. “It all depends upon the patient, their fitness, how much caretaker support they have, and what their comorbid illnesses are.”
If a transplant isn’t an option, Dr. Halpern and Dr. Raza said, they steer patients toward clinical trial participation. Otherwise, the first-line treatment is chemotherapy with hypomethylating agents to hopefully put patients in remission, Dr. Ritchie said.
The main chemo agents for high-risk patients ineligible for transplant are azacitidine (Vidaza) or decitabine (Dacogen), offered indefinitely until patients stop responding or experience progression or intolerance, Dr. Koprivnikar said. The only recently approved drug in this space is Inqovi, which is not a new agent, but it provides decitabine and cedazuridine in an oral pill form, so that patients can avoid infusions.
Treatment gaps
Few treatments options currently exist for patients with MDS, beyond erythropoiesis-stimulating agents for low-risk MDS and chemotherapy or transplant for high-risk MDS, as well as lenalidomide and luspatercept for specific subpopulations. With few breakthroughs occurring, Dr. Halpern expects that progress will only happen gradually, with new treatments coming primarily in the form of AML therapies.
“The biggest gap in our MDS regimen is treatment that can successfully treat or alter the natural history of TP53-mutated disease,” said Dr. Halpern, referring to an adverse risk mutation that can occur spontaneously or as a result of exposure to chemotherapy or radiation. “TP53-mutated MDS is very challenging to treat, and we have not had any successful therapy, so that is the biggest area of need.”
The most promising possibility in that area is an anti-CD47 drug called magrolimab, a drug being tested in a trial of which Dr. Halpern is a principal investigator. Not yet approved, magrolimab has been showing promise for AML when given with azacitidine (Vidaza) and venetoclax (Venclexta).
Venetoclax, currently used for AML, is another drug that Dr. Halpern expects to be approved for MDS soon. A phase 1b trial presented at the 2021 annual meeting of the American Hematology Society found that more than three-quarters of patients with high-risk MDS responded to the combination of venetoclax and azacitidine.
Unlike so many other cancers, MDS has seen little success with immunotherapy, which tends to have too much toxicity for patients with MDS. While Dr. Halpern sees potential for more exploration in this realm, she doesn’t anticipate immunotherapy or chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy becoming treatments for MDS in the near future.
“What I do think is, hopefully, we will have better treatment for TP53-mutated disease,” she said, while adding that there are currently no standard options for patients who stopped responding or don’t respond to hypomethylating agents.
Similarly, few new treatments have emerged for low-risk MDS, but there a couple of possibilities on the horizon.
“For a while, low-risk, transfusion-dependent MDS was an area that was being overlooked, and we are starting to see more activity in that area as well, with more drugs being developed,” Dr. Koprivnikar said. Drugs showing promise include imetelstat – an investigative telomerase inhibitor – and IRAK inhibitors. A phase 3 trial of imetelstat recently met its primary endpoint of 8 weeks of transfusion independence in low-risk MDS patients who aren’t responding to or cannot take erythropoiesis-stimulating agents, like Ms. Trueman. If effective and approved, a drug like imetelstat may allow patients like Ms. Trueman to resume some activities that she misses now.
“I have so much energy in my head, and I want to do so much, but I can’t,” Ms. Trueman said. “Now I think I’m getting lazy and I don’t like it because I’m not that kind of person. It’s pretty hard.”
Dr. Raza disclosed relationships with Epizyme, Grail, Vor, Taiho, RareCells, and TFC Therapeutics. Dr Ritchie reported ties with Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Novartis, Takeda, Incyte, AbbVie, Astellas, and Imago Biosciences. Dr. Halpern disclosed relationships with AbbVie, Notable Labs, Imago, Bayer, Gilead, Jazz, Incyte, Karyopharm, and Disc Medicine.
Until just over a year ago, Pat Trueman, an 82-year-old in New Hampshire, had always been a “go-go-go” kind of person. Then she started feeling tired easily, even while doing basic housework.
“I had no stamina,” Ms. Trueman said. “I didn’t feel that bad, but I just couldn’t do anything.” She had also begun noticing black and blue bruises appearing on her body, so she met with her cardiologist. But when switching medications and getting a pacemaker didn’t rid Ms. Trueman of the symptoms, her doctor referred her to a hematologist oncologist.
A bone marrow biopsy eventually revealed that Ms. Trueman had myelodysplastic neoplasms, or MDS, a blood cancer affecting an estimated 60,000-170,000 people in the United States, mostly over age 60. MDS includes several bone marrow disorders in which the bone marrow does not produce enough healthy, normal blood cells. Cytopenias are therefore a key feature of MDS, whether it’s anemia (in Ms. Trueman’s case), neutropenia, or thrombocytopenia.
Jamie Koprivnikar, MD, a hematologist oncologist at Hackensack (N.J) University Medical Center, describes the condition to her patients using a factory metaphor: “Our bone marrow is the factory where the red blood cells, white blood cells, and platelets are made, and MDS is where the machinery of the factory is broken, so the factory is making defective parts and not enough parts.”
The paradox of MDS is that too many cells are in the bone marrow while too few are in the blood, since most in the marrow die before reaching the blood, explained Azra Raza, MD, a professor of medicine and director of the MDS Center at Columbia University Medical Center, New York, and author of The First Cell (New York: Basic Books, 2019).
“We’re looking at taking a lot of the therapies that we’ve used to treat AML and then trying to apply them to MDS,” Dr. Koprivnikar said. “With all the improvement that we’re seeing there with leukemia, we’re definitely expecting this trickle-down effect to also help our high-risk MDS patients.”
Workup begins with risk stratification
While different types of MDS exist, based on morphology of the blood cells, after diagnosis the most important determination to make is of the patient’s risk level, based on the International Prognostic Scoring System–Revised (IPSS-R), updated in 2022.
While there are six MDS risk levels, patients generally fall into the high-risk and low-risk categories. The risk-level workup includes “a bone marrow biopsy with morphology, looking at how many blasts they have, looking for dysplasia, cytogenetics, and a full spectrum myeloid mutation testing, or molecular testing,” according to Anna Halpern, MD, an assistant professor of hematology in the clinical research division at Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, Seattle. ”I use that information and along with their age, in some cases to calculate an IPSS-M or IPPS-R score, and what goes into that risk stratification includes how low their blood counts are as well as any adverse risks features we might see in their marrow, like adverse risk genetics, adverse risk mutations or increased blasts.”
Treatment decisions then turn on whether a patient is high risk – about a third of MDS patients – or low risk, because those treatment goals differ.
“With low-risk, the goal is to improve quality of life,” Dr. Raza said. “For higher-risk MDS, the goal is to prolong survival and delay progression to acute leukemia” since nearly a third of MDS patients will eventually develop AML.
More specifically, the aim with low-risk MDS is “to foster transfusion independence, either to prevent transfusions or to decrease the need for transfusions in people already receiving them,” explained Ellen Ritchie, MD, an assistant professor of medicine and hematologist-oncologist at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York. “We’re not hoping so much to cure the myelofibrosis at that point, but rather to improve blood counts.”
Sometimes, Dr. Halpern said, such treatment means active surveillance monitoring of blood counts, and at other times, it means treating cytopenia – most often anemia. The erythropoiesis-stimulating agents used to treat anemia are epoetin alfa (Epogen/Procrit) or darbepoetin alfa (Aranesp).
Ms. Trueman, whose MDS is low risk, started taking Aranesp, but she didn’t feel well on the drug and didn’t think it was helping much. She was taken off that drug and now relies only on transfusions for treatment, when her blood counts fall too low.
A newer anemia medication, luspatercept (Reblozyl), was approved in 2020 but is reserved primarily for those who fail one of the other erythropoiesis-stimulating agents and have a subtype of MDS with ring sideroblasts. Although white blood cell and platelet growth factors exist for other cytopenias, they’re rarely used because they offer little survival benefit and carry risks, Dr. Halpern said. The only other medication typically used for low-risk MDS is lenalidomide (Revlimid), which is reserved only for those with 5q-deletion syndrome.
The goal of treating high-risk MDS, on the other hand, is to cure it – when possible.
“The only curative approach for MDS is an allogeneic stem cell transplant or bone marrow transplant,” Dr. Halpern said, but transplants carry high rates of morbidity and mortality and therefore require a base level of physical fitness for a patient to consider it.
Dr. Koprivnikar observed that “MDS is certainly a disease of the elderly, and with each increasing decade of life, incidence increases. So there are a lot of patients who do not qualify for transplant.”
Age is not the sole determining factor, however. Dr. Ritchie noted that transplants can be offered to patients up to age 75 and sometimes older, depending on their physical condition. “It all depends upon the patient, their fitness, how much caretaker support they have, and what their comorbid illnesses are.”
If a transplant isn’t an option, Dr. Halpern and Dr. Raza said, they steer patients toward clinical trial participation. Otherwise, the first-line treatment is chemotherapy with hypomethylating agents to hopefully put patients in remission, Dr. Ritchie said.
The main chemo agents for high-risk patients ineligible for transplant are azacitidine (Vidaza) or decitabine (Dacogen), offered indefinitely until patients stop responding or experience progression or intolerance, Dr. Koprivnikar said. The only recently approved drug in this space is Inqovi, which is not a new agent, but it provides decitabine and cedazuridine in an oral pill form, so that patients can avoid infusions.
Treatment gaps
Few treatments options currently exist for patients with MDS, beyond erythropoiesis-stimulating agents for low-risk MDS and chemotherapy or transplant for high-risk MDS, as well as lenalidomide and luspatercept for specific subpopulations. With few breakthroughs occurring, Dr. Halpern expects that progress will only happen gradually, with new treatments coming primarily in the form of AML therapies.
“The biggest gap in our MDS regimen is treatment that can successfully treat or alter the natural history of TP53-mutated disease,” said Dr. Halpern, referring to an adverse risk mutation that can occur spontaneously or as a result of exposure to chemotherapy or radiation. “TP53-mutated MDS is very challenging to treat, and we have not had any successful therapy, so that is the biggest area of need.”
The most promising possibility in that area is an anti-CD47 drug called magrolimab, a drug being tested in a trial of which Dr. Halpern is a principal investigator. Not yet approved, magrolimab has been showing promise for AML when given with azacitidine (Vidaza) and venetoclax (Venclexta).
Venetoclax, currently used for AML, is another drug that Dr. Halpern expects to be approved for MDS soon. A phase 1b trial presented at the 2021 annual meeting of the American Hematology Society found that more than three-quarters of patients with high-risk MDS responded to the combination of venetoclax and azacitidine.
Unlike so many other cancers, MDS has seen little success with immunotherapy, which tends to have too much toxicity for patients with MDS. While Dr. Halpern sees potential for more exploration in this realm, she doesn’t anticipate immunotherapy or chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy becoming treatments for MDS in the near future.
“What I do think is, hopefully, we will have better treatment for TP53-mutated disease,” she said, while adding that there are currently no standard options for patients who stopped responding or don’t respond to hypomethylating agents.
Similarly, few new treatments have emerged for low-risk MDS, but there a couple of possibilities on the horizon.
“For a while, low-risk, transfusion-dependent MDS was an area that was being overlooked, and we are starting to see more activity in that area as well, with more drugs being developed,” Dr. Koprivnikar said. Drugs showing promise include imetelstat – an investigative telomerase inhibitor – and IRAK inhibitors. A phase 3 trial of imetelstat recently met its primary endpoint of 8 weeks of transfusion independence in low-risk MDS patients who aren’t responding to or cannot take erythropoiesis-stimulating agents, like Ms. Trueman. If effective and approved, a drug like imetelstat may allow patients like Ms. Trueman to resume some activities that she misses now.
“I have so much energy in my head, and I want to do so much, but I can’t,” Ms. Trueman said. “Now I think I’m getting lazy and I don’t like it because I’m not that kind of person. It’s pretty hard.”
Dr. Raza disclosed relationships with Epizyme, Grail, Vor, Taiho, RareCells, and TFC Therapeutics. Dr Ritchie reported ties with Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Novartis, Takeda, Incyte, AbbVie, Astellas, and Imago Biosciences. Dr. Halpern disclosed relationships with AbbVie, Notable Labs, Imago, Bayer, Gilead, Jazz, Incyte, Karyopharm, and Disc Medicine.
Novel therapy shows promise for treating skin-predominant dermatomyositis
NEW ORLEANS – in a double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 2 trial, according to results presented as a late-breaker at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology.
“These findings support the inhibition of IFN-beta as a promising therapeutic strategy in skin-predominant disease,” said principal investigator Aaron Mangold, MD, associate professor of dermatology, Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, Ariz.
Dermatomyositis, a rare autoimmune inflammatory condition that typically involves both skeletal muscles and skin, is a challenging disease with a diverse set of potential complications.
Immunosuppressive and immunomodulatory agents are used with mixed success for myositis, but skin manifestations, which include papular eruptions, heliotrope rash, photoerythema, burning, and pruritus, are often the most troublesome and the most difficult to control. Treatment options other than immunomodulators that target cutaneous involvement – which include steroids, emollients, and photoprotection – are generally modestly effective, according to Dr. Mangold.
Targeting an elevated cytokine
Interest in IFN-beta, which is elevated in the blood of individuals with dermatomyositis, was triggered by evidence that this cytokine plays an important role in driving the skin inflammation, Dr. Mangold explained.
“The blood concentrations of IFN-beta are positively correlated with cutaneous disease activity and severity,” he said.
The study drug, currently known as PF-06823859 (Dazukibart), “is a potent, selective humanized IgG1-neutralizing antibody directed at IFN-beta,” Dr. Mangold said. A dose-ranging phase 1 study published 2 years ago provided evidence of acceptable pharmacokinetics and safety in healthy individuals to support treatment studies for disorders associated with elevated IFN-beta levels. In addition to dermatomyositis, this includes systemic lupus erythematosus.
In this phase 2 trial, patients whose condition was not improved by at least one standard-care therapy for skin manifestations of dermatomyositis were eligible if they had moderate to severe disease as measured with the Cutaneous Dermatomyositis Disease Area and Severity Index (CDASI), according to Dr. Mangold. During the study, patients were allowed to remain on a disease modifying antirheumatic drug and/or prednisone if they had been on stable doses and did not change the dose.
After a screening run-in, the trial had two blinded stages. In stage 1, 30 patients were randomly assigned either to 600 mg of PF-06823859 or to placebo, both administered intravenously every 4 weeks. A second cohort of 25 patients was randomly assigned in stage 2 to placebo, 150 mg of PF-06823859, or 600 mg of PF-06823859. The primary endpoint assessed at 12 weeks was a greater than 5-point reduction in CDASI score or greater than 40% CDASI improvement from baseline.
Both endpoints are associated with a clinically meaningful response in regard to an improved quality of life, Dr. Mangold noted.
Both doses better than placebo
In results from the stage 1 portion, the mean reduction in CDASI at 12 weeks after three doses of the assigned therapy was 18.8 points in the active-treatment group versus 3.9 points in the placebo group. In pooled data from stage 1 and 2, the reductions were 16.6 points, 19.2 points, and 2.9 points for the 150-mg, 600-mg, and placebo arms, respectively. Both doses achieved a highly significant advantage over placebo.
For both stages and doses, the response curves of the active-treatment groups and the placebo group diverged almost immediately. By 4 weeks, both measures of CDASI reductions on active therapy were significantly improved relative to placebo, and the response curves had a consistent downward slope through the end of the 12-week study, Dr. Mangold reported.
The majority of patients responded by either of the primary endpoint criteria. For a CDASI reduction of greater than 5 points, the response rates were 100% and 96% for the 150-mg and 600-mg doses of PF-06823859, respectively. The placebo response was 35.7%. For the CDASI reduction of greater than 40%, the rates were 80%, 82.1%, and 7.1% for the 150-mg, 600-mg, and placebo arms, respectively.
“There were no major safety concerns. Most of the treatment-emergent adverse events were mild, and adverse events did not have a relationship to dose,” Dr. Mangold said. Notably, there were no cases of herpes zoster, and infections of any kind were low in all study groups.
A phase 3 study is being planned with the 600-mg dose, according to Dr. Mangold, but he acknowledged that regulatory authorities have generally required endpoints for both cutaneous and muscle manifestations in previous trials of therapies for dermatomyositis.
It is not yet certain that “there will be a carve-out for skin,” he said in answer to a question about investigations moving forward. So far, studies have been focused on skin response. However, a meaningful degree of benefit against muscle involvement, which has not yet been well studied, has not been ruled out.
Even though this is a phase 2 trial with small numbers, it was controlled and blinded, and the potential of an inhibitor of IFN-beta to control the skin manifestations of dermatomyositis “is kind of a big deal,” said Paul Nghiem, MD, PhD, professor of dermatology, University of Washington, Seattle.
“There is definitely an unmet need for better therapies to control the skin involvement,” Dr. Nghiem said.
Hensin Tsao, MD, PhD, clinical director of the Melanoma and Pigmented Lesion Center at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, agreed. Like Dr. Nghiem, Dr. Tsao was a panelist during the late-breaker session where the study was presented, and he was impressed by the data.
“This is something that is definitely newsworthy,” Dr. Tsao said.
Dr. Mangold reports financial relationships with Actelion, Amgen, Corbus, Eli Lilly, Incyte, miRagen, Novartis, Regeneron, Solagenix, Sun Pharmaceuticals, Teva, and Pfizer, which provided funding for this trial. Both Dr. Nghiem and Dr. Tsao reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
NEW ORLEANS – in a double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 2 trial, according to results presented as a late-breaker at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology.
“These findings support the inhibition of IFN-beta as a promising therapeutic strategy in skin-predominant disease,” said principal investigator Aaron Mangold, MD, associate professor of dermatology, Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, Ariz.
Dermatomyositis, a rare autoimmune inflammatory condition that typically involves both skeletal muscles and skin, is a challenging disease with a diverse set of potential complications.
Immunosuppressive and immunomodulatory agents are used with mixed success for myositis, but skin manifestations, which include papular eruptions, heliotrope rash, photoerythema, burning, and pruritus, are often the most troublesome and the most difficult to control. Treatment options other than immunomodulators that target cutaneous involvement – which include steroids, emollients, and photoprotection – are generally modestly effective, according to Dr. Mangold.
Targeting an elevated cytokine
Interest in IFN-beta, which is elevated in the blood of individuals with dermatomyositis, was triggered by evidence that this cytokine plays an important role in driving the skin inflammation, Dr. Mangold explained.
“The blood concentrations of IFN-beta are positively correlated with cutaneous disease activity and severity,” he said.
The study drug, currently known as PF-06823859 (Dazukibart), “is a potent, selective humanized IgG1-neutralizing antibody directed at IFN-beta,” Dr. Mangold said. A dose-ranging phase 1 study published 2 years ago provided evidence of acceptable pharmacokinetics and safety in healthy individuals to support treatment studies for disorders associated with elevated IFN-beta levels. In addition to dermatomyositis, this includes systemic lupus erythematosus.
In this phase 2 trial, patients whose condition was not improved by at least one standard-care therapy for skin manifestations of dermatomyositis were eligible if they had moderate to severe disease as measured with the Cutaneous Dermatomyositis Disease Area and Severity Index (CDASI), according to Dr. Mangold. During the study, patients were allowed to remain on a disease modifying antirheumatic drug and/or prednisone if they had been on stable doses and did not change the dose.
After a screening run-in, the trial had two blinded stages. In stage 1, 30 patients were randomly assigned either to 600 mg of PF-06823859 or to placebo, both administered intravenously every 4 weeks. A second cohort of 25 patients was randomly assigned in stage 2 to placebo, 150 mg of PF-06823859, or 600 mg of PF-06823859. The primary endpoint assessed at 12 weeks was a greater than 5-point reduction in CDASI score or greater than 40% CDASI improvement from baseline.
Both endpoints are associated with a clinically meaningful response in regard to an improved quality of life, Dr. Mangold noted.
Both doses better than placebo
In results from the stage 1 portion, the mean reduction in CDASI at 12 weeks after three doses of the assigned therapy was 18.8 points in the active-treatment group versus 3.9 points in the placebo group. In pooled data from stage 1 and 2, the reductions were 16.6 points, 19.2 points, and 2.9 points for the 150-mg, 600-mg, and placebo arms, respectively. Both doses achieved a highly significant advantage over placebo.
For both stages and doses, the response curves of the active-treatment groups and the placebo group diverged almost immediately. By 4 weeks, both measures of CDASI reductions on active therapy were significantly improved relative to placebo, and the response curves had a consistent downward slope through the end of the 12-week study, Dr. Mangold reported.
The majority of patients responded by either of the primary endpoint criteria. For a CDASI reduction of greater than 5 points, the response rates were 100% and 96% for the 150-mg and 600-mg doses of PF-06823859, respectively. The placebo response was 35.7%. For the CDASI reduction of greater than 40%, the rates were 80%, 82.1%, and 7.1% for the 150-mg, 600-mg, and placebo arms, respectively.
“There were no major safety concerns. Most of the treatment-emergent adverse events were mild, and adverse events did not have a relationship to dose,” Dr. Mangold said. Notably, there were no cases of herpes zoster, and infections of any kind were low in all study groups.
A phase 3 study is being planned with the 600-mg dose, according to Dr. Mangold, but he acknowledged that regulatory authorities have generally required endpoints for both cutaneous and muscle manifestations in previous trials of therapies for dermatomyositis.
It is not yet certain that “there will be a carve-out for skin,” he said in answer to a question about investigations moving forward. So far, studies have been focused on skin response. However, a meaningful degree of benefit against muscle involvement, which has not yet been well studied, has not been ruled out.
Even though this is a phase 2 trial with small numbers, it was controlled and blinded, and the potential of an inhibitor of IFN-beta to control the skin manifestations of dermatomyositis “is kind of a big deal,” said Paul Nghiem, MD, PhD, professor of dermatology, University of Washington, Seattle.
“There is definitely an unmet need for better therapies to control the skin involvement,” Dr. Nghiem said.
Hensin Tsao, MD, PhD, clinical director of the Melanoma and Pigmented Lesion Center at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, agreed. Like Dr. Nghiem, Dr. Tsao was a panelist during the late-breaker session where the study was presented, and he was impressed by the data.
“This is something that is definitely newsworthy,” Dr. Tsao said.
Dr. Mangold reports financial relationships with Actelion, Amgen, Corbus, Eli Lilly, Incyte, miRagen, Novartis, Regeneron, Solagenix, Sun Pharmaceuticals, Teva, and Pfizer, which provided funding for this trial. Both Dr. Nghiem and Dr. Tsao reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
NEW ORLEANS – in a double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 2 trial, according to results presented as a late-breaker at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology.
“These findings support the inhibition of IFN-beta as a promising therapeutic strategy in skin-predominant disease,” said principal investigator Aaron Mangold, MD, associate professor of dermatology, Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, Ariz.
Dermatomyositis, a rare autoimmune inflammatory condition that typically involves both skeletal muscles and skin, is a challenging disease with a diverse set of potential complications.
Immunosuppressive and immunomodulatory agents are used with mixed success for myositis, but skin manifestations, which include papular eruptions, heliotrope rash, photoerythema, burning, and pruritus, are often the most troublesome and the most difficult to control. Treatment options other than immunomodulators that target cutaneous involvement – which include steroids, emollients, and photoprotection – are generally modestly effective, according to Dr. Mangold.
Targeting an elevated cytokine
Interest in IFN-beta, which is elevated in the blood of individuals with dermatomyositis, was triggered by evidence that this cytokine plays an important role in driving the skin inflammation, Dr. Mangold explained.
“The blood concentrations of IFN-beta are positively correlated with cutaneous disease activity and severity,” he said.
The study drug, currently known as PF-06823859 (Dazukibart), “is a potent, selective humanized IgG1-neutralizing antibody directed at IFN-beta,” Dr. Mangold said. A dose-ranging phase 1 study published 2 years ago provided evidence of acceptable pharmacokinetics and safety in healthy individuals to support treatment studies for disorders associated with elevated IFN-beta levels. In addition to dermatomyositis, this includes systemic lupus erythematosus.
In this phase 2 trial, patients whose condition was not improved by at least one standard-care therapy for skin manifestations of dermatomyositis were eligible if they had moderate to severe disease as measured with the Cutaneous Dermatomyositis Disease Area and Severity Index (CDASI), according to Dr. Mangold. During the study, patients were allowed to remain on a disease modifying antirheumatic drug and/or prednisone if they had been on stable doses and did not change the dose.
After a screening run-in, the trial had two blinded stages. In stage 1, 30 patients were randomly assigned either to 600 mg of PF-06823859 or to placebo, both administered intravenously every 4 weeks. A second cohort of 25 patients was randomly assigned in stage 2 to placebo, 150 mg of PF-06823859, or 600 mg of PF-06823859. The primary endpoint assessed at 12 weeks was a greater than 5-point reduction in CDASI score or greater than 40% CDASI improvement from baseline.
Both endpoints are associated with a clinically meaningful response in regard to an improved quality of life, Dr. Mangold noted.
Both doses better than placebo
In results from the stage 1 portion, the mean reduction in CDASI at 12 weeks after three doses of the assigned therapy was 18.8 points in the active-treatment group versus 3.9 points in the placebo group. In pooled data from stage 1 and 2, the reductions were 16.6 points, 19.2 points, and 2.9 points for the 150-mg, 600-mg, and placebo arms, respectively. Both doses achieved a highly significant advantage over placebo.
For both stages and doses, the response curves of the active-treatment groups and the placebo group diverged almost immediately. By 4 weeks, both measures of CDASI reductions on active therapy were significantly improved relative to placebo, and the response curves had a consistent downward slope through the end of the 12-week study, Dr. Mangold reported.
The majority of patients responded by either of the primary endpoint criteria. For a CDASI reduction of greater than 5 points, the response rates were 100% and 96% for the 150-mg and 600-mg doses of PF-06823859, respectively. The placebo response was 35.7%. For the CDASI reduction of greater than 40%, the rates were 80%, 82.1%, and 7.1% for the 150-mg, 600-mg, and placebo arms, respectively.
“There were no major safety concerns. Most of the treatment-emergent adverse events were mild, and adverse events did not have a relationship to dose,” Dr. Mangold said. Notably, there were no cases of herpes zoster, and infections of any kind were low in all study groups.
A phase 3 study is being planned with the 600-mg dose, according to Dr. Mangold, but he acknowledged that regulatory authorities have generally required endpoints for both cutaneous and muscle manifestations in previous trials of therapies for dermatomyositis.
It is not yet certain that “there will be a carve-out for skin,” he said in answer to a question about investigations moving forward. So far, studies have been focused on skin response. However, a meaningful degree of benefit against muscle involvement, which has not yet been well studied, has not been ruled out.
Even though this is a phase 2 trial with small numbers, it was controlled and blinded, and the potential of an inhibitor of IFN-beta to control the skin manifestations of dermatomyositis “is kind of a big deal,” said Paul Nghiem, MD, PhD, professor of dermatology, University of Washington, Seattle.
“There is definitely an unmet need for better therapies to control the skin involvement,” Dr. Nghiem said.
Hensin Tsao, MD, PhD, clinical director of the Melanoma and Pigmented Lesion Center at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, agreed. Like Dr. Nghiem, Dr. Tsao was a panelist during the late-breaker session where the study was presented, and he was impressed by the data.
“This is something that is definitely newsworthy,” Dr. Tsao said.
Dr. Mangold reports financial relationships with Actelion, Amgen, Corbus, Eli Lilly, Incyte, miRagen, Novartis, Regeneron, Solagenix, Sun Pharmaceuticals, Teva, and Pfizer, which provided funding for this trial. Both Dr. Nghiem and Dr. Tsao reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
AT AAD 2023
Another FDA class I recall of Cardiosave Hybrid/Rescue IABPs
Datascope/Getinge is recalling certain Cardiosave Hybrid and Cardiosave Rescue Intra-Aortic Balloon Pumps (IABPs) because the coiled cable connecting the display and base on some units may fail, causing an unexpected shutdown without warnings or alarms to alert the user.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has identified this as a class I recall, the most serious type of recall, because of the risk for serious injury or death.
The FDA warns that an unexpected pump shutdown and any interruption to therapy that occurs can lead to hemodynamic instability, organ damage, and/or death, especially in patients who are critically ill and most likely to receive therapy using these devices.
The devices are indicated for acute coronary syndrome, cardiac and noncardiac surgery, and complications of heart failure in adults.
From June 2019 to August 2022, Datascope/Getinge reported 44 complaints about damaged coiled cords resulting in unexpected shutdowns. There have been no reports of injuries or deaths related to this issue, according to the recall notice posted on the FDA’s website.
The recall includes a total of 2,300 CardioSave Hybrid or Rescue IABP units distributed prior to July 24, 2017, and/or coiled cord part number 0012-00-1801. Product model numbers for the recalled Cardiosave Hybrid and Cardiosave Rescue are available online.
The Cardiosave IABPs have previously been flagged by the FDA for subpar battery performance and fluid leaks.
To address the cable issue, Datascope/Getinge sent an urgent medical device correction letter to customers recommending that the coiled cable cord of the Cardiosave IABP be inspected for visible damage prior to use.
If an unexpected shutdown occurs, an attempt should be made to restart the Cardiosave IABP until an alternative pump is available. If the restart attempt is unsuccessful, an alternative IABP should be used. Any device that remains inoperable after a shutdown should be removed from patient care.
Customers should inspect their inventory to identify any Cardiosave Hybrid and/or Rescue IABPs that have the recalled coiled cord.
The company also asks customers to complete and sign the Medical Device Correction-Response form included with the letter and return it to Datascope/Getinge by emailing a scanned copy to cardiosave-sdhl23.act@getinge.com or by faxing the form to 1-877-660-5841.
Customers with questions about this recall should contact their Datascope/Getinge representative or call Datascope/Getinge technical support at 1-888-943-8872, Monday through Friday, between 8:00 AM and 6:00 PM ET.
The company has developed a hardware correction to address this issue and says a service representative will contact customers to schedule installation of the correction when the correction kit is available.
Any adverse events or suspected adverse events related to the recalled CardioSave Hybrid/Rescue IABPs should be reported to the FDA through MedWatch, its adverse event reporting program.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Datascope/Getinge is recalling certain Cardiosave Hybrid and Cardiosave Rescue Intra-Aortic Balloon Pumps (IABPs) because the coiled cable connecting the display and base on some units may fail, causing an unexpected shutdown without warnings or alarms to alert the user.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has identified this as a class I recall, the most serious type of recall, because of the risk for serious injury or death.
The FDA warns that an unexpected pump shutdown and any interruption to therapy that occurs can lead to hemodynamic instability, organ damage, and/or death, especially in patients who are critically ill and most likely to receive therapy using these devices.
The devices are indicated for acute coronary syndrome, cardiac and noncardiac surgery, and complications of heart failure in adults.
From June 2019 to August 2022, Datascope/Getinge reported 44 complaints about damaged coiled cords resulting in unexpected shutdowns. There have been no reports of injuries or deaths related to this issue, according to the recall notice posted on the FDA’s website.
The recall includes a total of 2,300 CardioSave Hybrid or Rescue IABP units distributed prior to July 24, 2017, and/or coiled cord part number 0012-00-1801. Product model numbers for the recalled Cardiosave Hybrid and Cardiosave Rescue are available online.
The Cardiosave IABPs have previously been flagged by the FDA for subpar battery performance and fluid leaks.
To address the cable issue, Datascope/Getinge sent an urgent medical device correction letter to customers recommending that the coiled cable cord of the Cardiosave IABP be inspected for visible damage prior to use.
If an unexpected shutdown occurs, an attempt should be made to restart the Cardiosave IABP until an alternative pump is available. If the restart attempt is unsuccessful, an alternative IABP should be used. Any device that remains inoperable after a shutdown should be removed from patient care.
Customers should inspect their inventory to identify any Cardiosave Hybrid and/or Rescue IABPs that have the recalled coiled cord.
The company also asks customers to complete and sign the Medical Device Correction-Response form included with the letter and return it to Datascope/Getinge by emailing a scanned copy to cardiosave-sdhl23.act@getinge.com or by faxing the form to 1-877-660-5841.
Customers with questions about this recall should contact their Datascope/Getinge representative or call Datascope/Getinge technical support at 1-888-943-8872, Monday through Friday, between 8:00 AM and 6:00 PM ET.
The company has developed a hardware correction to address this issue and says a service representative will contact customers to schedule installation of the correction when the correction kit is available.
Any adverse events or suspected adverse events related to the recalled CardioSave Hybrid/Rescue IABPs should be reported to the FDA through MedWatch, its adverse event reporting program.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Datascope/Getinge is recalling certain Cardiosave Hybrid and Cardiosave Rescue Intra-Aortic Balloon Pumps (IABPs) because the coiled cable connecting the display and base on some units may fail, causing an unexpected shutdown without warnings or alarms to alert the user.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has identified this as a class I recall, the most serious type of recall, because of the risk for serious injury or death.
The FDA warns that an unexpected pump shutdown and any interruption to therapy that occurs can lead to hemodynamic instability, organ damage, and/or death, especially in patients who are critically ill and most likely to receive therapy using these devices.
The devices are indicated for acute coronary syndrome, cardiac and noncardiac surgery, and complications of heart failure in adults.
From June 2019 to August 2022, Datascope/Getinge reported 44 complaints about damaged coiled cords resulting in unexpected shutdowns. There have been no reports of injuries or deaths related to this issue, according to the recall notice posted on the FDA’s website.
The recall includes a total of 2,300 CardioSave Hybrid or Rescue IABP units distributed prior to July 24, 2017, and/or coiled cord part number 0012-00-1801. Product model numbers for the recalled Cardiosave Hybrid and Cardiosave Rescue are available online.
The Cardiosave IABPs have previously been flagged by the FDA for subpar battery performance and fluid leaks.
To address the cable issue, Datascope/Getinge sent an urgent medical device correction letter to customers recommending that the coiled cable cord of the Cardiosave IABP be inspected for visible damage prior to use.
If an unexpected shutdown occurs, an attempt should be made to restart the Cardiosave IABP until an alternative pump is available. If the restart attempt is unsuccessful, an alternative IABP should be used. Any device that remains inoperable after a shutdown should be removed from patient care.
Customers should inspect their inventory to identify any Cardiosave Hybrid and/or Rescue IABPs that have the recalled coiled cord.
The company also asks customers to complete and sign the Medical Device Correction-Response form included with the letter and return it to Datascope/Getinge by emailing a scanned copy to cardiosave-sdhl23.act@getinge.com or by faxing the form to 1-877-660-5841.
Customers with questions about this recall should contact their Datascope/Getinge representative or call Datascope/Getinge technical support at 1-888-943-8872, Monday through Friday, between 8:00 AM and 6:00 PM ET.
The company has developed a hardware correction to address this issue and says a service representative will contact customers to schedule installation of the correction when the correction kit is available.
Any adverse events or suspected adverse events related to the recalled CardioSave Hybrid/Rescue IABPs should be reported to the FDA through MedWatch, its adverse event reporting program.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Novel single-use patch shows promise for primary axillary hyperhidrosis
NEW ORLEANS – , results from a pivotal randomized trial showed.
“This is a new kind of device that is going to be a nice tool to have for treating patients who have hyperhidrosis of the axilla,” the study’s lead investigator, David M. Pariser, MD, who practices dermatology in Norfolk, Va., said during a late-breaking abstract session at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology.
In a study known as SAHARA, investigators at 11 sites evaluated the efficacy of the targeted alkali thermolysis (TAT) patch, a single-use disposable device. The patch consists of a thin sodium layer on an adhesive overlay. It’s applied to the dry axilla, and as the patient sweats during treatment, the sweat reacts with the sodium. According to Dr. Pariser, this interaction generates precisely targeted thermal energy that targets sweat glands, leading to a reduction in excessive sweat production for up to three months.
The researchers enrolled 110 individuals with Hyperhidrosis Disease Severity Scale (HDSS) scores of 3 or 4 and randomized them to either an active TAT or a sham patch for up to 3 minutes. Their mean age was about 33 years, and slightly more than half were women. “If significant discomfort or pain was noted, [the patch] treatment was halted; otherwise, it was left on for 3 minutes,” said Dr. Pariser, professor of dermatology at Eastern Virginia Medical School, Norfolk. “The treated area was thoroughly cleaned after treatment, and the TAT patch was deactivated. This process was repeated on the other axilla.”
The HDSS, Gravimetric Sweat Production (GSP), and quality of life assessments for bother and impact were measured through 12 weeks. The quality of life assessments were an exploratory endpoint and scored from 0 to 4, with 4 being extremely bothered or impacted and 0 not being bothered or impacted at all. The primary efficacy endpoint was the proportion of treated patients achieving a 1 or 2 on the HDSS at week 4, compared with sham treatment.
Secondary endpoints included the proportion of patients with an improvement of at least 2 grades from baseline to 4 weeks in HDSS by treatment group; mean improvement in the quality of life scale bother by treatment group; mean improvement in the quality of life scale impact by treatment group; and the proportion of subjects with at least 50% improvement in GSP from baseline to 4 weeks in the active patch group only.
Adverse events (AEs) were divided into 3 categories: AEs at the treatment site (or skin reactions within the treated part of the axilla); procedure-related AEs (those that are the result of treatment, but not in the treated part of the axilla), and non-axillary AEs.
Dr. Pariser reported that at 4 weeks, 63.6% of patients in the active patch group versus 44.2% of those in the sham group improved to an HDSS score of 1 or 2 (P = .0332) and that 43.2% of those in the active patch group versus 16.3% of those in the sham group (P = .0107) achieved a 2-point or greater HDSS improvement. In addition, 9.1% of those in the active patch group achieved a 3-point improvement on the HDSS, compared with none in the sham group. “That’s an amazing improvement; you’re basically going from moderate or severe to none,” he commented.
In other findings, 60.5% of patients in the active patch group showed at least a 50% reduction in GSP, compared with 32.6% of those in the sham group (P = .0102), with mean reductions of 57.3 mg/5min and 18.2 mg/5min, respectively (P = .0036). As for quality-of-life outcome scores, bother associated with hyperhidrosis was reduced by 1.52 points in active versus 0.61 in sham subjects (P = .0005), while impact was reduced by 1.44 in active versus 0.57 in sham subjects (P = .0004).
Adverse events
A total of 13 patients in the active patch group experienced AEs at the treatment site, including six with erythema; four with erosion; two with burning, itching or stinging; and one with underarm odor. “The two procedure-related AEs in the TAT-treated group were compensatory sweating and irritant contact dermatitis due to the adhesive,” said Dr. Pariser said.
Most adverse events resolved in fewer than 2 weeks, and all were mild to moderate. No serious adverse events occurred. Only five adverse events occurred in the sham group.
The TAT patch is currently undergoing review by the Food and Drug Administration, and according to Dr. Pariser, no other body sites have been treated with the device.
Adam Friedman, MD, professor and chair of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, who was asked to comment on the study, characterized hyperhidrosis as “an exceedingly common medical condition that is commonly overlooked even though it has a tremendous burden on quality of life. I should know, as both someone who manages a large cohort of these patients but also as someone who suffers from it.”
Treatment options “have historically been limited, many of which are off-label and some which are difficult to access due to cost and/or duration/frequency of treatment,” added Dr. Friedman, who was not involved with the study. “The TAT patch offers a new, targeted, in-office, practical procedure-based approach to treat primary axillary hyperhidrosis. Innovation is certainly welcomed and needed, and I am curious to see how this technology is employed in practice once approved.”
The device is being developed by Candesant Biomedical. Dr. Pariser disclosed that he is a consultant or investigator for Bickel Biotechnology, Biofrontera AG, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene Corporation, Novartis Pharmaceuticals, Pfizer, Regeneron, and Sanofi.
Dr. Friedman reported having no relevant disclosures.
NEW ORLEANS – , results from a pivotal randomized trial showed.
“This is a new kind of device that is going to be a nice tool to have for treating patients who have hyperhidrosis of the axilla,” the study’s lead investigator, David M. Pariser, MD, who practices dermatology in Norfolk, Va., said during a late-breaking abstract session at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology.
In a study known as SAHARA, investigators at 11 sites evaluated the efficacy of the targeted alkali thermolysis (TAT) patch, a single-use disposable device. The patch consists of a thin sodium layer on an adhesive overlay. It’s applied to the dry axilla, and as the patient sweats during treatment, the sweat reacts with the sodium. According to Dr. Pariser, this interaction generates precisely targeted thermal energy that targets sweat glands, leading to a reduction in excessive sweat production for up to three months.
The researchers enrolled 110 individuals with Hyperhidrosis Disease Severity Scale (HDSS) scores of 3 or 4 and randomized them to either an active TAT or a sham patch for up to 3 minutes. Their mean age was about 33 years, and slightly more than half were women. “If significant discomfort or pain was noted, [the patch] treatment was halted; otherwise, it was left on for 3 minutes,” said Dr. Pariser, professor of dermatology at Eastern Virginia Medical School, Norfolk. “The treated area was thoroughly cleaned after treatment, and the TAT patch was deactivated. This process was repeated on the other axilla.”
The HDSS, Gravimetric Sweat Production (GSP), and quality of life assessments for bother and impact were measured through 12 weeks. The quality of life assessments were an exploratory endpoint and scored from 0 to 4, with 4 being extremely bothered or impacted and 0 not being bothered or impacted at all. The primary efficacy endpoint was the proportion of treated patients achieving a 1 or 2 on the HDSS at week 4, compared with sham treatment.
Secondary endpoints included the proportion of patients with an improvement of at least 2 grades from baseline to 4 weeks in HDSS by treatment group; mean improvement in the quality of life scale bother by treatment group; mean improvement in the quality of life scale impact by treatment group; and the proportion of subjects with at least 50% improvement in GSP from baseline to 4 weeks in the active patch group only.
Adverse events (AEs) were divided into 3 categories: AEs at the treatment site (or skin reactions within the treated part of the axilla); procedure-related AEs (those that are the result of treatment, but not in the treated part of the axilla), and non-axillary AEs.
Dr. Pariser reported that at 4 weeks, 63.6% of patients in the active patch group versus 44.2% of those in the sham group improved to an HDSS score of 1 or 2 (P = .0332) and that 43.2% of those in the active patch group versus 16.3% of those in the sham group (P = .0107) achieved a 2-point or greater HDSS improvement. In addition, 9.1% of those in the active patch group achieved a 3-point improvement on the HDSS, compared with none in the sham group. “That’s an amazing improvement; you’re basically going from moderate or severe to none,” he commented.
In other findings, 60.5% of patients in the active patch group showed at least a 50% reduction in GSP, compared with 32.6% of those in the sham group (P = .0102), with mean reductions of 57.3 mg/5min and 18.2 mg/5min, respectively (P = .0036). As for quality-of-life outcome scores, bother associated with hyperhidrosis was reduced by 1.52 points in active versus 0.61 in sham subjects (P = .0005), while impact was reduced by 1.44 in active versus 0.57 in sham subjects (P = .0004).
Adverse events
A total of 13 patients in the active patch group experienced AEs at the treatment site, including six with erythema; four with erosion; two with burning, itching or stinging; and one with underarm odor. “The two procedure-related AEs in the TAT-treated group were compensatory sweating and irritant contact dermatitis due to the adhesive,” said Dr. Pariser said.
Most adverse events resolved in fewer than 2 weeks, and all were mild to moderate. No serious adverse events occurred. Only five adverse events occurred in the sham group.
The TAT patch is currently undergoing review by the Food and Drug Administration, and according to Dr. Pariser, no other body sites have been treated with the device.
Adam Friedman, MD, professor and chair of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, who was asked to comment on the study, characterized hyperhidrosis as “an exceedingly common medical condition that is commonly overlooked even though it has a tremendous burden on quality of life. I should know, as both someone who manages a large cohort of these patients but also as someone who suffers from it.”
Treatment options “have historically been limited, many of which are off-label and some which are difficult to access due to cost and/or duration/frequency of treatment,” added Dr. Friedman, who was not involved with the study. “The TAT patch offers a new, targeted, in-office, practical procedure-based approach to treat primary axillary hyperhidrosis. Innovation is certainly welcomed and needed, and I am curious to see how this technology is employed in practice once approved.”
The device is being developed by Candesant Biomedical. Dr. Pariser disclosed that he is a consultant or investigator for Bickel Biotechnology, Biofrontera AG, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene Corporation, Novartis Pharmaceuticals, Pfizer, Regeneron, and Sanofi.
Dr. Friedman reported having no relevant disclosures.
NEW ORLEANS – , results from a pivotal randomized trial showed.
“This is a new kind of device that is going to be a nice tool to have for treating patients who have hyperhidrosis of the axilla,” the study’s lead investigator, David M. Pariser, MD, who practices dermatology in Norfolk, Va., said during a late-breaking abstract session at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology.
In a study known as SAHARA, investigators at 11 sites evaluated the efficacy of the targeted alkali thermolysis (TAT) patch, a single-use disposable device. The patch consists of a thin sodium layer on an adhesive overlay. It’s applied to the dry axilla, and as the patient sweats during treatment, the sweat reacts with the sodium. According to Dr. Pariser, this interaction generates precisely targeted thermal energy that targets sweat glands, leading to a reduction in excessive sweat production for up to three months.
The researchers enrolled 110 individuals with Hyperhidrosis Disease Severity Scale (HDSS) scores of 3 or 4 and randomized them to either an active TAT or a sham patch for up to 3 minutes. Their mean age was about 33 years, and slightly more than half were women. “If significant discomfort or pain was noted, [the patch] treatment was halted; otherwise, it was left on for 3 minutes,” said Dr. Pariser, professor of dermatology at Eastern Virginia Medical School, Norfolk. “The treated area was thoroughly cleaned after treatment, and the TAT patch was deactivated. This process was repeated on the other axilla.”
The HDSS, Gravimetric Sweat Production (GSP), and quality of life assessments for bother and impact were measured through 12 weeks. The quality of life assessments were an exploratory endpoint and scored from 0 to 4, with 4 being extremely bothered or impacted and 0 not being bothered or impacted at all. The primary efficacy endpoint was the proportion of treated patients achieving a 1 or 2 on the HDSS at week 4, compared with sham treatment.
Secondary endpoints included the proportion of patients with an improvement of at least 2 grades from baseline to 4 weeks in HDSS by treatment group; mean improvement in the quality of life scale bother by treatment group; mean improvement in the quality of life scale impact by treatment group; and the proportion of subjects with at least 50% improvement in GSP from baseline to 4 weeks in the active patch group only.
Adverse events (AEs) were divided into 3 categories: AEs at the treatment site (or skin reactions within the treated part of the axilla); procedure-related AEs (those that are the result of treatment, but not in the treated part of the axilla), and non-axillary AEs.
Dr. Pariser reported that at 4 weeks, 63.6% of patients in the active patch group versus 44.2% of those in the sham group improved to an HDSS score of 1 or 2 (P = .0332) and that 43.2% of those in the active patch group versus 16.3% of those in the sham group (P = .0107) achieved a 2-point or greater HDSS improvement. In addition, 9.1% of those in the active patch group achieved a 3-point improvement on the HDSS, compared with none in the sham group. “That’s an amazing improvement; you’re basically going from moderate or severe to none,” he commented.
In other findings, 60.5% of patients in the active patch group showed at least a 50% reduction in GSP, compared with 32.6% of those in the sham group (P = .0102), with mean reductions of 57.3 mg/5min and 18.2 mg/5min, respectively (P = .0036). As for quality-of-life outcome scores, bother associated with hyperhidrosis was reduced by 1.52 points in active versus 0.61 in sham subjects (P = .0005), while impact was reduced by 1.44 in active versus 0.57 in sham subjects (P = .0004).
Adverse events
A total of 13 patients in the active patch group experienced AEs at the treatment site, including six with erythema; four with erosion; two with burning, itching or stinging; and one with underarm odor. “The two procedure-related AEs in the TAT-treated group were compensatory sweating and irritant contact dermatitis due to the adhesive,” said Dr. Pariser said.
Most adverse events resolved in fewer than 2 weeks, and all were mild to moderate. No serious adverse events occurred. Only five adverse events occurred in the sham group.
The TAT patch is currently undergoing review by the Food and Drug Administration, and according to Dr. Pariser, no other body sites have been treated with the device.
Adam Friedman, MD, professor and chair of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, who was asked to comment on the study, characterized hyperhidrosis as “an exceedingly common medical condition that is commonly overlooked even though it has a tremendous burden on quality of life. I should know, as both someone who manages a large cohort of these patients but also as someone who suffers from it.”
Treatment options “have historically been limited, many of which are off-label and some which are difficult to access due to cost and/or duration/frequency of treatment,” added Dr. Friedman, who was not involved with the study. “The TAT patch offers a new, targeted, in-office, practical procedure-based approach to treat primary axillary hyperhidrosis. Innovation is certainly welcomed and needed, and I am curious to see how this technology is employed in practice once approved.”
The device is being developed by Candesant Biomedical. Dr. Pariser disclosed that he is a consultant or investigator for Bickel Biotechnology, Biofrontera AG, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene Corporation, Novartis Pharmaceuticals, Pfizer, Regeneron, and Sanofi.
Dr. Friedman reported having no relevant disclosures.
AT AAD 2023
JAK inhibitor safety warnings drawn from rheumatologic data may be misleading in dermatology
NEW ORLEANS – , even though the basis for all the risks is a rheumatoid arthritis study, according to a critical review at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology.
Given the fact that the postmarketing RA study was specifically enriched with high-risk patients by requiring an age at enrollment of at least 50 years and the presence of at least one cardiovascular risk factor, the extrapolation of these risks to dermatologic indications is “not necessarily data-driven,” said Brett A. King, MD, PhD, associate professor of dermatology, Yale University, New Haven, Conn.
The recently approved deucravacitinib is the only JAK inhibitor that has so far been exempt from these warnings. Instead, based on the ORAL Surveillance study, published in the New England Journal of Medicine, the Food and Drug Administration requires a boxed warning in nearly identical language for all the other JAK inhibitors. Relative to tofacitinib, the JAK inhibitor tested in ORAL Surveillance, many of these drugs differ by JAK selectivity and other characteristics that are likely relevant to risk of adverse events, Dr. King said. The same language has even been applied to topical ruxolitinib cream.
Basis of boxed warnings
In ORAL Surveillance, about 4,300 high-risk patients with RA were randomized to one of two doses of tofacitinib (5 mg or 10 mg) twice daily or a tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitor. All patients in the trial were taking methotrexate, and almost 60% were taking concomitant corticosteroids. The average body mass index of the study population was about 30 kg/m2.
After a median 4 years of follow-up (about 5,000 patient-years), the incidence of many of the adverse events tracked in the study were higher in the tofacitinib groups, including serious infections, MACE, thromboembolic events, and cancer. Dr. King did not challenge the importance of these data, but he questioned whether they are reasonably extrapolated to dermatologic indications, particularly as many of those treated are younger than those common to an RA population.
In fact, despite a study enriched for a higher risk of many events tracked, most adverse events were only slightly elevated, Dr. King pointed out. For example, the incidence of MACE over the 4 years of follow-up was 3.4% among those taking any dose of tofacitinib versus 2.5% of those randomized to TNF inhibitor. Rates of cancer were 4.2% versus 2.9%, respectively. There were also absolute increases in the number of serious infections and thromboembolic events for tofacitinib relative to TNF inhibitor.
Dr. King acknowledged that the numbers in ORAL Surveillance associated tofacitinib with a higher risk of serious events than TNF inhibitor in patients with RA, but he believes that “JAK inhibitor safety is almost certainly not the same in dermatology as it is in rheumatology patients.”
Evidence of difference in dermatology
There is some evidence to back this up. Dr. King cited a recently published study in RMD Open that evaluated the safety profile of the JAK inhibitor upadacitinib in nearly 7,000 patients over 15,000 patient-years of follow-up. Drug safety data were evaluated with up to 5.5 years of follow-up from 12 clinical trials of the four diseases for which upadacitinib is now indicated. Three were rheumatologic (RA, psoriatic arthritis, and ankylosing spondylitis), and the fourth was atopic dermatitis (AD). Fourteen outcomes, including numerous types of infection, MACE, hepatic complications, and malignancy, were compared with methotrexate and the TNF inhibitor adalimumab.
For the RA diseases, upadacitinib was associated with a greater risk than comparators for several outcomes, including serious infections. But in AD, there was a smaller increased risk of adverse outcomes for the JAK inhibitor relative to comparators.
When evaluated by risk of adverse events across indications, for MACE, the exposure-adjusted event rates for upadacitinib were less than 0.1 in patients treated for AD over the observation period versus 0.3 and 0.4 for RA and psoriatic arthritis, respectively. Similarly, for venous thromboembolism, the rates for upadacitinib were again less than 0.1 in patients with AD versus 0.4 and 0.2 in RA and psoriatic arthritis, respectively.
Referring back to the postmarketing study, Dr. King emphasized that it is essential to consider how the boxed warning for JAK inhibitors was generated before applying them to dermatologic indications.
“Is a 30-year-old patient with a dermatologic disorder possibly at the same risk as the patients in the study from which we got the boxed warning? The answer is simply no,” he said.
Like the tofacitinib data in the ORAL Surveillance study, the upadacitinib clinical trial data are not necessarily relevant to other JAK inhibitors. In fact, Dr. King pointed out that the safety profiles of the available JAK inhibitors are not identical, an observation that is consistent with differences in JAK inhibitor selectivity that has implications for off-target events.
Dr. King does not dismiss the potential risks outlined in the current regulatory cautions about the use of JAK inhibitors, but he believes that dermatologists should be cognizant of “where the black box warning comes from.”
“We need to think carefully about the risk-to-benefit ratio in older patients or patients with risk factors, such as obesity and diabetes,” he said. But the safety profile of JAK inhibitors “is almost certainly better” than the profile suggested in boxed warnings applied to JAK inhibitors for dermatologic indications, he advised.
Risk-benefit considerations in dermatology
This position was supported by numerous other experts when asked for their perspectives. “I fully agree,” said Emma Guttman-Yassky, MD, PhD, system chair of dermatology and immunology, Icahn School of Medicine, Mount Sinai, New York.
Like Dr. King, Dr. Guttman-Yassky did not dismiss the potential risks of JAK inhibitors when treating dermatologic diseases.
“While JAK inhibitors need monitoring as advised, adopting a boxed warning from an RA study for patients who are older [is problematic],” she commented. A study with the nonselective tofacitinib in this population “cannot be compared to more selective inhibitors in a much younger population, such as those treated [for] alopecia areata or atopic dermatitis.”
George Z. Han, MD, PhD, an associate professor of dermatology, Zucker School of Medicine, Hofstra, Northwell Medical Center, New Hyde Park, New York, also agreed but added some caveats.
“The comments about the ORAL Surveillance study are salient,” he said in an interview. “This kind of data should not directly be extrapolated to other patient types or to other medications.” However, one of Dr. Han’s most important caveats involves long-term use.
“JAK inhibitors are still relatively narrow-therapeutic-window drugs that in a dose-dependent fashion could lead to negative effects, including thromboembolic events, abnormalities in red blood cells, white blood cells, platelets, and lipids,” he said. While doses used in dermatology “are generally below the level of any major concern,” Dr. Han cautioned that “we lack definitive data” on long-term use, and this is important for understanding “any potential small risk of rare events, such as malignancy or thromboembolism.”
Saakshi Khattri, MD, a colleague of Dr. Guttman-Yassky at Mount Sinai, said the risks of JAK inhibitors should not be underestimated, but she also agreed that risk “needs to be delivered in the right context.” Dr. Khattri, who is board certified in both dermatology and rheumatology, noted the safety profiles of available JAK inhibitors differ and that extrapolating safety from an RA study to dermatologic indications does not make sense. “Different diseases, different age groups,” she said.
Dr. King has reported financial relationships with more than 15 pharmaceutical companies, including companies that make JAK inhibitors. Dr. Guttman-Yassky has reported financial relationships with more than 20 pharmaceutical companies, including companies that make JAK inhibitors. Dr. Han reports financial relationships with Amgen, Athenex, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bond Avillion, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, PellePharm, Pfizer, and UCB. Dr. Khattri has reported financial relationships with AbbVie, Arcutis, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Janssen, Leo, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
NEW ORLEANS – , even though the basis for all the risks is a rheumatoid arthritis study, according to a critical review at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology.
Given the fact that the postmarketing RA study was specifically enriched with high-risk patients by requiring an age at enrollment of at least 50 years and the presence of at least one cardiovascular risk factor, the extrapolation of these risks to dermatologic indications is “not necessarily data-driven,” said Brett A. King, MD, PhD, associate professor of dermatology, Yale University, New Haven, Conn.
The recently approved deucravacitinib is the only JAK inhibitor that has so far been exempt from these warnings. Instead, based on the ORAL Surveillance study, published in the New England Journal of Medicine, the Food and Drug Administration requires a boxed warning in nearly identical language for all the other JAK inhibitors. Relative to tofacitinib, the JAK inhibitor tested in ORAL Surveillance, many of these drugs differ by JAK selectivity and other characteristics that are likely relevant to risk of adverse events, Dr. King said. The same language has even been applied to topical ruxolitinib cream.
Basis of boxed warnings
In ORAL Surveillance, about 4,300 high-risk patients with RA were randomized to one of two doses of tofacitinib (5 mg or 10 mg) twice daily or a tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitor. All patients in the trial were taking methotrexate, and almost 60% were taking concomitant corticosteroids. The average body mass index of the study population was about 30 kg/m2.
After a median 4 years of follow-up (about 5,000 patient-years), the incidence of many of the adverse events tracked in the study were higher in the tofacitinib groups, including serious infections, MACE, thromboembolic events, and cancer. Dr. King did not challenge the importance of these data, but he questioned whether they are reasonably extrapolated to dermatologic indications, particularly as many of those treated are younger than those common to an RA population.
In fact, despite a study enriched for a higher risk of many events tracked, most adverse events were only slightly elevated, Dr. King pointed out. For example, the incidence of MACE over the 4 years of follow-up was 3.4% among those taking any dose of tofacitinib versus 2.5% of those randomized to TNF inhibitor. Rates of cancer were 4.2% versus 2.9%, respectively. There were also absolute increases in the number of serious infections and thromboembolic events for tofacitinib relative to TNF inhibitor.
Dr. King acknowledged that the numbers in ORAL Surveillance associated tofacitinib with a higher risk of serious events than TNF inhibitor in patients with RA, but he believes that “JAK inhibitor safety is almost certainly not the same in dermatology as it is in rheumatology patients.”
Evidence of difference in dermatology
There is some evidence to back this up. Dr. King cited a recently published study in RMD Open that evaluated the safety profile of the JAK inhibitor upadacitinib in nearly 7,000 patients over 15,000 patient-years of follow-up. Drug safety data were evaluated with up to 5.5 years of follow-up from 12 clinical trials of the four diseases for which upadacitinib is now indicated. Three were rheumatologic (RA, psoriatic arthritis, and ankylosing spondylitis), and the fourth was atopic dermatitis (AD). Fourteen outcomes, including numerous types of infection, MACE, hepatic complications, and malignancy, were compared with methotrexate and the TNF inhibitor adalimumab.
For the RA diseases, upadacitinib was associated with a greater risk than comparators for several outcomes, including serious infections. But in AD, there was a smaller increased risk of adverse outcomes for the JAK inhibitor relative to comparators.
When evaluated by risk of adverse events across indications, for MACE, the exposure-adjusted event rates for upadacitinib were less than 0.1 in patients treated for AD over the observation period versus 0.3 and 0.4 for RA and psoriatic arthritis, respectively. Similarly, for venous thromboembolism, the rates for upadacitinib were again less than 0.1 in patients with AD versus 0.4 and 0.2 in RA and psoriatic arthritis, respectively.
Referring back to the postmarketing study, Dr. King emphasized that it is essential to consider how the boxed warning for JAK inhibitors was generated before applying them to dermatologic indications.
“Is a 30-year-old patient with a dermatologic disorder possibly at the same risk as the patients in the study from which we got the boxed warning? The answer is simply no,” he said.
Like the tofacitinib data in the ORAL Surveillance study, the upadacitinib clinical trial data are not necessarily relevant to other JAK inhibitors. In fact, Dr. King pointed out that the safety profiles of the available JAK inhibitors are not identical, an observation that is consistent with differences in JAK inhibitor selectivity that has implications for off-target events.
Dr. King does not dismiss the potential risks outlined in the current regulatory cautions about the use of JAK inhibitors, but he believes that dermatologists should be cognizant of “where the black box warning comes from.”
“We need to think carefully about the risk-to-benefit ratio in older patients or patients with risk factors, such as obesity and diabetes,” he said. But the safety profile of JAK inhibitors “is almost certainly better” than the profile suggested in boxed warnings applied to JAK inhibitors for dermatologic indications, he advised.
Risk-benefit considerations in dermatology
This position was supported by numerous other experts when asked for their perspectives. “I fully agree,” said Emma Guttman-Yassky, MD, PhD, system chair of dermatology and immunology, Icahn School of Medicine, Mount Sinai, New York.
Like Dr. King, Dr. Guttman-Yassky did not dismiss the potential risks of JAK inhibitors when treating dermatologic diseases.
“While JAK inhibitors need monitoring as advised, adopting a boxed warning from an RA study for patients who are older [is problematic],” she commented. A study with the nonselective tofacitinib in this population “cannot be compared to more selective inhibitors in a much younger population, such as those treated [for] alopecia areata or atopic dermatitis.”
George Z. Han, MD, PhD, an associate professor of dermatology, Zucker School of Medicine, Hofstra, Northwell Medical Center, New Hyde Park, New York, also agreed but added some caveats.
“The comments about the ORAL Surveillance study are salient,” he said in an interview. “This kind of data should not directly be extrapolated to other patient types or to other medications.” However, one of Dr. Han’s most important caveats involves long-term use.
“JAK inhibitors are still relatively narrow-therapeutic-window drugs that in a dose-dependent fashion could lead to negative effects, including thromboembolic events, abnormalities in red blood cells, white blood cells, platelets, and lipids,” he said. While doses used in dermatology “are generally below the level of any major concern,” Dr. Han cautioned that “we lack definitive data” on long-term use, and this is important for understanding “any potential small risk of rare events, such as malignancy or thromboembolism.”
Saakshi Khattri, MD, a colleague of Dr. Guttman-Yassky at Mount Sinai, said the risks of JAK inhibitors should not be underestimated, but she also agreed that risk “needs to be delivered in the right context.” Dr. Khattri, who is board certified in both dermatology and rheumatology, noted the safety profiles of available JAK inhibitors differ and that extrapolating safety from an RA study to dermatologic indications does not make sense. “Different diseases, different age groups,” she said.
Dr. King has reported financial relationships with more than 15 pharmaceutical companies, including companies that make JAK inhibitors. Dr. Guttman-Yassky has reported financial relationships with more than 20 pharmaceutical companies, including companies that make JAK inhibitors. Dr. Han reports financial relationships with Amgen, Athenex, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bond Avillion, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, PellePharm, Pfizer, and UCB. Dr. Khattri has reported financial relationships with AbbVie, Arcutis, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Janssen, Leo, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
NEW ORLEANS – , even though the basis for all the risks is a rheumatoid arthritis study, according to a critical review at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology.
Given the fact that the postmarketing RA study was specifically enriched with high-risk patients by requiring an age at enrollment of at least 50 years and the presence of at least one cardiovascular risk factor, the extrapolation of these risks to dermatologic indications is “not necessarily data-driven,” said Brett A. King, MD, PhD, associate professor of dermatology, Yale University, New Haven, Conn.
The recently approved deucravacitinib is the only JAK inhibitor that has so far been exempt from these warnings. Instead, based on the ORAL Surveillance study, published in the New England Journal of Medicine, the Food and Drug Administration requires a boxed warning in nearly identical language for all the other JAK inhibitors. Relative to tofacitinib, the JAK inhibitor tested in ORAL Surveillance, many of these drugs differ by JAK selectivity and other characteristics that are likely relevant to risk of adverse events, Dr. King said. The same language has even been applied to topical ruxolitinib cream.
Basis of boxed warnings
In ORAL Surveillance, about 4,300 high-risk patients with RA were randomized to one of two doses of tofacitinib (5 mg or 10 mg) twice daily or a tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitor. All patients in the trial were taking methotrexate, and almost 60% were taking concomitant corticosteroids. The average body mass index of the study population was about 30 kg/m2.
After a median 4 years of follow-up (about 5,000 patient-years), the incidence of many of the adverse events tracked in the study were higher in the tofacitinib groups, including serious infections, MACE, thromboembolic events, and cancer. Dr. King did not challenge the importance of these data, but he questioned whether they are reasonably extrapolated to dermatologic indications, particularly as many of those treated are younger than those common to an RA population.
In fact, despite a study enriched for a higher risk of many events tracked, most adverse events were only slightly elevated, Dr. King pointed out. For example, the incidence of MACE over the 4 years of follow-up was 3.4% among those taking any dose of tofacitinib versus 2.5% of those randomized to TNF inhibitor. Rates of cancer were 4.2% versus 2.9%, respectively. There were also absolute increases in the number of serious infections and thromboembolic events for tofacitinib relative to TNF inhibitor.
Dr. King acknowledged that the numbers in ORAL Surveillance associated tofacitinib with a higher risk of serious events than TNF inhibitor in patients with RA, but he believes that “JAK inhibitor safety is almost certainly not the same in dermatology as it is in rheumatology patients.”
Evidence of difference in dermatology
There is some evidence to back this up. Dr. King cited a recently published study in RMD Open that evaluated the safety profile of the JAK inhibitor upadacitinib in nearly 7,000 patients over 15,000 patient-years of follow-up. Drug safety data were evaluated with up to 5.5 years of follow-up from 12 clinical trials of the four diseases for which upadacitinib is now indicated. Three were rheumatologic (RA, psoriatic arthritis, and ankylosing spondylitis), and the fourth was atopic dermatitis (AD). Fourteen outcomes, including numerous types of infection, MACE, hepatic complications, and malignancy, were compared with methotrexate and the TNF inhibitor adalimumab.
For the RA diseases, upadacitinib was associated with a greater risk than comparators for several outcomes, including serious infections. But in AD, there was a smaller increased risk of adverse outcomes for the JAK inhibitor relative to comparators.
When evaluated by risk of adverse events across indications, for MACE, the exposure-adjusted event rates for upadacitinib were less than 0.1 in patients treated for AD over the observation period versus 0.3 and 0.4 for RA and psoriatic arthritis, respectively. Similarly, for venous thromboembolism, the rates for upadacitinib were again less than 0.1 in patients with AD versus 0.4 and 0.2 in RA and psoriatic arthritis, respectively.
Referring back to the postmarketing study, Dr. King emphasized that it is essential to consider how the boxed warning for JAK inhibitors was generated before applying them to dermatologic indications.
“Is a 30-year-old patient with a dermatologic disorder possibly at the same risk as the patients in the study from which we got the boxed warning? The answer is simply no,” he said.
Like the tofacitinib data in the ORAL Surveillance study, the upadacitinib clinical trial data are not necessarily relevant to other JAK inhibitors. In fact, Dr. King pointed out that the safety profiles of the available JAK inhibitors are not identical, an observation that is consistent with differences in JAK inhibitor selectivity that has implications for off-target events.
Dr. King does not dismiss the potential risks outlined in the current regulatory cautions about the use of JAK inhibitors, but he believes that dermatologists should be cognizant of “where the black box warning comes from.”
“We need to think carefully about the risk-to-benefit ratio in older patients or patients with risk factors, such as obesity and diabetes,” he said. But the safety profile of JAK inhibitors “is almost certainly better” than the profile suggested in boxed warnings applied to JAK inhibitors for dermatologic indications, he advised.
Risk-benefit considerations in dermatology
This position was supported by numerous other experts when asked for their perspectives. “I fully agree,” said Emma Guttman-Yassky, MD, PhD, system chair of dermatology and immunology, Icahn School of Medicine, Mount Sinai, New York.
Like Dr. King, Dr. Guttman-Yassky did not dismiss the potential risks of JAK inhibitors when treating dermatologic diseases.
“While JAK inhibitors need monitoring as advised, adopting a boxed warning from an RA study for patients who are older [is problematic],” she commented. A study with the nonselective tofacitinib in this population “cannot be compared to more selective inhibitors in a much younger population, such as those treated [for] alopecia areata or atopic dermatitis.”
George Z. Han, MD, PhD, an associate professor of dermatology, Zucker School of Medicine, Hofstra, Northwell Medical Center, New Hyde Park, New York, also agreed but added some caveats.
“The comments about the ORAL Surveillance study are salient,” he said in an interview. “This kind of data should not directly be extrapolated to other patient types or to other medications.” However, one of Dr. Han’s most important caveats involves long-term use.
“JAK inhibitors are still relatively narrow-therapeutic-window drugs that in a dose-dependent fashion could lead to negative effects, including thromboembolic events, abnormalities in red blood cells, white blood cells, platelets, and lipids,” he said. While doses used in dermatology “are generally below the level of any major concern,” Dr. Han cautioned that “we lack definitive data” on long-term use, and this is important for understanding “any potential small risk of rare events, such as malignancy or thromboembolism.”
Saakshi Khattri, MD, a colleague of Dr. Guttman-Yassky at Mount Sinai, said the risks of JAK inhibitors should not be underestimated, but she also agreed that risk “needs to be delivered in the right context.” Dr. Khattri, who is board certified in both dermatology and rheumatology, noted the safety profiles of available JAK inhibitors differ and that extrapolating safety from an RA study to dermatologic indications does not make sense. “Different diseases, different age groups,” she said.
Dr. King has reported financial relationships with more than 15 pharmaceutical companies, including companies that make JAK inhibitors. Dr. Guttman-Yassky has reported financial relationships with more than 20 pharmaceutical companies, including companies that make JAK inhibitors. Dr. Han reports financial relationships with Amgen, Athenex, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bond Avillion, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, PellePharm, Pfizer, and UCB. Dr. Khattri has reported financial relationships with AbbVie, Arcutis, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Janssen, Leo, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
AT AAD 2023