Pharmacology

A once-daily oral stimulant medication for treatment of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder in individuals aged 6 years or older is safe and effective after 1 year of treatment, new research shows.

Results from a phase 3, multicenter dose optimization, open-label safety study of Azstarys (KemPharm) found that most treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were mild to moderate.

“This data show that Azstarys remains safe and effective for the treatment of ADHD when given for up to a year,” lead investigator Ann Childress, MD, president of the Center for Psychiatry and Behavioral Medicine, Las Vegas, said in an interview.

The study was published online  in the Journal of Child and Adolescent Psychopharmacology.

Safety at 1 year

The drug is a combination of extended-release serdexmethylphenidate (SDX), KemPharm’s prodrug of dexmethylphenidate (d-MPH), co-formulated with immediate-release d-MPH.

SDX is converted to d-MPH after it is absorbed in the gastrointestinal tract. The d-MPH is released gradually throughout the day, providing quick symptom control with the d-MPH and extended control with SDX.

As reported by this news organization, Azstarys was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in 2021 on the basis of results from a laboratory classroom phase 3 trial, which showed significant improvement in ADHD symptoms, compared with placebo.

For this study, the second phase 3 trial of Azstarys, investigators analyzed data from 282 children aged 6-12 years in the United States, including 70 who participated in an earlier 1-month efficacy trial as well.

After screening and a 3-week dose-optimization phase for new participants, patients received once-daily treatment with doses of 26.1 mg/5.2 mg, 39.2 mg/7.8 mg, or 52.3 mg/10.4 mg of SDX/d-MPH.

After 1 year of treatment, 60.1% of participants reported at least one TEAE, the majority of which were moderate. Twelve patients reported severe TEAEs. Six children (2.5%) discontinued the study due to a TEAE during the treatment phase.

Investigators also measured growth and changes in sleep with the Children’s Sleep Habits Questionnaire during the 12-month study. Sleep improved on most measures and the impact on growth was mild.

There were no life-threatening TEAEs and no deaths reported during the study.

The most common TEAEs during the treatment phase were decreased appetite, upper respiratory tract infection, nasopharyngitis, decreased weight, irritability, and increased weight.

Efficacy at 1 year

ADHD symptoms improved considerably after 1 month of treatment, with responses continuing at 1 year.

At baseline, participants’ mean ADHD Rating Scale-5 (ADHD-RS-5) score was 41.5. After 1 month of treatment, scores averaged 16.1, a decline of –25.3 (P < .001).

The mean score stabilized in the 12-15 range for the remainder of the study. After 1 year of treatment, ADHD symptoms had decreased approximately 70% from baseline.

Investigators found similar results in clinical severity. After 1 month of treatment, the average Clinical Global Impressions–Severity (CGI-S) scale score was 2.5, a decline of –2.2 (P < .0001).

CGI-S scale scores remained in the 2.2-2.4 range for the remainder of the study.

These results, combined with the results of the original classroom trial, suggest Azstarys may offer advantages over other ADHD drugs, Dr. Childress said.

“In the laboratory classroom trial, subjects taking Azstarys completed significantly more math problems than subjects taking placebo beginning at 30 minutes and up to 13 hours after dosing,” Dr. Childress said. “No other methylphenidate extended-release product currently marketed in the United States has a 13-hour duration of effect.”

‘Reassuring data’

Aditya Pawar, MD, a child and adolescent psychiatrist with the Kennedy Krieger Institute and an assistant professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, said that the study suggests the drug may be a valuable addition to ADHD treatment options for pediatric patients.

“The study provides reassuring data on the safety of stimulants in patients without significant history of cardiac events or blood pressure changes, which are usual concerns among patients and clinicians despite the evidence supporting safety, said Dr. Pawar, who was not part of the study.

“Additionally, the 1-year data on efficacy and safety of a new stimulant medication is valuable for clinicians looking for sustained relief for their patients, despite the limitations of an open-label trial,” she added.

Overall, the safety data reported here are fairly consistent with the safety profile of other methylphenidates used for treating ADHD, Dr. Pawar said.

However, she noted, the study does have some limitations, including its open-label design and lack of blinding. The research also excluded children with autism, disruptive mood dysregulation disorders, and other common comorbidities of ADHD, which may limit the generalizability of the results.

“These comorbidities often require stimulants as a part of treatment and yet have a higher risk of side effects,” Dr. Pawar said. “Future studies with a broader population may be needed to better understand treatment effectiveness and potential risks.”

The study was funded by KemPharm. Dr. Childress serves as consultant for Aardvark, Arbor, Attentive, Cingulate, Ironshore, Neos Therapeutics, Neurocentria, Otsuka, Purdue, Rhodes, Sunovion, Tris Pharma, KemPharm, Supernus, Jazz, Corium, Tulex, and Lumos. Full disclosures are reported in the original article.

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

A once-daily oral stimulant medication for treatment of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder in individuals aged 6 years or older is safe and effective after 1 year of treatment, new research shows.

Results from a phase 3, multicenter dose optimization, open-label safety study of Azstarys (KemPharm) found that most treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were mild to moderate.

“This data show that Azstarys remains safe and effective for the treatment of ADHD when given for up to a year,” lead investigator Ann Childress, MD, president of the Center for Psychiatry and Behavioral Medicine, Las Vegas, said in an interview.

The study was published online  in the Journal of Child and Adolescent Psychopharmacology.

Safety at 1 year

The drug is a combination of extended-release serdexmethylphenidate (SDX), KemPharm’s prodrug of dexmethylphenidate (d-MPH), co-formulated with immediate-release d-MPH.

SDX is converted to d-MPH after it is absorbed in the gastrointestinal tract. The d-MPH is released gradually throughout the day, providing quick symptom control with the d-MPH and extended control with SDX.

As reported by this news organization, Azstarys was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in 2021 on the basis of results from a laboratory classroom phase 3 trial, which showed significant improvement in ADHD symptoms, compared with placebo.

For this study, the second phase 3 trial of Azstarys, investigators analyzed data from 282 children aged 6-12 years in the United States, including 70 who participated in an earlier 1-month efficacy trial as well.

After screening and a 3-week dose-optimization phase for new participants, patients received once-daily treatment with doses of 26.1 mg/5.2 mg, 39.2 mg/7.8 mg, or 52.3 mg/10.4 mg of SDX/d-MPH.

After 1 year of treatment, 60.1% of participants reported at least one TEAE, the majority of which were moderate. Twelve patients reported severe TEAEs. Six children (2.5%) discontinued the study due to a TEAE during the treatment phase.

Investigators also measured growth and changes in sleep with the Children’s Sleep Habits Questionnaire during the 12-month study. Sleep improved on most measures and the impact on growth was mild.

There were no life-threatening TEAEs and no deaths reported during the study.

The most common TEAEs during the treatment phase were decreased appetite, upper respiratory tract infection, nasopharyngitis, decreased weight, irritability, and increased weight.

Efficacy at 1 year

ADHD symptoms improved considerably after 1 month of treatment, with responses continuing at 1 year.

At baseline, participants’ mean ADHD Rating Scale-5 (ADHD-RS-5) score was 41.5. After 1 month of treatment, scores averaged 16.1, a decline of –25.3 (P < .001).

The mean score stabilized in the 12-15 range for the remainder of the study. After 1 year of treatment, ADHD symptoms had decreased approximately 70% from baseline.

Investigators found similar results in clinical severity. After 1 month of treatment, the average Clinical Global Impressions–Severity (CGI-S) scale score was 2.5, a decline of –2.2 (P < .0001).

CGI-S scale scores remained in the 2.2-2.4 range for the remainder of the study.

These results, combined with the results of the original classroom trial, suggest Azstarys may offer advantages over other ADHD drugs, Dr. Childress said.

“In the laboratory classroom trial, subjects taking Azstarys completed significantly more math problems than subjects taking placebo beginning at 30 minutes and up to 13 hours after dosing,” Dr. Childress said. “No other methylphenidate extended-release product currently marketed in the United States has a 13-hour duration of effect.”

‘Reassuring data’

Aditya Pawar, MD, a child and adolescent psychiatrist with the Kennedy Krieger Institute and an assistant professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, said that the study suggests the drug may be a valuable addition to ADHD treatment options for pediatric patients.

“The study provides reassuring data on the safety of stimulants in patients without significant history of cardiac events or blood pressure changes, which are usual concerns among patients and clinicians despite the evidence supporting safety, said Dr. Pawar, who was not part of the study.

“Additionally, the 1-year data on efficacy and safety of a new stimulant medication is valuable for clinicians looking for sustained relief for their patients, despite the limitations of an open-label trial,” she added.

Overall, the safety data reported here are fairly consistent with the safety profile of other methylphenidates used for treating ADHD, Dr. Pawar said.

However, she noted, the study does have some limitations, including its open-label design and lack of blinding. The research also excluded children with autism, disruptive mood dysregulation disorders, and other common comorbidities of ADHD, which may limit the generalizability of the results.

“These comorbidities often require stimulants as a part of treatment and yet have a higher risk of side effects,” Dr. Pawar said. “Future studies with a broader population may be needed to better understand treatment effectiveness and potential risks.”

The study was funded by KemPharm. Dr. Childress serves as consultant for Aardvark, Arbor, Attentive, Cingulate, Ironshore, Neos Therapeutics, Neurocentria, Otsuka, Purdue, Rhodes, Sunovion, Tris Pharma, KemPharm, Supernus, Jazz, Corium, Tulex, and Lumos. Full disclosures are reported in the original article.

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

A once-daily oral stimulant medication for treatment of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder in individuals aged 6 years or older is safe and effective after 1 year of treatment, new research shows.

Results from a phase 3, multicenter dose optimization, open-label safety study of Azstarys (KemPharm) found that most treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were mild to moderate.

“This data show that Azstarys remains safe and effective for the treatment of ADHD when given for up to a year,” lead investigator Ann Childress, MD, president of the Center for Psychiatry and Behavioral Medicine, Las Vegas, said in an interview.

The study was published online  in the Journal of Child and Adolescent Psychopharmacology.

Safety at 1 year

The drug is a combination of extended-release serdexmethylphenidate (SDX), KemPharm’s prodrug of dexmethylphenidate (d-MPH), co-formulated with immediate-release d-MPH.

SDX is converted to d-MPH after it is absorbed in the gastrointestinal tract. The d-MPH is released gradually throughout the day, providing quick symptom control with the d-MPH and extended control with SDX.

As reported by this news organization, Azstarys was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in 2021 on the basis of results from a laboratory classroom phase 3 trial, which showed significant improvement in ADHD symptoms, compared with placebo.

For this study, the second phase 3 trial of Azstarys, investigators analyzed data from 282 children aged 6-12 years in the United States, including 70 who participated in an earlier 1-month efficacy trial as well.

After screening and a 3-week dose-optimization phase for new participants, patients received once-daily treatment with doses of 26.1 mg/5.2 mg, 39.2 mg/7.8 mg, or 52.3 mg/10.4 mg of SDX/d-MPH.

After 1 year of treatment, 60.1% of participants reported at least one TEAE, the majority of which were moderate. Twelve patients reported severe TEAEs. Six children (2.5%) discontinued the study due to a TEAE during the treatment phase.

Investigators also measured growth and changes in sleep with the Children’s Sleep Habits Questionnaire during the 12-month study. Sleep improved on most measures and the impact on growth was mild.

There were no life-threatening TEAEs and no deaths reported during the study.

The most common TEAEs during the treatment phase were decreased appetite, upper respiratory tract infection, nasopharyngitis, decreased weight, irritability, and increased weight.

Efficacy at 1 year

ADHD symptoms improved considerably after 1 month of treatment, with responses continuing at 1 year.

At baseline, participants’ mean ADHD Rating Scale-5 (ADHD-RS-5) score was 41.5. After 1 month of treatment, scores averaged 16.1, a decline of –25.3 (P < .001).

The mean score stabilized in the 12-15 range for the remainder of the study. After 1 year of treatment, ADHD symptoms had decreased approximately 70% from baseline.

Investigators found similar results in clinical severity. After 1 month of treatment, the average Clinical Global Impressions–Severity (CGI-S) scale score was 2.5, a decline of –2.2 (P < .0001).

CGI-S scale scores remained in the 2.2-2.4 range for the remainder of the study.

These results, combined with the results of the original classroom trial, suggest Azstarys may offer advantages over other ADHD drugs, Dr. Childress said.

“In the laboratory classroom trial, subjects taking Azstarys completed significantly more math problems than subjects taking placebo beginning at 30 minutes and up to 13 hours after dosing,” Dr. Childress said. “No other methylphenidate extended-release product currently marketed in the United States has a 13-hour duration of effect.”

‘Reassuring data’

Aditya Pawar, MD, a child and adolescent psychiatrist with the Kennedy Krieger Institute and an assistant professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, said that the study suggests the drug may be a valuable addition to ADHD treatment options for pediatric patients.

“The study provides reassuring data on the safety of stimulants in patients without significant history of cardiac events or blood pressure changes, which are usual concerns among patients and clinicians despite the evidence supporting safety, said Dr. Pawar, who was not part of the study.

“Additionally, the 1-year data on efficacy and safety of a new stimulant medication is valuable for clinicians looking for sustained relief for their patients, despite the limitations of an open-label trial,” she added.

Overall, the safety data reported here are fairly consistent with the safety profile of other methylphenidates used for treating ADHD, Dr. Pawar said.

However, she noted, the study does have some limitations, including its open-label design and lack of blinding. The research also excluded children with autism, disruptive mood dysregulation disorders, and other common comorbidities of ADHD, which may limit the generalizability of the results.

“These comorbidities often require stimulants as a part of treatment and yet have a higher risk of side effects,” Dr. Pawar said. “Future studies with a broader population may be needed to better understand treatment effectiveness and potential risks.”

The study was funded by KemPharm. Dr. Childress serves as consultant for Aardvark, Arbor, Attentive, Cingulate, Ironshore, Neos Therapeutics, Neurocentria, Otsuka, Purdue, Rhodes, Sunovion, Tris Pharma, KemPharm, Supernus, Jazz, Corium, Tulex, and Lumos. Full disclosures are reported in the original article.

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

NEW ORLEANS - The antipsychotic brexpiprazole effectively improves agitation associated with Alzheimer’s disease (AD) with favorable tolerability, results of a phase 3 study suggest.

“In this phase 3 trial of patients with agitation in Alzheimer’s dementia, treatment with brexpiprazole 2 or 3 mg/day resulted in statistically significantly greater improvements in agitation versus placebo on the primary and key secondary endpoints,” said study investigator George Grossberg, MD, professor and director of the division of geriatric psychiatry, department of psychiatry & behavioral neuroscience, Saint Louis University.

Dr. Grossberg presented the findings as part of the annual meeting of the American Association for Geriatric Psychiatry.

Agitation common, distressing

With two previous studies also showing efficacy of brexpiprazole in AD-related agitation, Dr. Grossberg speculated that brexpiprazole will become the first drug to be approved for agitation in AD.

Agitation is one of the most common AD symptoms and is arguably the most distressing for patients and caregivers alike, Dr. Grossberg noted.

The drug was approved by the Food and Drug Administration in 2015 as an adjunctive therapy to antidepressants for adults with major depressive disorder and for adults with schizophrenia.

To investigate the drug at effective doses for AD-related agitation, the researchers conducted a phase 3 multicenter trial that included 345 patients with AD who met criteria for agitation and aggression.

Study participants had a mean Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) score between 5 and 22 at screening and baseline and a mean Cohen-Mansfield Agitation Inventory (CMAI) total score of about 79. A score above 45 is considered clinically significant agitation. Use of AD medications were permitted.

Patients had a mean age of 74 years and were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to receive treatment with brexpiprazole 2 mg (n = 75) or 3 mg (n = 153) per day, or placebo (n = 117).

The study’s primary endpoint was improvement as assessed by the CMAI. Over 12 weeks, participants in the brexpiprazole group experienced greater improvement in agitation, with a mean change of –22.6 with brexpiprazole vs. –17.3 with placebo (P = .0026).

Brexpiprazole was also associated with significantly greater improvement in the secondary outcome of change from baseline to week 12 in agitation severity, as assessed using the Clinical Global Impression-Severity of Illness (CGI-S) score (mean change, –1.20 with brexpiprazole vs. –0.93 with placebo; P = .0078).

Specifically, treatment with the drug resulted in improvements in three key subscales of agitation, including aggressive behavior, such as physically striking out (P < .01 vs. placebo); physically nonaggressive; and verbally agitated, such as screaming or cursing (both P < .05).

Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) associated with brexpiprazole vs. placebo included somnolence (3.5% vs. 0.9%), nasopharyngitis (3.1% vs. 1.7%), dizziness (2.7% vs. 1.7%), diarrhea (2.2% vs. 0.9%), urinary tract infection (2.2% vs. 0.9%), and asthenia (2.2% vs. 0.0%).

“Aside from headache, no other TEAEs had an incidence of more than 5% in the brexpiprazole (2 or 3 mg) group, or in either dose group,” Dr. Grossberg said. “Cognition also remained stable,” he added.

Boxed warnings

Adverse events commonly associated with brexpiprazole include weight change, extrapyramidal events, falls, cardiovascular events, and sedation. In the study, all occurred at an incidence of less than 2% in both study groups, he noted.

Compared with the antipsychotic aripiprazole, brexpiprazole is associated with lower weight gain and akathisia, or motor restlessness.

One death occurred in the brexpiprazole 3 mg group in a patient who had heart failure, pneumonia, and cachexia. At autopsy, it was found the patient had cerebral and coronary atherosclerosis. The death was considered to be unrelated to brexpiprazole, said Dr. Grossberg.

This finding is notable because a caveat is that brexpiprazole, like aripiprazole and other typical and atypical antipsychotics, carries an FDA boxed warning related to an increased risk for death in older patients when used for dementia-related psychosis.

Noting that a black box warning about mortality risk is not a minor issue, Dr. Grossberg added that the risks are relatively low, whereas the risks associated with agitation in dementia can be high.

“If it’s an emergency situation, you have to treat the patient because otherwise they may harm someone else, or harm the staff, or harm their loved ones or themselves, and in those cases, we want to treat the patient first, get them under control, and then we worry about the black box,” he said.

In addition, “the No. 1 reason for getting kicked out of a nursing home is agitation or severe behaviors in the context of a dementia or a major neurocognitive disorder that the facility cannot control,” Dr. Grossberg added.

In such cases, patients may wind up in an emergency department and may not be welcome back at the nursing home.

“There’s always a risk/benefit ratio, and I have that discussion with patients and their families, but I can tell you that I’ve never had a family ask me not to use a medication because of the black box warning, because they see how miserable and how out of control their loved one is and they’re miserable because they see the suffering and will ask that we do anything that we can to get this behavior under control,” Dr. Grossberg said.

Caution still warranted

Commenting on the study, Rajesh R. Tampi, MD, professor and chairman of the department of psychiatry and the Bhatia Family Endowed Chair in Psychiatry at Creighton University, Omaha, Neb., underscored that, owing to the concerns behind the FDA warnings, “nonpharmacologic management is the cornerstone of treating agitation in Alzheimer’s dementia.”

He noted that the lack of an FDA-approved drug for agitation with AD is the result of “the overall benefits of any of the drug classes or drugs trialed to treat agitation in Alzheimer’s dementia vs. their adverse effect profile,” he said.

Therefore, he continued, “any medication or medication class should be used with caution among these individuals who often have polymorbidity.”

Dr. Tampi agreed that “the use of each drug for agitation in AD should be on a case-by-case basis with a clear and documented risk/benefit discussion with the patient and their families.”

“These medications should only be used for refractory symptoms or emergency situations where the agitation is not managed adequately with nonpharmacologic techniques and with a clear and documented risk/benefit discussion with patients and their families,” Dr. Tampi said. 

The study was supported by Otsuka Pharmaceutical Development & Commercialization and H. Lundbeck. Dr. Grossberg has received consulting fees from Acadia, Avanir, Biogen, BioXcel, Genentech, Karuna, Lundbeck, Otsuka, Roche, and Takeda. Dr. Tampi had no disclosures to report.

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

This article was updated 3/14/23.

NEW ORLEANS - The antipsychotic brexpiprazole effectively improves agitation associated with Alzheimer’s disease (AD) with favorable tolerability, results of a phase 3 study suggest.

“In this phase 3 trial of patients with agitation in Alzheimer’s dementia, treatment with brexpiprazole 2 or 3 mg/day resulted in statistically significantly greater improvements in agitation versus placebo on the primary and key secondary endpoints,” said study investigator George Grossberg, MD, professor and director of the division of geriatric psychiatry, department of psychiatry & behavioral neuroscience, Saint Louis University.

Dr. Grossberg presented the findings as part of the annual meeting of the American Association for Geriatric Psychiatry.

Agitation common, distressing

With two previous studies also showing efficacy of brexpiprazole in AD-related agitation, Dr. Grossberg speculated that brexpiprazole will become the first drug to be approved for agitation in AD.

Agitation is one of the most common AD symptoms and is arguably the most distressing for patients and caregivers alike, Dr. Grossberg noted.

The drug was approved by the Food and Drug Administration in 2015 as an adjunctive therapy to antidepressants for adults with major depressive disorder and for adults with schizophrenia.

To investigate the drug at effective doses for AD-related agitation, the researchers conducted a phase 3 multicenter trial that included 345 patients with AD who met criteria for agitation and aggression.

Study participants had a mean Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) score between 5 and 22 at screening and baseline and a mean Cohen-Mansfield Agitation Inventory (CMAI) total score of about 79. A score above 45 is considered clinically significant agitation. Use of AD medications were permitted.

Patients had a mean age of 74 years and were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to receive treatment with brexpiprazole 2 mg (n = 75) or 3 mg (n = 153) per day, or placebo (n = 117).

The study’s primary endpoint was improvement as assessed by the CMAI. Over 12 weeks, participants in the brexpiprazole group experienced greater improvement in agitation, with a mean change of –22.6 with brexpiprazole vs. –17.3 with placebo (P = .0026).

Brexpiprazole was also associated with significantly greater improvement in the secondary outcome of change from baseline to week 12 in agitation severity, as assessed using the Clinical Global Impression-Severity of Illness (CGI-S) score (mean change, –1.20 with brexpiprazole vs. –0.93 with placebo; P = .0078).

Specifically, treatment with the drug resulted in improvements in three key subscales of agitation, including aggressive behavior, such as physically striking out (P < .01 vs. placebo); physically nonaggressive; and verbally agitated, such as screaming or cursing (both P < .05).

Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) associated with brexpiprazole vs. placebo included somnolence (3.5% vs. 0.9%), nasopharyngitis (3.1% vs. 1.7%), dizziness (2.7% vs. 1.7%), diarrhea (2.2% vs. 0.9%), urinary tract infection (2.2% vs. 0.9%), and asthenia (2.2% vs. 0.0%).

“Aside from headache, no other TEAEs had an incidence of more than 5% in the brexpiprazole (2 or 3 mg) group, or in either dose group,” Dr. Grossberg said. “Cognition also remained stable,” he added.

Boxed warnings

Adverse events commonly associated with brexpiprazole include weight change, extrapyramidal events, falls, cardiovascular events, and sedation. In the study, all occurred at an incidence of less than 2% in both study groups, he noted.

Compared with the antipsychotic aripiprazole, brexpiprazole is associated with lower weight gain and akathisia, or motor restlessness.

One death occurred in the brexpiprazole 3 mg group in a patient who had heart failure, pneumonia, and cachexia. At autopsy, it was found the patient had cerebral and coronary atherosclerosis. The death was considered to be unrelated to brexpiprazole, said Dr. Grossberg.

This finding is notable because a caveat is that brexpiprazole, like aripiprazole and other typical and atypical antipsychotics, carries an FDA boxed warning related to an increased risk for death in older patients when used for dementia-related psychosis.

Noting that a black box warning about mortality risk is not a minor issue, Dr. Grossberg added that the risks are relatively low, whereas the risks associated with agitation in dementia can be high.

“If it’s an emergency situation, you have to treat the patient because otherwise they may harm someone else, or harm the staff, or harm their loved ones or themselves, and in those cases, we want to treat the patient first, get them under control, and then we worry about the black box,” he said.

In addition, “the No. 1 reason for getting kicked out of a nursing home is agitation or severe behaviors in the context of a dementia or a major neurocognitive disorder that the facility cannot control,” Dr. Grossberg added.

In such cases, patients may wind up in an emergency department and may not be welcome back at the nursing home.

“There’s always a risk/benefit ratio, and I have that discussion with patients and their families, but I can tell you that I’ve never had a family ask me not to use a medication because of the black box warning, because they see how miserable and how out of control their loved one is and they’re miserable because they see the suffering and will ask that we do anything that we can to get this behavior under control,” Dr. Grossberg said.

Caution still warranted

Commenting on the study, Rajesh R. Tampi, MD, professor and chairman of the department of psychiatry and the Bhatia Family Endowed Chair in Psychiatry at Creighton University, Omaha, Neb., underscored that, owing to the concerns behind the FDA warnings, “nonpharmacologic management is the cornerstone of treating agitation in Alzheimer’s dementia.”

He noted that the lack of an FDA-approved drug for agitation with AD is the result of “the overall benefits of any of the drug classes or drugs trialed to treat agitation in Alzheimer’s dementia vs. their adverse effect profile,” he said.

Therefore, he continued, “any medication or medication class should be used with caution among these individuals who often have polymorbidity.”

Dr. Tampi agreed that “the use of each drug for agitation in AD should be on a case-by-case basis with a clear and documented risk/benefit discussion with the patient and their families.”

“These medications should only be used for refractory symptoms or emergency situations where the agitation is not managed adequately with nonpharmacologic techniques and with a clear and documented risk/benefit discussion with patients and their families,” Dr. Tampi said. 

The study was supported by Otsuka Pharmaceutical Development & Commercialization and H. Lundbeck. Dr. Grossberg has received consulting fees from Acadia, Avanir, Biogen, BioXcel, Genentech, Karuna, Lundbeck, Otsuka, Roche, and Takeda. Dr. Tampi had no disclosures to report.

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

This article was updated 3/14/23.

NEW ORLEANS - The antipsychotic brexpiprazole effectively improves agitation associated with Alzheimer’s disease (AD) with favorable tolerability, results of a phase 3 study suggest.

“In this phase 3 trial of patients with agitation in Alzheimer’s dementia, treatment with brexpiprazole 2 or 3 mg/day resulted in statistically significantly greater improvements in agitation versus placebo on the primary and key secondary endpoints,” said study investigator George Grossberg, MD, professor and director of the division of geriatric psychiatry, department of psychiatry & behavioral neuroscience, Saint Louis University.

Dr. Grossberg presented the findings as part of the annual meeting of the American Association for Geriatric Psychiatry.

Agitation common, distressing

With two previous studies also showing efficacy of brexpiprazole in AD-related agitation, Dr. Grossberg speculated that brexpiprazole will become the first drug to be approved for agitation in AD.

Agitation is one of the most common AD symptoms and is arguably the most distressing for patients and caregivers alike, Dr. Grossberg noted.

The drug was approved by the Food and Drug Administration in 2015 as an adjunctive therapy to antidepressants for adults with major depressive disorder and for adults with schizophrenia.

To investigate the drug at effective doses for AD-related agitation, the researchers conducted a phase 3 multicenter trial that included 345 patients with AD who met criteria for agitation and aggression.

Study participants had a mean Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) score between 5 and 22 at screening and baseline and a mean Cohen-Mansfield Agitation Inventory (CMAI) total score of about 79. A score above 45 is considered clinically significant agitation. Use of AD medications were permitted.

Patients had a mean age of 74 years and were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to receive treatment with brexpiprazole 2 mg (n = 75) or 3 mg (n = 153) per day, or placebo (n = 117).

The study’s primary endpoint was improvement as assessed by the CMAI. Over 12 weeks, participants in the brexpiprazole group experienced greater improvement in agitation, with a mean change of –22.6 with brexpiprazole vs. –17.3 with placebo (P = .0026).

Brexpiprazole was also associated with significantly greater improvement in the secondary outcome of change from baseline to week 12 in agitation severity, as assessed using the Clinical Global Impression-Severity of Illness (CGI-S) score (mean change, –1.20 with brexpiprazole vs. –0.93 with placebo; P = .0078).

Specifically, treatment with the drug resulted in improvements in three key subscales of agitation, including aggressive behavior, such as physically striking out (P < .01 vs. placebo); physically nonaggressive; and verbally agitated, such as screaming or cursing (both P < .05).

Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) associated with brexpiprazole vs. placebo included somnolence (3.5% vs. 0.9%), nasopharyngitis (3.1% vs. 1.7%), dizziness (2.7% vs. 1.7%), diarrhea (2.2% vs. 0.9%), urinary tract infection (2.2% vs. 0.9%), and asthenia (2.2% vs. 0.0%).

“Aside from headache, no other TEAEs had an incidence of more than 5% in the brexpiprazole (2 or 3 mg) group, or in either dose group,” Dr. Grossberg said. “Cognition also remained stable,” he added.

Boxed warnings

Adverse events commonly associated with brexpiprazole include weight change, extrapyramidal events, falls, cardiovascular events, and sedation. In the study, all occurred at an incidence of less than 2% in both study groups, he noted.

Compared with the antipsychotic aripiprazole, brexpiprazole is associated with lower weight gain and akathisia, or motor restlessness.

One death occurred in the brexpiprazole 3 mg group in a patient who had heart failure, pneumonia, and cachexia. At autopsy, it was found the patient had cerebral and coronary atherosclerosis. The death was considered to be unrelated to brexpiprazole, said Dr. Grossberg.

This finding is notable because a caveat is that brexpiprazole, like aripiprazole and other typical and atypical antipsychotics, carries an FDA boxed warning related to an increased risk for death in older patients when used for dementia-related psychosis.

Noting that a black box warning about mortality risk is not a minor issue, Dr. Grossberg added that the risks are relatively low, whereas the risks associated with agitation in dementia can be high.

“If it’s an emergency situation, you have to treat the patient because otherwise they may harm someone else, or harm the staff, or harm their loved ones or themselves, and in those cases, we want to treat the patient first, get them under control, and then we worry about the black box,” he said.

In addition, “the No. 1 reason for getting kicked out of a nursing home is agitation or severe behaviors in the context of a dementia or a major neurocognitive disorder that the facility cannot control,” Dr. Grossberg added.

In such cases, patients may wind up in an emergency department and may not be welcome back at the nursing home.

“There’s always a risk/benefit ratio, and I have that discussion with patients and their families, but I can tell you that I’ve never had a family ask me not to use a medication because of the black box warning, because they see how miserable and how out of control their loved one is and they’re miserable because they see the suffering and will ask that we do anything that we can to get this behavior under control,” Dr. Grossberg said.

Caution still warranted

Commenting on the study, Rajesh R. Tampi, MD, professor and chairman of the department of psychiatry and the Bhatia Family Endowed Chair in Psychiatry at Creighton University, Omaha, Neb., underscored that, owing to the concerns behind the FDA warnings, “nonpharmacologic management is the cornerstone of treating agitation in Alzheimer’s dementia.”

He noted that the lack of an FDA-approved drug for agitation with AD is the result of “the overall benefits of any of the drug classes or drugs trialed to treat agitation in Alzheimer’s dementia vs. their adverse effect profile,” he said.

Therefore, he continued, “any medication or medication class should be used with caution among these individuals who often have polymorbidity.”

Dr. Tampi agreed that “the use of each drug for agitation in AD should be on a case-by-case basis with a clear and documented risk/benefit discussion with the patient and their families.”

“These medications should only be used for refractory symptoms or emergency situations where the agitation is not managed adequately with nonpharmacologic techniques and with a clear and documented risk/benefit discussion with patients and their families,” Dr. Tampi said. 

The study was supported by Otsuka Pharmaceutical Development & Commercialization and H. Lundbeck. Dr. Grossberg has received consulting fees from Acadia, Avanir, Biogen, BioXcel, Genentech, Karuna, Lundbeck, Otsuka, Roche, and Takeda. Dr. Tampi had no disclosures to report.

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

This article was updated 3/14/23.

Venetoclax (Venclexta) shows promise as salvage therapy for patients with relapsed or refractory hairy cell leukemia (HCL), according to a small study in which five of six patients responded to the drug when used alone or in combination with rituximab.

Venetoclax is already approved for adults with chronic lymphocytic leukemia, small lymphocytic leukemia, and as part of a treatment combination in certain patients with acute myeloid leukemia.

The new findings suggest that the drug could also be a chemotherapy-free treatment option for HCL patients after the failure of multiple prior lines of therapy, including vemurafenib plus rituximab, the investigators wrote in a letter to the editor published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Treatment options for such patients are limited, they noted.

Enrico Tiacci, MD, of the University of Perugia (Italy), and colleagues decided to explore the use of venetoclax in this patient population after reports of in vitro findings showing a possible benefit.

The investigators administered the drug off-label to six patients who had received vemurafenib plus rituximab as their most recent prior therapy; one was resistant and five relapsed after that therapy, they reported. Venetoclax was delivered in 29-day cycles.

After 6 or 12 cycles, two patients experienced complete remission with minimal residual disease (MRD), and one had partial remission, although each had incomplete platelet recovery.

Adding rituximab at a dose of 375 mg per square meter of body-surface area for three to eight cycles improved the depth of response in a patient who had a previous minor response, further reduced MRD in one who had a complete remission to venetoclax, and led to hematologic remission in one who had no response to venetoclax, they noted.

Progression-free survival ranged from 23 to 53-plus months in all five patients who did not have early progression and was similar or better than PFS seen after vemurafenib plus rituximab.

The main toxic effect of venetoclax was worsening of baseline neutropenia, which was sometimes complicated by infections or febrile neutropenia and was managed by dose reductions and granulocyte colony-stimulating factor.

“Thus, venetoclax with or without rituximab may serve as a safe and effective salvage option after failure of vemurafenib plus rituximab treatment, especially in patients who do not require a rapid recovery of blood count,” they concluded.

The study was supported by grants from Fondazione Associazione Italiana per la Ricerca sul Cancro and the Italian Ministry of Health.

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

Venetoclax (Venclexta) shows promise as salvage therapy for patients with relapsed or refractory hairy cell leukemia (HCL), according to a small study in which five of six patients responded to the drug when used alone or in combination with rituximab.

Venetoclax is already approved for adults with chronic lymphocytic leukemia, small lymphocytic leukemia, and as part of a treatment combination in certain patients with acute myeloid leukemia.

The new findings suggest that the drug could also be a chemotherapy-free treatment option for HCL patients after the failure of multiple prior lines of therapy, including vemurafenib plus rituximab, the investigators wrote in a letter to the editor published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Treatment options for such patients are limited, they noted.

Enrico Tiacci, MD, of the University of Perugia (Italy), and colleagues decided to explore the use of venetoclax in this patient population after reports of in vitro findings showing a possible benefit.

The investigators administered the drug off-label to six patients who had received vemurafenib plus rituximab as their most recent prior therapy; one was resistant and five relapsed after that therapy, they reported. Venetoclax was delivered in 29-day cycles.

After 6 or 12 cycles, two patients experienced complete remission with minimal residual disease (MRD), and one had partial remission, although each had incomplete platelet recovery.

Adding rituximab at a dose of 375 mg per square meter of body-surface area for three to eight cycles improved the depth of response in a patient who had a previous minor response, further reduced MRD in one who had a complete remission to venetoclax, and led to hematologic remission in one who had no response to venetoclax, they noted.

Progression-free survival ranged from 23 to 53-plus months in all five patients who did not have early progression and was similar or better than PFS seen after vemurafenib plus rituximab.

The main toxic effect of venetoclax was worsening of baseline neutropenia, which was sometimes complicated by infections or febrile neutropenia and was managed by dose reductions and granulocyte colony-stimulating factor.

“Thus, venetoclax with or without rituximab may serve as a safe and effective salvage option after failure of vemurafenib plus rituximab treatment, especially in patients who do not require a rapid recovery of blood count,” they concluded.

The study was supported by grants from Fondazione Associazione Italiana per la Ricerca sul Cancro and the Italian Ministry of Health.

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

Venetoclax (Venclexta) shows promise as salvage therapy for patients with relapsed or refractory hairy cell leukemia (HCL), according to a small study in which five of six patients responded to the drug when used alone or in combination with rituximab.

Venetoclax is already approved for adults with chronic lymphocytic leukemia, small lymphocytic leukemia, and as part of a treatment combination in certain patients with acute myeloid leukemia.

The new findings suggest that the drug could also be a chemotherapy-free treatment option for HCL patients after the failure of multiple prior lines of therapy, including vemurafenib plus rituximab, the investigators wrote in a letter to the editor published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Treatment options for such patients are limited, they noted.

Enrico Tiacci, MD, of the University of Perugia (Italy), and colleagues decided to explore the use of venetoclax in this patient population after reports of in vitro findings showing a possible benefit.

The investigators administered the drug off-label to six patients who had received vemurafenib plus rituximab as their most recent prior therapy; one was resistant and five relapsed after that therapy, they reported. Venetoclax was delivered in 29-day cycles.

After 6 or 12 cycles, two patients experienced complete remission with minimal residual disease (MRD), and one had partial remission, although each had incomplete platelet recovery.

Adding rituximab at a dose of 375 mg per square meter of body-surface area for three to eight cycles improved the depth of response in a patient who had a previous minor response, further reduced MRD in one who had a complete remission to venetoclax, and led to hematologic remission in one who had no response to venetoclax, they noted.

Progression-free survival ranged from 23 to 53-plus months in all five patients who did not have early progression and was similar or better than PFS seen after vemurafenib plus rituximab.

The main toxic effect of venetoclax was worsening of baseline neutropenia, which was sometimes complicated by infections or febrile neutropenia and was managed by dose reductions and granulocyte colony-stimulating factor.

“Thus, venetoclax with or without rituximab may serve as a safe and effective salvage option after failure of vemurafenib plus rituximab treatment, especially in patients who do not require a rapid recovery of blood count,” they concluded.

The study was supported by grants from Fondazione Associazione Italiana per la Ricerca sul Cancro and the Italian Ministry of Health.

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

Ponatinib, a potent third-generation tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI), showed superior efficacy and comparable safety versus the first-generation TKI imatinib in patients with newly diagnosed Philadelphia chromosome–positive acute lymphoblastic leukemia (PH+ALL).

The agents were evaluated in the randomized, open-label, phase 3 PhALLCON study, the first head-to-head comparison of ponatinib and imatinib in combination with reduced-intensity chemotherapy in the Ph+ALL population.

Overall, patients in the ponatinib arm experienced a significantly higher minimal residual disease (MRD)–negative complete response rate as well as deeper and more durable responses compared with those in the imatinib arm, the investigators reported.

The findings were presented during an American Society of Clinical Oncology virtual plenary session.

In adults with ALL, Ph+ disease is the most frequent genetic subtype, accounting for about one third of cases. The current standard of care for newly diagnosed Ph+ALL, also known as BCR-ABL-1–positive ALL, is BCR-ABL1 TKIs in combination with chemotherapy or steroids. However, when treated with first- or second-generation TKIs, patients eventually progress due to the emergence of treatment resistance.

Before the advent of TKI therapies, Ph+ALL had a very poor prognosis, but the development of imatinib in 2001 was transformative, said Marlise R. Luskin, MD, a senior physician at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, in the ASCO plenary session, exploring the state of the science.

Added to “backbone” chemotherapy regimens, imatinib improved complete response rates, increased eligibility for stem cell transplantation, and improved overall survival. Second-generation TKIs, including dasatinib and nilotinib further improved outcomes, said Dr. Luskin, also assistant professor at Harvard Medical School, Boston.

More recently, ponatinib has emerged as a promising treatment given its unique action against the ABLA1 T315I KD mutation present in about 75% of cases that relapse as well as the findings of improved MRD-negative complete response rates and event-free survival in retrospective studies, Dr. Luskin said.

The PhALLCON study was designed to further investigate promising results seen in retrospective studies of ponatinib.

To assess ponatinib versus imatinib, patients were enrolled and randomized two to one to receive either a 30-mg once-daily starting dose of ponatinib or a once-daily 600 mg dose of imatinib plus reduced-intensity chemotherapy. After cycle 20, patients received single agent ponatinib or imatinib until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.

Of the 245 enrolled, 78 remained on treatment at the August 2022 data cutoff, including 42% of those in the ponatinib arm and 12% in the imatinib arm. The most common reasons for discontinuation included hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (31% for ponatinib and 37% for imatinib), adverse events (12% in both arms), and lack of efficacy (7% and 26%, respectively).

At median follow-up of 20 months among 164 patients in the ponatinib arm and 18 months among 81 patients in the imatinib arm, the MRD-negative complete response rates were 34.4% and 16.7%, respectively, said first author Elias J. Jabbour, MD, a professor of medicine at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.

A trend toward improved event-free survival was also observed in the ponatinib arm, but the data were not mature at the time of the analysis, Dr. Jabbour noted.

The two treatments showed comparable safety. Treatment-emergent adverse event rates of any grade and of grade 3 or higher were similar in the two study arms. Arterial occlusive events were infrequent and were also similar between the arms.

“Taken together, for this patient population, the efficacy and safety results demonstrate a favorable risk-benefit assessment for ponatinib, which should be considered a standard of care for frontline therapy in patents with newly diagnosed Ph+ALL,” Dr. Jabbour said.

Although the PhALLCON findings are encouraging, invited discussant Anjali S. Advani, MD, of the Cleveland Clinic, noted some study “pitfalls and caveats,” including the generally younger age and low incidence of cardiovascular risk factors in the study population, which raises questions about the ability to extrapolate the findings to “the larger population, which may be older and have more comorbidities.”

Dr. Advani also said that the ponatinib versus imatinib comparison is a reasonable one, but that most clinicians are now using dasatinib, so “it would have been nice to have this comparison.”

Additionally, “the landscape is now changing with the use of blinatumomab plus TKIs – either dasatinib or ponatinib – in the up-front setting.”

“There is data now from various groups ... showing excellent results, although longer follow-up is needed on all of these,” she said.

One such study is the GIMEMA ALL2820 trial looking at ponatinib plus blinatumomab versus imatinib plus chemotherapy, said Nicolas Boissel, MD, PhD, of Hôpital Saint-Louis in Paris, an invited discussant who addressed the European perspective on the PhALLCON results.

“It is expected that access to ponatinib will be delayed in Europe, compared with the U.S., so meanwhile, clinical trials remain a good option to give access to ponatinib frontline,” he said.

Going forward, Dr. Boissel said it will be important to determine the role of second-generation TKIs in patients who are ineligible to receive ponatinib, the treatment duration needed to reduce long-term risk of relapse, and the potential for eliminating the need for postremission chemotherapy and stem cell transplantation in certain patients.

Dr. Advani added that when evaluating and comparing treatments, it will be important to look at genomic alterations and BCR-ABL mutation status, age and comorbidities, and patterns of disease relapse, including relapse sites and genomics. Longer follow-up results for event-free survival and overall survival are also needed.

“I think, particularly in younger patients with relatively few or no cardiovascular comorbidities, [ponatinib plus reduced-intensity chemotherapy] represents a really exciting option,” Dr. Advani said. “What’s difficult is that the landscape is changing quickly in this field, and so is the standard of care. I think what we struggle with is whether we should be using antibody-based therapies plus TKIs or look at an approach such as this, and further studies are going to be needed to answer that question.”

Dr. Jabbour disclosed ties with Pfizer, Takeda, Amgen, AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Incyte, Adaptive Biotechnologies, Astellas Pharma, Genentech, and Ascentage Pharma. Dr. Luskin reported relationships with Pfizer, Novartis, and Abbvie. Dr. Advani disclosed ties with Novartis, Glycomimetics, Kite Pharma, Seattle Genetics, Amgen, Beam Therapeutics, Mkarta, Taiho Oncology, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Pfizer, and Kura Oncology. Dr. Boissel reported relationships with Amgen, ARIAD/Incyte, Novartis, SERVIER, and Astellas Pharma.

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

Ponatinib, a potent third-generation tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI), showed superior efficacy and comparable safety versus the first-generation TKI imatinib in patients with newly diagnosed Philadelphia chromosome–positive acute lymphoblastic leukemia (PH+ALL).

The agents were evaluated in the randomized, open-label, phase 3 PhALLCON study, the first head-to-head comparison of ponatinib and imatinib in combination with reduced-intensity chemotherapy in the Ph+ALL population.

Overall, patients in the ponatinib arm experienced a significantly higher minimal residual disease (MRD)–negative complete response rate as well as deeper and more durable responses compared with those in the imatinib arm, the investigators reported.

The findings were presented during an American Society of Clinical Oncology virtual plenary session.

In adults with ALL, Ph+ disease is the most frequent genetic subtype, accounting for about one third of cases. The current standard of care for newly diagnosed Ph+ALL, also known as BCR-ABL-1–positive ALL, is BCR-ABL1 TKIs in combination with chemotherapy or steroids. However, when treated with first- or second-generation TKIs, patients eventually progress due to the emergence of treatment resistance.

Before the advent of TKI therapies, Ph+ALL had a very poor prognosis, but the development of imatinib in 2001 was transformative, said Marlise R. Luskin, MD, a senior physician at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, in the ASCO plenary session, exploring the state of the science.

Added to “backbone” chemotherapy regimens, imatinib improved complete response rates, increased eligibility for stem cell transplantation, and improved overall survival. Second-generation TKIs, including dasatinib and nilotinib further improved outcomes, said Dr. Luskin, also assistant professor at Harvard Medical School, Boston.

More recently, ponatinib has emerged as a promising treatment given its unique action against the ABLA1 T315I KD mutation present in about 75% of cases that relapse as well as the findings of improved MRD-negative complete response rates and event-free survival in retrospective studies, Dr. Luskin said.

The PhALLCON study was designed to further investigate promising results seen in retrospective studies of ponatinib.

To assess ponatinib versus imatinib, patients were enrolled and randomized two to one to receive either a 30-mg once-daily starting dose of ponatinib or a once-daily 600 mg dose of imatinib plus reduced-intensity chemotherapy. After cycle 20, patients received single agent ponatinib or imatinib until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.

Of the 245 enrolled, 78 remained on treatment at the August 2022 data cutoff, including 42% of those in the ponatinib arm and 12% in the imatinib arm. The most common reasons for discontinuation included hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (31% for ponatinib and 37% for imatinib), adverse events (12% in both arms), and lack of efficacy (7% and 26%, respectively).

At median follow-up of 20 months among 164 patients in the ponatinib arm and 18 months among 81 patients in the imatinib arm, the MRD-negative complete response rates were 34.4% and 16.7%, respectively, said first author Elias J. Jabbour, MD, a professor of medicine at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.

A trend toward improved event-free survival was also observed in the ponatinib arm, but the data were not mature at the time of the analysis, Dr. Jabbour noted.

The two treatments showed comparable safety. Treatment-emergent adverse event rates of any grade and of grade 3 or higher were similar in the two study arms. Arterial occlusive events were infrequent and were also similar between the arms.

“Taken together, for this patient population, the efficacy and safety results demonstrate a favorable risk-benefit assessment for ponatinib, which should be considered a standard of care for frontline therapy in patents with newly diagnosed Ph+ALL,” Dr. Jabbour said.

Although the PhALLCON findings are encouraging, invited discussant Anjali S. Advani, MD, of the Cleveland Clinic, noted some study “pitfalls and caveats,” including the generally younger age and low incidence of cardiovascular risk factors in the study population, which raises questions about the ability to extrapolate the findings to “the larger population, which may be older and have more comorbidities.”

Dr. Advani also said that the ponatinib versus imatinib comparison is a reasonable one, but that most clinicians are now using dasatinib, so “it would have been nice to have this comparison.”

Additionally, “the landscape is now changing with the use of blinatumomab plus TKIs – either dasatinib or ponatinib – in the up-front setting.”

“There is data now from various groups ... showing excellent results, although longer follow-up is needed on all of these,” she said.

One such study is the GIMEMA ALL2820 trial looking at ponatinib plus blinatumomab versus imatinib plus chemotherapy, said Nicolas Boissel, MD, PhD, of Hôpital Saint-Louis in Paris, an invited discussant who addressed the European perspective on the PhALLCON results.

“It is expected that access to ponatinib will be delayed in Europe, compared with the U.S., so meanwhile, clinical trials remain a good option to give access to ponatinib frontline,” he said.

Going forward, Dr. Boissel said it will be important to determine the role of second-generation TKIs in patients who are ineligible to receive ponatinib, the treatment duration needed to reduce long-term risk of relapse, and the potential for eliminating the need for postremission chemotherapy and stem cell transplantation in certain patients.

Dr. Advani added that when evaluating and comparing treatments, it will be important to look at genomic alterations and BCR-ABL mutation status, age and comorbidities, and patterns of disease relapse, including relapse sites and genomics. Longer follow-up results for event-free survival and overall survival are also needed.

“I think, particularly in younger patients with relatively few or no cardiovascular comorbidities, [ponatinib plus reduced-intensity chemotherapy] represents a really exciting option,” Dr. Advani said. “What’s difficult is that the landscape is changing quickly in this field, and so is the standard of care. I think what we struggle with is whether we should be using antibody-based therapies plus TKIs or look at an approach such as this, and further studies are going to be needed to answer that question.”

Dr. Jabbour disclosed ties with Pfizer, Takeda, Amgen, AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Incyte, Adaptive Biotechnologies, Astellas Pharma, Genentech, and Ascentage Pharma. Dr. Luskin reported relationships with Pfizer, Novartis, and Abbvie. Dr. Advani disclosed ties with Novartis, Glycomimetics, Kite Pharma, Seattle Genetics, Amgen, Beam Therapeutics, Mkarta, Taiho Oncology, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Pfizer, and Kura Oncology. Dr. Boissel reported relationships with Amgen, ARIAD/Incyte, Novartis, SERVIER, and Astellas Pharma.

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

Ponatinib, a potent third-generation tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI), showed superior efficacy and comparable safety versus the first-generation TKI imatinib in patients with newly diagnosed Philadelphia chromosome–positive acute lymphoblastic leukemia (PH+ALL).

The agents were evaluated in the randomized, open-label, phase 3 PhALLCON study, the first head-to-head comparison of ponatinib and imatinib in combination with reduced-intensity chemotherapy in the Ph+ALL population.

Overall, patients in the ponatinib arm experienced a significantly higher minimal residual disease (MRD)–negative complete response rate as well as deeper and more durable responses compared with those in the imatinib arm, the investigators reported.

The findings were presented during an American Society of Clinical Oncology virtual plenary session.

In adults with ALL, Ph+ disease is the most frequent genetic subtype, accounting for about one third of cases. The current standard of care for newly diagnosed Ph+ALL, also known as BCR-ABL-1–positive ALL, is BCR-ABL1 TKIs in combination with chemotherapy or steroids. However, when treated with first- or second-generation TKIs, patients eventually progress due to the emergence of treatment resistance.

Before the advent of TKI therapies, Ph+ALL had a very poor prognosis, but the development of imatinib in 2001 was transformative, said Marlise R. Luskin, MD, a senior physician at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, in the ASCO plenary session, exploring the state of the science.

Added to “backbone” chemotherapy regimens, imatinib improved complete response rates, increased eligibility for stem cell transplantation, and improved overall survival. Second-generation TKIs, including dasatinib and nilotinib further improved outcomes, said Dr. Luskin, also assistant professor at Harvard Medical School, Boston.

More recently, ponatinib has emerged as a promising treatment given its unique action against the ABLA1 T315I KD mutation present in about 75% of cases that relapse as well as the findings of improved MRD-negative complete response rates and event-free survival in retrospective studies, Dr. Luskin said.

The PhALLCON study was designed to further investigate promising results seen in retrospective studies of ponatinib.

To assess ponatinib versus imatinib, patients were enrolled and randomized two to one to receive either a 30-mg once-daily starting dose of ponatinib or a once-daily 600 mg dose of imatinib plus reduced-intensity chemotherapy. After cycle 20, patients received single agent ponatinib or imatinib until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.

Of the 245 enrolled, 78 remained on treatment at the August 2022 data cutoff, including 42% of those in the ponatinib arm and 12% in the imatinib arm. The most common reasons for discontinuation included hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (31% for ponatinib and 37% for imatinib), adverse events (12% in both arms), and lack of efficacy (7% and 26%, respectively).

At median follow-up of 20 months among 164 patients in the ponatinib arm and 18 months among 81 patients in the imatinib arm, the MRD-negative complete response rates were 34.4% and 16.7%, respectively, said first author Elias J. Jabbour, MD, a professor of medicine at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.

A trend toward improved event-free survival was also observed in the ponatinib arm, but the data were not mature at the time of the analysis, Dr. Jabbour noted.

The two treatments showed comparable safety. Treatment-emergent adverse event rates of any grade and of grade 3 or higher were similar in the two study arms. Arterial occlusive events were infrequent and were also similar between the arms.

“Taken together, for this patient population, the efficacy and safety results demonstrate a favorable risk-benefit assessment for ponatinib, which should be considered a standard of care for frontline therapy in patents with newly diagnosed Ph+ALL,” Dr. Jabbour said.

Although the PhALLCON findings are encouraging, invited discussant Anjali S. Advani, MD, of the Cleveland Clinic, noted some study “pitfalls and caveats,” including the generally younger age and low incidence of cardiovascular risk factors in the study population, which raises questions about the ability to extrapolate the findings to “the larger population, which may be older and have more comorbidities.”

Dr. Advani also said that the ponatinib versus imatinib comparison is a reasonable one, but that most clinicians are now using dasatinib, so “it would have been nice to have this comparison.”

Additionally, “the landscape is now changing with the use of blinatumomab plus TKIs – either dasatinib or ponatinib – in the up-front setting.”

“There is data now from various groups ... showing excellent results, although longer follow-up is needed on all of these,” she said.

One such study is the GIMEMA ALL2820 trial looking at ponatinib plus blinatumomab versus imatinib plus chemotherapy, said Nicolas Boissel, MD, PhD, of Hôpital Saint-Louis in Paris, an invited discussant who addressed the European perspective on the PhALLCON results.

“It is expected that access to ponatinib will be delayed in Europe, compared with the U.S., so meanwhile, clinical trials remain a good option to give access to ponatinib frontline,” he said.

Going forward, Dr. Boissel said it will be important to determine the role of second-generation TKIs in patients who are ineligible to receive ponatinib, the treatment duration needed to reduce long-term risk of relapse, and the potential for eliminating the need for postremission chemotherapy and stem cell transplantation in certain patients.

Dr. Advani added that when evaluating and comparing treatments, it will be important to look at genomic alterations and BCR-ABL mutation status, age and comorbidities, and patterns of disease relapse, including relapse sites and genomics. Longer follow-up results for event-free survival and overall survival are also needed.

“I think, particularly in younger patients with relatively few or no cardiovascular comorbidities, [ponatinib plus reduced-intensity chemotherapy] represents a really exciting option,” Dr. Advani said. “What’s difficult is that the landscape is changing quickly in this field, and so is the standard of care. I think what we struggle with is whether we should be using antibody-based therapies plus TKIs or look at an approach such as this, and further studies are going to be needed to answer that question.”

Dr. Jabbour disclosed ties with Pfizer, Takeda, Amgen, AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Incyte, Adaptive Biotechnologies, Astellas Pharma, Genentech, and Ascentage Pharma. Dr. Luskin reported relationships with Pfizer, Novartis, and Abbvie. Dr. Advani disclosed ties with Novartis, Glycomimetics, Kite Pharma, Seattle Genetics, Amgen, Beam Therapeutics, Mkarta, Taiho Oncology, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Pfizer, and Kura Oncology. Dr. Boissel reported relationships with Amgen, ARIAD/Incyte, Novartis, SERVIER, and Astellas Pharma.

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

Two diabetes management devices that aid in the precision of insulin delivery have been recently cleared by the Food and Drug Administration.

On March 2, the FDA cleared the Android version of Bigfoot Biomedical’s Unity Mobile App for use with its system of smart pen caps that are compatible with different disposable insulin pens for administering both long-acting and rapid-acting insulin.

The system, which has been compatible with iOS devices since May 2021, is “the first and only FDA-cleared smart injection system that turns CGM [continuous glucose monitoring] data into dosing recommendations displayed right on the pen cap for people using multiple daily [insulin] injection therapy,” according to a company statement.

The Bigfoot app allows users to input and review provider treatment recommendations, displays current glucose ranges, and delivers real-time alerts.

Once it is commercially launched, the Android phone application will be available via the Google Play Store. “Given that 41% of U.S. smartphone users choose Android devices, this clearance enables expanded access to a large group of people with diabetes,” the company said.

On March 6, the FDA cleared the Abbott FreeStyle Libre 2 and FreeStyle Libre 3 devices as “integrated” CGM sensors. This means that they can now be used as components in automated insulin delivery systems, along with insulin pumps and connectivity software.

Abbott is working with insulin pump manufacturers Insulet and Tandem in the United States for integration with the FreeStyle Libre versions 2 and 3. Outside the United States, the Libre 3 is already authorized to work with mylife Loop from Ypsomed and CamDiab in Germany. Further launches are expected in the United Kingdom, Switzerland, and the Netherlands later this year.

The modified FreeStyle Libre 2 and FreeStyle Libre 3 sensors have been cleared for use by patients as young as age 2 years and for up to 15 days, in contrast to the previous versions, which were available for patients as young as 4 years for use up to 14 days. The FDA has cleared all Libre sensors – 2 and 3, current and future versions – for use by pregnant women with any type of diabetes.

The modified sensors will be available in the United States later this year and will eventually replace the Libre sensors in current use, the company said in a statement.

“The FreeStyle Libre portfolio is still the most affordable CGM on the market,” an Abbott representative said in an interview.

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

Two diabetes management devices that aid in the precision of insulin delivery have been recently cleared by the Food and Drug Administration.

On March 2, the FDA cleared the Android version of Bigfoot Biomedical’s Unity Mobile App for use with its system of smart pen caps that are compatible with different disposable insulin pens for administering both long-acting and rapid-acting insulin.

The system, which has been compatible with iOS devices since May 2021, is “the first and only FDA-cleared smart injection system that turns CGM [continuous glucose monitoring] data into dosing recommendations displayed right on the pen cap for people using multiple daily [insulin] injection therapy,” according to a company statement.

The Bigfoot app allows users to input and review provider treatment recommendations, displays current glucose ranges, and delivers real-time alerts.

Once it is commercially launched, the Android phone application will be available via the Google Play Store. “Given that 41% of U.S. smartphone users choose Android devices, this clearance enables expanded access to a large group of people with diabetes,” the company said.

On March 6, the FDA cleared the Abbott FreeStyle Libre 2 and FreeStyle Libre 3 devices as “integrated” CGM sensors. This means that they can now be used as components in automated insulin delivery systems, along with insulin pumps and connectivity software.

Abbott is working with insulin pump manufacturers Insulet and Tandem in the United States for integration with the FreeStyle Libre versions 2 and 3. Outside the United States, the Libre 3 is already authorized to work with mylife Loop from Ypsomed and CamDiab in Germany. Further launches are expected in the United Kingdom, Switzerland, and the Netherlands later this year.

The modified FreeStyle Libre 2 and FreeStyle Libre 3 sensors have been cleared for use by patients as young as age 2 years and for up to 15 days, in contrast to the previous versions, which were available for patients as young as 4 years for use up to 14 days. The FDA has cleared all Libre sensors – 2 and 3, current and future versions – for use by pregnant women with any type of diabetes.

The modified sensors will be available in the United States later this year and will eventually replace the Libre sensors in current use, the company said in a statement.

“The FreeStyle Libre portfolio is still the most affordable CGM on the market,” an Abbott representative said in an interview.

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

Two diabetes management devices that aid in the precision of insulin delivery have been recently cleared by the Food and Drug Administration.

On March 2, the FDA cleared the Android version of Bigfoot Biomedical’s Unity Mobile App for use with its system of smart pen caps that are compatible with different disposable insulin pens for administering both long-acting and rapid-acting insulin.

The system, which has been compatible with iOS devices since May 2021, is “the first and only FDA-cleared smart injection system that turns CGM [continuous glucose monitoring] data into dosing recommendations displayed right on the pen cap for people using multiple daily [insulin] injection therapy,” according to a company statement.

The Bigfoot app allows users to input and review provider treatment recommendations, displays current glucose ranges, and delivers real-time alerts.

Once it is commercially launched, the Android phone application will be available via the Google Play Store. “Given that 41% of U.S. smartphone users choose Android devices, this clearance enables expanded access to a large group of people with diabetes,” the company said.

On March 6, the FDA cleared the Abbott FreeStyle Libre 2 and FreeStyle Libre 3 devices as “integrated” CGM sensors. This means that they can now be used as components in automated insulin delivery systems, along with insulin pumps and connectivity software.

Abbott is working with insulin pump manufacturers Insulet and Tandem in the United States for integration with the FreeStyle Libre versions 2 and 3. Outside the United States, the Libre 3 is already authorized to work with mylife Loop from Ypsomed and CamDiab in Germany. Further launches are expected in the United Kingdom, Switzerland, and the Netherlands later this year.

The modified FreeStyle Libre 2 and FreeStyle Libre 3 sensors have been cleared for use by patients as young as age 2 years and for up to 15 days, in contrast to the previous versions, which were available for patients as young as 4 years for use up to 14 days. The FDA has cleared all Libre sensors – 2 and 3, current and future versions – for use by pregnant women with any type of diabetes.

The modified sensors will be available in the United States later this year and will eventually replace the Libre sensors in current use, the company said in a statement.

“The FreeStyle Libre portfolio is still the most affordable CGM on the market,” an Abbott representative said in an interview.

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

Patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma who are taking a tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) to prolong their lives will typically keep going without a break until the disease progresses or toxicities such as severe fatigue and diarrhea become intolerable.

That might soon change with the publication of a unique study. Lasting 10 years, the phase 3 STAR trial involved 920 patients across 60 cancer centers. These patients had advanced kidney cancer and were taking either sunitinib (Sutent) or pazopanib (Votrient).

The results showed that taking an occasional respite from TKI therapy had little impact on the patient’s survival.

The study was published online in The Lancet Oncology.

The study was funded by the United Kingdom’s National Institute for Health and Care Research because drug companies never run studies on how to reduce the use of their drug, commented lead author Janet Brown, MD, of the University of Sheffield (England).

“We rely on the NIHR to do these important trials that … companies wouldn’t do,” she commented to this news organization.

Commenting on the rationale for STAR, coauthor Jenny Hewison, PhD, of Leeds (England) University School of Medicine, explained that patients often find it difficult to tolerate TKIs. “Although these patients are getting the best treatment that we can offer them, it’s very demanding. … It could make them feel tired, quite unwell. And there can be a range of other effects including sickness and diarrhea.”

As an example, 77% of patients in the pivotal trial of sunitinib in kidney cancer experienced grade 3 or 4 adverse events such as hypertension (13%), fatigue (15%), diarrhea (10%) and hand-foot syndrome (8%).

Both sunitinib and pazopanib carry label warnings of severe and fatal hepatotoxicity.

Also, in contrast to conventional chemotherapy, which is usually given in a finite number of courses, treatment with TKIs carries on indefinitely.

“It feels like you’re taking [TKIs] for the whole of the rest of your life,” said Dr. Brown.
 

Study details

The STAR trial, an open-label, noninferiority, randomized controlled study, is the first phase 3 study of treatment breaks in renal cell carcinoma. The participants had inoperable locoregional or metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC) and had received no systemic therapy for advanced disease.

They were randomly assigned before TKI treatment to a conventional continuation strategy or a drug-free interval approach. The treating physician decided whether a patient would take sunitinib or pazopanib.

All participants took their drugs for four cycles (6 weeks each cycle). At the 24-week point, those with a complete response, partial response, or stable disease began their randomized assignment.

Individuals who took a break continued until their disease progressed, at which point therapy was resumed. They could take further treatment breaks once their disease was back under control. The group on continuous treatment kept going until disease progression or intolerable toxicities. Median follow up was 58 months.

In both the per-protocol and intent-to-treat (ITT) populations, overall survival was 28 months for the people who received continuous treatment vs. 27 months for those who took a break. Statistical noninferiority was established in the ITT population but not in the per-protocol population.

The median length of all treatment breaks was 87 days. Many people took two or more breaks; one patient took nine breaks overall. The breaks were popular: only 3% of participants who were meant to stop therapy withdrew from the study in order to continue their treatment.

Said Dr. Hewison: “In the very early days of planning the study there were some doubts as to whether it would succeed because of potential unwillingness of people to stop treatment for a while.”

Dr. Brown agreed: “People did worry about that initially, but it actually seemed to be more the other way around. By that time – 6 months – people were relieved to be there. …We actually had some people from the other arm asking, could they also have a break?”

To understand better the benefits of treatment breaks to patients, Janine Bestall, PhD, a senior research fellow in applied health research at the University of Leeds, conducted a qualitative study in parallel with the main trial.

Summing up the patients’ experiences, Dr. Bestall said the drug-free periods “gave them more time.”

Dr. Bestall quoted one patient who said: “I know that things can happen and it grows back, but you’ve always got the buffer there knowing that you can go back and get help. But you actually lead a normal life and the advantage is, yeah, you can go on holiday, you can actually do more things in the garden, cleaning up, painting, whatever needs doing, you do it.”

Dr. Brown said, “I had a lady who, when she was on the trial, had four breaks in total, one when her daughter got married, and [she said] that was really nice for her to do all the shopping and all the normal things that you do, and not be on something that was making her tired and causing sore hands and diarrhea.” 

The drug-free interval strategy provided annual cost savings of 3,235 pounds sterling ($3,850) and a noninferior quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) benefit in both the ITT and per-protocol populations.

Serious adverse reactions occurred in 9% of patients in the treatment-break group versus 12% of the continuous-treatment group.

The authors of the study concluded, “Treatment breaks might be a feasible and cost-effective option with lifestyle benefits for patients during tyrosine kinase inhibitor therapy in patients with renal cell carcinoma.”
 

Changes in treatment strategies

The STAR trial started recruiting in January 2012.

Since that time, immunotherapy has taken over as first-line treatment for many patients with advanced ccRCC in both the United Kingdom and the United States.

However, TKIs still have a place. The NCCN Kidney Cancer 2022 Guidelines recommend both sunitinib and pazopanib as options for first-line therapy in advanced disease. The 2022 ASCO Metastatic ccRCC guidelines recommend either drug as first-line treatment in combination with an immune checkpoint inhibitor or in monotherapy if there are “coexisting medical problems.”

In the United States, intermittent sunitinib in metastatic RCC was tested in a small study in 2017 with little activity in the literature since then. The authors, led by Moshe Ornstein, MD, from the Cleveland Clinic, concluded at the time that sunitinib treatment breaks were feasible and “clinical efficacy does not seem to be compromised.” Dr. Ornstein was approached for comment on this latest U.K. study but declined.

Back in the United Kingdom, the results of STAR arrived just in time.

Said Dr. Brown: “This has … been really helpful in the U.K. in the pandemic when people said, can these patients have extra breaks? At the worst of the pandemic we were able to say, sure, if it’s stable, we can keep them off for 3-6 months. …And so that’s already had a powerful impact.”

Dr. Brown concluded, “I think what the trial does allow us to do, as individual oncologists, is to look at the patients that this might be suitable for – it won’t be everybody – and to say yes, it’s okay to personalize things.”

The study was funded by the U.K.’s National Institute for Health and Care Research. Dr. Bestall reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Hewison reported funding to her institution from the NIHR Health Technology Assessment. Dr. Brown reports having served as a consultant or adviser for Novartis, Ipsen, Amgen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Bayer; honoraria from Novartis, Ipsen, Amgen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Bayer; research funding paid to their institution from the National Institute for Health and Care Research; and travel expenses from Ipsen. Other coauthors reported numerous relationships with industry.

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

Patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma who are taking a tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) to prolong their lives will typically keep going without a break until the disease progresses or toxicities such as severe fatigue and diarrhea become intolerable.

That might soon change with the publication of a unique study. Lasting 10 years, the phase 3 STAR trial involved 920 patients across 60 cancer centers. These patients had advanced kidney cancer and were taking either sunitinib (Sutent) or pazopanib (Votrient).

The results showed that taking an occasional respite from TKI therapy had little impact on the patient’s survival.

The study was published online in The Lancet Oncology.

The study was funded by the United Kingdom’s National Institute for Health and Care Research because drug companies never run studies on how to reduce the use of their drug, commented lead author Janet Brown, MD, of the University of Sheffield (England).

“We rely on the NIHR to do these important trials that … companies wouldn’t do,” she commented to this news organization.

Commenting on the rationale for STAR, coauthor Jenny Hewison, PhD, of Leeds (England) University School of Medicine, explained that patients often find it difficult to tolerate TKIs. “Although these patients are getting the best treatment that we can offer them, it’s very demanding. … It could make them feel tired, quite unwell. And there can be a range of other effects including sickness and diarrhea.”

As an example, 77% of patients in the pivotal trial of sunitinib in kidney cancer experienced grade 3 or 4 adverse events such as hypertension (13%), fatigue (15%), diarrhea (10%) and hand-foot syndrome (8%).

Both sunitinib and pazopanib carry label warnings of severe and fatal hepatotoxicity.

Also, in contrast to conventional chemotherapy, which is usually given in a finite number of courses, treatment with TKIs carries on indefinitely.

“It feels like you’re taking [TKIs] for the whole of the rest of your life,” said Dr. Brown.
 

Study details

The STAR trial, an open-label, noninferiority, randomized controlled study, is the first phase 3 study of treatment breaks in renal cell carcinoma. The participants had inoperable locoregional or metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC) and had received no systemic therapy for advanced disease.

They were randomly assigned before TKI treatment to a conventional continuation strategy or a drug-free interval approach. The treating physician decided whether a patient would take sunitinib or pazopanib.

All participants took their drugs for four cycles (6 weeks each cycle). At the 24-week point, those with a complete response, partial response, or stable disease began their randomized assignment.

Individuals who took a break continued until their disease progressed, at which point therapy was resumed. They could take further treatment breaks once their disease was back under control. The group on continuous treatment kept going until disease progression or intolerable toxicities. Median follow up was 58 months.

In both the per-protocol and intent-to-treat (ITT) populations, overall survival was 28 months for the people who received continuous treatment vs. 27 months for those who took a break. Statistical noninferiority was established in the ITT population but not in the per-protocol population.

The median length of all treatment breaks was 87 days. Many people took two or more breaks; one patient took nine breaks overall. The breaks were popular: only 3% of participants who were meant to stop therapy withdrew from the study in order to continue their treatment.

Said Dr. Hewison: “In the very early days of planning the study there were some doubts as to whether it would succeed because of potential unwillingness of people to stop treatment for a while.”

Dr. Brown agreed: “People did worry about that initially, but it actually seemed to be more the other way around. By that time – 6 months – people were relieved to be there. …We actually had some people from the other arm asking, could they also have a break?”

To understand better the benefits of treatment breaks to patients, Janine Bestall, PhD, a senior research fellow in applied health research at the University of Leeds, conducted a qualitative study in parallel with the main trial.

Summing up the patients’ experiences, Dr. Bestall said the drug-free periods “gave them more time.”

Dr. Bestall quoted one patient who said: “I know that things can happen and it grows back, but you’ve always got the buffer there knowing that you can go back and get help. But you actually lead a normal life and the advantage is, yeah, you can go on holiday, you can actually do more things in the garden, cleaning up, painting, whatever needs doing, you do it.”

Dr. Brown said, “I had a lady who, when she was on the trial, had four breaks in total, one when her daughter got married, and [she said] that was really nice for her to do all the shopping and all the normal things that you do, and not be on something that was making her tired and causing sore hands and diarrhea.” 

The drug-free interval strategy provided annual cost savings of 3,235 pounds sterling ($3,850) and a noninferior quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) benefit in both the ITT and per-protocol populations.

Serious adverse reactions occurred in 9% of patients in the treatment-break group versus 12% of the continuous-treatment group.

The authors of the study concluded, “Treatment breaks might be a feasible and cost-effective option with lifestyle benefits for patients during tyrosine kinase inhibitor therapy in patients with renal cell carcinoma.”
 

Changes in treatment strategies

The STAR trial started recruiting in January 2012.

Since that time, immunotherapy has taken over as first-line treatment for many patients with advanced ccRCC in both the United Kingdom and the United States.

However, TKIs still have a place. The NCCN Kidney Cancer 2022 Guidelines recommend both sunitinib and pazopanib as options for first-line therapy in advanced disease. The 2022 ASCO Metastatic ccRCC guidelines recommend either drug as first-line treatment in combination with an immune checkpoint inhibitor or in monotherapy if there are “coexisting medical problems.”

In the United States, intermittent sunitinib in metastatic RCC was tested in a small study in 2017 with little activity in the literature since then. The authors, led by Moshe Ornstein, MD, from the Cleveland Clinic, concluded at the time that sunitinib treatment breaks were feasible and “clinical efficacy does not seem to be compromised.” Dr. Ornstein was approached for comment on this latest U.K. study but declined.

Back in the United Kingdom, the results of STAR arrived just in time.

Said Dr. Brown: “This has … been really helpful in the U.K. in the pandemic when people said, can these patients have extra breaks? At the worst of the pandemic we were able to say, sure, if it’s stable, we can keep them off for 3-6 months. …And so that’s already had a powerful impact.”

Dr. Brown concluded, “I think what the trial does allow us to do, as individual oncologists, is to look at the patients that this might be suitable for – it won’t be everybody – and to say yes, it’s okay to personalize things.”

The study was funded by the U.K.’s National Institute for Health and Care Research. Dr. Bestall reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Hewison reported funding to her institution from the NIHR Health Technology Assessment. Dr. Brown reports having served as a consultant or adviser for Novartis, Ipsen, Amgen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Bayer; honoraria from Novartis, Ipsen, Amgen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Bayer; research funding paid to their institution from the National Institute for Health and Care Research; and travel expenses from Ipsen. Other coauthors reported numerous relationships with industry.

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

Patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma who are taking a tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) to prolong their lives will typically keep going without a break until the disease progresses or toxicities such as severe fatigue and diarrhea become intolerable.

That might soon change with the publication of a unique study. Lasting 10 years, the phase 3 STAR trial involved 920 patients across 60 cancer centers. These patients had advanced kidney cancer and were taking either sunitinib (Sutent) or pazopanib (Votrient).

The results showed that taking an occasional respite from TKI therapy had little impact on the patient’s survival.

The study was published online in The Lancet Oncology.

The study was funded by the United Kingdom’s National Institute for Health and Care Research because drug companies never run studies on how to reduce the use of their drug, commented lead author Janet Brown, MD, of the University of Sheffield (England).

“We rely on the NIHR to do these important trials that … companies wouldn’t do,” she commented to this news organization.

Commenting on the rationale for STAR, coauthor Jenny Hewison, PhD, of Leeds (England) University School of Medicine, explained that patients often find it difficult to tolerate TKIs. “Although these patients are getting the best treatment that we can offer them, it’s very demanding. … It could make them feel tired, quite unwell. And there can be a range of other effects including sickness and diarrhea.”

As an example, 77% of patients in the pivotal trial of sunitinib in kidney cancer experienced grade 3 or 4 adverse events such as hypertension (13%), fatigue (15%), diarrhea (10%) and hand-foot syndrome (8%).

Both sunitinib and pazopanib carry label warnings of severe and fatal hepatotoxicity.

Also, in contrast to conventional chemotherapy, which is usually given in a finite number of courses, treatment with TKIs carries on indefinitely.

“It feels like you’re taking [TKIs] for the whole of the rest of your life,” said Dr. Brown.
 

Study details

The STAR trial, an open-label, noninferiority, randomized controlled study, is the first phase 3 study of treatment breaks in renal cell carcinoma. The participants had inoperable locoregional or metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC) and had received no systemic therapy for advanced disease.

They were randomly assigned before TKI treatment to a conventional continuation strategy or a drug-free interval approach. The treating physician decided whether a patient would take sunitinib or pazopanib.

All participants took their drugs for four cycles (6 weeks each cycle). At the 24-week point, those with a complete response, partial response, or stable disease began their randomized assignment.

Individuals who took a break continued until their disease progressed, at which point therapy was resumed. They could take further treatment breaks once their disease was back under control. The group on continuous treatment kept going until disease progression or intolerable toxicities. Median follow up was 58 months.

In both the per-protocol and intent-to-treat (ITT) populations, overall survival was 28 months for the people who received continuous treatment vs. 27 months for those who took a break. Statistical noninferiority was established in the ITT population but not in the per-protocol population.

The median length of all treatment breaks was 87 days. Many people took two or more breaks; one patient took nine breaks overall. The breaks were popular: only 3% of participants who were meant to stop therapy withdrew from the study in order to continue their treatment.

Said Dr. Hewison: “In the very early days of planning the study there were some doubts as to whether it would succeed because of potential unwillingness of people to stop treatment for a while.”

Dr. Brown agreed: “People did worry about that initially, but it actually seemed to be more the other way around. By that time – 6 months – people were relieved to be there. …We actually had some people from the other arm asking, could they also have a break?”

To understand better the benefits of treatment breaks to patients, Janine Bestall, PhD, a senior research fellow in applied health research at the University of Leeds, conducted a qualitative study in parallel with the main trial.

Summing up the patients’ experiences, Dr. Bestall said the drug-free periods “gave them more time.”

Dr. Bestall quoted one patient who said: “I know that things can happen and it grows back, but you’ve always got the buffer there knowing that you can go back and get help. But you actually lead a normal life and the advantage is, yeah, you can go on holiday, you can actually do more things in the garden, cleaning up, painting, whatever needs doing, you do it.”

Dr. Brown said, “I had a lady who, when she was on the trial, had four breaks in total, one when her daughter got married, and [she said] that was really nice for her to do all the shopping and all the normal things that you do, and not be on something that was making her tired and causing sore hands and diarrhea.” 

The drug-free interval strategy provided annual cost savings of 3,235 pounds sterling ($3,850) and a noninferior quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) benefit in both the ITT and per-protocol populations.

Serious adverse reactions occurred in 9% of patients in the treatment-break group versus 12% of the continuous-treatment group.

The authors of the study concluded, “Treatment breaks might be a feasible and cost-effective option with lifestyle benefits for patients during tyrosine kinase inhibitor therapy in patients with renal cell carcinoma.”
 

Changes in treatment strategies

The STAR trial started recruiting in January 2012.

Since that time, immunotherapy has taken over as first-line treatment for many patients with advanced ccRCC in both the United Kingdom and the United States.

However, TKIs still have a place. The NCCN Kidney Cancer 2022 Guidelines recommend both sunitinib and pazopanib as options for first-line therapy in advanced disease. The 2022 ASCO Metastatic ccRCC guidelines recommend either drug as first-line treatment in combination with an immune checkpoint inhibitor or in monotherapy if there are “coexisting medical problems.”

In the United States, intermittent sunitinib in metastatic RCC was tested in a small study in 2017 with little activity in the literature since then. The authors, led by Moshe Ornstein, MD, from the Cleveland Clinic, concluded at the time that sunitinib treatment breaks were feasible and “clinical efficacy does not seem to be compromised.” Dr. Ornstein was approached for comment on this latest U.K. study but declined.

Back in the United Kingdom, the results of STAR arrived just in time.

Said Dr. Brown: “This has … been really helpful in the U.K. in the pandemic when people said, can these patients have extra breaks? At the worst of the pandemic we were able to say, sure, if it’s stable, we can keep them off for 3-6 months. …And so that’s already had a powerful impact.”

Dr. Brown concluded, “I think what the trial does allow us to do, as individual oncologists, is to look at the patients that this might be suitable for – it won’t be everybody – and to say yes, it’s okay to personalize things.”

The study was funded by the U.K.’s National Institute for Health and Care Research. Dr. Bestall reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Hewison reported funding to her institution from the NIHR Health Technology Assessment. Dr. Brown reports having served as a consultant or adviser for Novartis, Ipsen, Amgen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Bayer; honoraria from Novartis, Ipsen, Amgen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Bayer; research funding paid to their institution from the National Institute for Health and Care Research; and travel expenses from Ipsen. Other coauthors reported numerous relationships with industry.

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

Although patients with lupus nephritis recently gained two new add-on treatment options in voclosporin (Lupkynis) and belimumab (Benlysta), there have been little data published with real-world experience in using these drugs.

Voclosporin, a calcineurin inhibitor, was approved by the Food and Drug Administration in January 2021 to treat lupus nephritis in combination with immunosuppressive medication. Belimumab, a human monoclonal antibody and B-lymphocyte stimulator, was approved in December 2020 in the United States as an add-on treatment for lupus nephritis in adults and later in July 2022 for children who are already receiving standard therapy.

How the two drugs are prescribed for patients with lupus nephritis so far appears to be influenced by presence of extrarenal manifestations of lupus, proteinuria level, clinicians’ prior experience with belimumab, costs of the drugs, and patient preference, experts said.

Voclosporin’s approval was based on data from the phase 3 AURORA 1 trial and phase 2 AURA-LV trial. AURORA 1 evaluated 357 patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) and lupus nephritis who were randomized to receive voclosporin or placebo with mycophenolate mofetil and tapered low-dose oral steroids. In the voclosporin group, the results showed a significantly higher complete renal response at 52 weeks, compared with the placebo group, while having a similar adverse event profile. The AURA-LV trial, evaluating efficacy and safety of 179 patients with lupus nephritis, showed adding low-dose voclosporin to induction therapy improved renal response, compared with placebo. AURORA 2, a continuation of the AURORA trial, showed patients with lupus nephritis receiving voclosporin have a stable estimated glomerular filtration rate and reductions in proteinuria up to 3 years of follow-up.

Results from the phase 3 BLISS-LN trial of 448 patients with confirmed lupus nephritis were the basis for belimumab’s approval and showed a significantly higher proportion of patients who received belimumab had a primary efficacy renal response, complete renal response, and significantly lower risk of a renal-related adverse event or death, compared with the placebo group.
 

Lack of real-world data

The lack of real-world data on either of these treatments can be attributed to lupus nephritis being a rare disease, and the approvals happening fairly recently, experts said.

“This is really due to the recency of the approvals for both of these medications for lupus nephritis,” Amit Saxena, MD, a rheumatologist and assistant professor of medicine in the division of rheumatology at NYU Langone Health in New York, said in an interview.

“It’s too soon for any appreciable data to be collected.”

Ashira D. Blazer, MD, MSCI, a rheumatologist at Hospital for Special Surgery and assistant professor of medicine at Weill Cornell Medical College, both in New York, said that rheumatologists “are a little bit hesitant” to use newer agents rather than existing therapies, and have existing guidance from the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) on treating the condition.

“I think when someone has something like lupus nephritis that’s so serious, rheumatologists pull for the tried-and-true drugs that we know will affect the inflammation quickly and get that patient to remission,” she said.

Donald E. Thomas Jr., MD, of Arthritis and Pain Associates of P.G. County in Greenbelt, Md., said he was surprised there was a lack of case studies on voclosporin or belimumab for lupus nephritis, but pointed to the time and cost of publishing a case report and the rheumatologist shortage as potential reasons.

Sharon Worcester/MDedge News

Prescribing experience

Despite the lack of published data on real-world use, the drugs are being prescribed, Dr. Thomas said.

“I have quite a few patients on these drugs,” he said, citing one patient with severe membranoproliferative lupus nephritis not in remission who is receiving a combination of voclosporin, belimumab, and hydroxychloroquine.

“I have had absolutely no problems getting either drug. The indications for the medicines are crystal clear,” he said.

Irene Blanco, MD, MS, professor in the department of medicine-rheumatology at Northwestern University, Chicago, said that in her experience, both voclosporin and belimumab have been easy to get for patients.

However, she noted she was seeing mostly patients with government-based insurance in the Bronx, N.Y., prior to moving to Northwestern in September 2022. Belimumab had been available from the New York State Medicaid program for indications other than lupus nephritis for some time, and the program was quick to add voclosporin once it became available. “It wasn’t hard to get at all,” she said.

Dr. Saxena noted the respective pharmaceutical companies have provided help in prescribing voclosporin and belimumab through offering patient assistance programs and navigating insurers’ prior authorization hurdles. As belimumab has been available for many years, its availability hasn’t changed, he noted. “Voclosporin has seen more formulary restrictions, but in my experience, I have been able to get the drug utilizing authorization procedures,” he said.

One issue Dr. Blazer said that she encounters is cost. According to prices obtained from drugs.com in March 2023, belimumab has an estimated annual price of $58.389.96 per patient, and voclosporin has an estimated annual price of $86,506.20 per patient.

“I tend to treat patients who can have some socioeconomic challenges, and so I think very long and hard before prescribing either of them,” she explained. “[C]ertainly in the case of voclosporin, when there are older, cheaper calcineurin inhibitors and I think I need one, I’m more likely to reach for one of the others.”

While GSK offers a patient assistance program for belimumab, which Dr. Blazer said she has used, physicians may not be aware of the program or have the resources in their offices to provide social work support for their patients.

“I have had patients who started it and ... continued to have a flare and needed to go on disability or leave their jobs, and they were just too concerned with the ongoing cost burden, and so I ended up taking them off the medication for that reason at their request,” she said.

The fact that Black patients have lupus nephritis more often than White patients do, as well as greater socioeconomic barriers, points to access to care and cost as major factors in why new drugs are not being used, Dr. Blazer said. “I think that understanding how we can improve access is going to be extremely important in getting more real-world data and getting more patients treated,” she said.

Treatment preference

A chart audit recently released by market research firm Spherix Global Insights highlighted a potential treatment preference for lupus nephritis. Use of voclosporin increased among rheumatologists and nephrologists, but patients with lupus nephritis under the care of rheumatologists were more likely to be treated with belimumab than voclosporin.

Dr. Saxena said he has experience with both and doesn’t have a preference, instead using factors other than experience when deciding the best treatment for patients. “For example, if there are nonrenal manifestations such as arthritis or rashes, I may lean towards belimumab, but if a more rapid reduction in proteinuria is important, I may lean towards voclosporin,” he said.

Dr. Thomas weighs the pros and cons of voclosporin and belimumab with the patient. “With many lupus nephritis scenarios, either drug may be a good choice and it comes down to patient preference. The main scenario where I would choose [voclosporin] over [belimumab] is in patients with [proteinuria of] 3 g protein/day or more,” he said, while belimumab would be the choice for a patient with “nonrenal manifestations of SLE in addition to their nephritis.”

For other rheumatologists, comfort level with belimumab may play a role. “We always had [belimumab] and we were always using [belimumab], and so it would make sense that like we would go for a med, again, that we’re really familiar with and we use,” Dr. Blanco said.

Dr. Blanco has prescribed belimumab, but had been using tacrolimus until recently. “I’ve been using tacrolimus since 2016. I’m probably going to lean on the [tacrolimus] rather than going to [belimumab], which works, but maybe it’s not the end-all, be-all in terms of lupus,” she said.

Although she hasn’t yet prescribed voclosporin, Dr. Blazer said she had “much more experience with belimumab.

“I’ve prescribed other calcineurin inhibitors in the past, and usually for a patient who’s very proteinuric and as an adjunct to that standard of care to try to bring down the proteinuria,” she said.

With belimumab, she would consider adding it to a patient with severe disease who has failed treatment with mycophenolate mofetil or cyclophosphamide and has a recurrent lupus nephritis flare. “It’s something I can use as an adjunct, and I think that I can get some extra benefit from it, and it also tends to be well tolerated,” Dr. Blazer said.

How patients are responding

Dr. Thomas’ patients have been responding well on voclosporin and belimumab. “I was an early adopter of [belimumab] and had patients with lupus nephritis do great on it, way before the FDA approval,” he said.

For voclosporin, Dr. Thomas highlighted the “incredibly rapid” proteinuria response. “I had a patient have marked reduction in proteinuria in just 2 weeks. Proteinuria reduction is the number one predictor of long-term better outcomes,” he said.

Many patients receiving mycophenolate and cyclophosphamide do not go into complete remission, while the clinical trials for voclosporin and belimumab had significantly higher rates of complete response and faster response rates, compared with older therapies. “That is what we need,” he said.

“These drugs are game changers in the treatment of lupus nephritis. In my mind, belimumab and voclosporin should be considered the standard of medical care treating lupus nephritis patients,” he added.

Dr. Blanco said her patients appear to like and are tolerating voclosporin and belimumab well, but because there are no pregnancy data on voclosporin, she may choose belimumab or tacrolimus for patients of reproductive age who are considering starting a family.

Patients with extrarenal symptoms tend to do particularly well with belimumab, such as those with arthritis and skin rash, Dr. Blazer said. “In my experience, as an adjunct with those standard of care medications, I have been able to maintain remission in my patients,” she said.

Dr. Saxena said both medications are “important options” for lupus nephritis in patients who don’t respond to standard therapy. “As more doctors utilize each medication and additional data is published, I’d expect an increase uptake in both medications in the future,” he said.

Dr. Blazer reported being a contributor to GSK’s SLE Educators’ Network and has been a consultant for Aurinia. Dr. Saxena reported being a consultant for GSK and Aurinia. Dr. Thomas reported being on the speakers bureau for GSK and Aurinia. Dr. Blanco reported having no relevant financial relationships with pharmaceutical companies.

Although patients with lupus nephritis recently gained two new add-on treatment options in voclosporin (Lupkynis) and belimumab (Benlysta), there have been little data published with real-world experience in using these drugs.

Voclosporin, a calcineurin inhibitor, was approved by the Food and Drug Administration in January 2021 to treat lupus nephritis in combination with immunosuppressive medication. Belimumab, a human monoclonal antibody and B-lymphocyte stimulator, was approved in December 2020 in the United States as an add-on treatment for lupus nephritis in adults and later in July 2022 for children who are already receiving standard therapy.

How the two drugs are prescribed for patients with lupus nephritis so far appears to be influenced by presence of extrarenal manifestations of lupus, proteinuria level, clinicians’ prior experience with belimumab, costs of the drugs, and patient preference, experts said.

Voclosporin’s approval was based on data from the phase 3 AURORA 1 trial and phase 2 AURA-LV trial. AURORA 1 evaluated 357 patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) and lupus nephritis who were randomized to receive voclosporin or placebo with mycophenolate mofetil and tapered low-dose oral steroids. In the voclosporin group, the results showed a significantly higher complete renal response at 52 weeks, compared with the placebo group, while having a similar adverse event profile. The AURA-LV trial, evaluating efficacy and safety of 179 patients with lupus nephritis, showed adding low-dose voclosporin to induction therapy improved renal response, compared with placebo. AURORA 2, a continuation of the AURORA trial, showed patients with lupus nephritis receiving voclosporin have a stable estimated glomerular filtration rate and reductions in proteinuria up to 3 years of follow-up.

Results from the phase 3 BLISS-LN trial of 448 patients with confirmed lupus nephritis were the basis for belimumab’s approval and showed a significantly higher proportion of patients who received belimumab had a primary efficacy renal response, complete renal response, and significantly lower risk of a renal-related adverse event or death, compared with the placebo group.
 

Lack of real-world data

The lack of real-world data on either of these treatments can be attributed to lupus nephritis being a rare disease, and the approvals happening fairly recently, experts said.

“This is really due to the recency of the approvals for both of these medications for lupus nephritis,” Amit Saxena, MD, a rheumatologist and assistant professor of medicine in the division of rheumatology at NYU Langone Health in New York, said in an interview.

“It’s too soon for any appreciable data to be collected.”

Ashira D. Blazer, MD, MSCI, a rheumatologist at Hospital for Special Surgery and assistant professor of medicine at Weill Cornell Medical College, both in New York, said that rheumatologists “are a little bit hesitant” to use newer agents rather than existing therapies, and have existing guidance from the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) on treating the condition.

“I think when someone has something like lupus nephritis that’s so serious, rheumatologists pull for the tried-and-true drugs that we know will affect the inflammation quickly and get that patient to remission,” she said.

Donald E. Thomas Jr., MD, of Arthritis and Pain Associates of P.G. County in Greenbelt, Md., said he was surprised there was a lack of case studies on voclosporin or belimumab for lupus nephritis, but pointed to the time and cost of publishing a case report and the rheumatologist shortage as potential reasons.

Sharon Worcester/MDedge News

Prescribing experience

Despite the lack of published data on real-world use, the drugs are being prescribed, Dr. Thomas said.

“I have quite a few patients on these drugs,” he said, citing one patient with severe membranoproliferative lupus nephritis not in remission who is receiving a combination of voclosporin, belimumab, and hydroxychloroquine.

“I have had absolutely no problems getting either drug. The indications for the medicines are crystal clear,” he said.

Irene Blanco, MD, MS, professor in the department of medicine-rheumatology at Northwestern University, Chicago, said that in her experience, both voclosporin and belimumab have been easy to get for patients.

However, she noted she was seeing mostly patients with government-based insurance in the Bronx, N.Y., prior to moving to Northwestern in September 2022. Belimumab had been available from the New York State Medicaid program for indications other than lupus nephritis for some time, and the program was quick to add voclosporin once it became available. “It wasn’t hard to get at all,” she said.

Dr. Saxena noted the respective pharmaceutical companies have provided help in prescribing voclosporin and belimumab through offering patient assistance programs and navigating insurers’ prior authorization hurdles. As belimumab has been available for many years, its availability hasn’t changed, he noted. “Voclosporin has seen more formulary restrictions, but in my experience, I have been able to get the drug utilizing authorization procedures,” he said.

One issue Dr. Blazer said that she encounters is cost. According to prices obtained from drugs.com in March 2023, belimumab has an estimated annual price of $58.389.96 per patient, and voclosporin has an estimated annual price of $86,506.20 per patient.

“I tend to treat patients who can have some socioeconomic challenges, and so I think very long and hard before prescribing either of them,” she explained. “[C]ertainly in the case of voclosporin, when there are older, cheaper calcineurin inhibitors and I think I need one, I’m more likely to reach for one of the others.”

While GSK offers a patient assistance program for belimumab, which Dr. Blazer said she has used, physicians may not be aware of the program or have the resources in their offices to provide social work support for their patients.

“I have had patients who started it and ... continued to have a flare and needed to go on disability or leave their jobs, and they were just too concerned with the ongoing cost burden, and so I ended up taking them off the medication for that reason at their request,” she said.

The fact that Black patients have lupus nephritis more often than White patients do, as well as greater socioeconomic barriers, points to access to care and cost as major factors in why new drugs are not being used, Dr. Blazer said. “I think that understanding how we can improve access is going to be extremely important in getting more real-world data and getting more patients treated,” she said.

Treatment preference

A chart audit recently released by market research firm Spherix Global Insights highlighted a potential treatment preference for lupus nephritis. Use of voclosporin increased among rheumatologists and nephrologists, but patients with lupus nephritis under the care of rheumatologists were more likely to be treated with belimumab than voclosporin.

Dr. Saxena said he has experience with both and doesn’t have a preference, instead using factors other than experience when deciding the best treatment for patients. “For example, if there are nonrenal manifestations such as arthritis or rashes, I may lean towards belimumab, but if a more rapid reduction in proteinuria is important, I may lean towards voclosporin,” he said.

Dr. Thomas weighs the pros and cons of voclosporin and belimumab with the patient. “With many lupus nephritis scenarios, either drug may be a good choice and it comes down to patient preference. The main scenario where I would choose [voclosporin] over [belimumab] is in patients with [proteinuria of] 3 g protein/day or more,” he said, while belimumab would be the choice for a patient with “nonrenal manifestations of SLE in addition to their nephritis.”

For other rheumatologists, comfort level with belimumab may play a role. “We always had [belimumab] and we were always using [belimumab], and so it would make sense that like we would go for a med, again, that we’re really familiar with and we use,” Dr. Blanco said.

Dr. Blanco has prescribed belimumab, but had been using tacrolimus until recently. “I’ve been using tacrolimus since 2016. I’m probably going to lean on the [tacrolimus] rather than going to [belimumab], which works, but maybe it’s not the end-all, be-all in terms of lupus,” she said.

Although she hasn’t yet prescribed voclosporin, Dr. Blazer said she had “much more experience with belimumab.

“I’ve prescribed other calcineurin inhibitors in the past, and usually for a patient who’s very proteinuric and as an adjunct to that standard of care to try to bring down the proteinuria,” she said.

With belimumab, she would consider adding it to a patient with severe disease who has failed treatment with mycophenolate mofetil or cyclophosphamide and has a recurrent lupus nephritis flare. “It’s something I can use as an adjunct, and I think that I can get some extra benefit from it, and it also tends to be well tolerated,” Dr. Blazer said.

How patients are responding

Dr. Thomas’ patients have been responding well on voclosporin and belimumab. “I was an early adopter of [belimumab] and had patients with lupus nephritis do great on it, way before the FDA approval,” he said.

For voclosporin, Dr. Thomas highlighted the “incredibly rapid” proteinuria response. “I had a patient have marked reduction in proteinuria in just 2 weeks. Proteinuria reduction is the number one predictor of long-term better outcomes,” he said.

Many patients receiving mycophenolate and cyclophosphamide do not go into complete remission, while the clinical trials for voclosporin and belimumab had significantly higher rates of complete response and faster response rates, compared with older therapies. “That is what we need,” he said.

“These drugs are game changers in the treatment of lupus nephritis. In my mind, belimumab and voclosporin should be considered the standard of medical care treating lupus nephritis patients,” he added.

Dr. Blanco said her patients appear to like and are tolerating voclosporin and belimumab well, but because there are no pregnancy data on voclosporin, she may choose belimumab or tacrolimus for patients of reproductive age who are considering starting a family.

Patients with extrarenal symptoms tend to do particularly well with belimumab, such as those with arthritis and skin rash, Dr. Blazer said. “In my experience, as an adjunct with those standard of care medications, I have been able to maintain remission in my patients,” she said.

Dr. Saxena said both medications are “important options” for lupus nephritis in patients who don’t respond to standard therapy. “As more doctors utilize each medication and additional data is published, I’d expect an increase uptake in both medications in the future,” he said.

Dr. Blazer reported being a contributor to GSK’s SLE Educators’ Network and has been a consultant for Aurinia. Dr. Saxena reported being a consultant for GSK and Aurinia. Dr. Thomas reported being on the speakers bureau for GSK and Aurinia. Dr. Blanco reported having no relevant financial relationships with pharmaceutical companies.

Although patients with lupus nephritis recently gained two new add-on treatment options in voclosporin (Lupkynis) and belimumab (Benlysta), there have been little data published with real-world experience in using these drugs.

Voclosporin, a calcineurin inhibitor, was approved by the Food and Drug Administration in January 2021 to treat lupus nephritis in combination with immunosuppressive medication. Belimumab, a human monoclonal antibody and B-lymphocyte stimulator, was approved in December 2020 in the United States as an add-on treatment for lupus nephritis in adults and later in July 2022 for children who are already receiving standard therapy.

How the two drugs are prescribed for patients with lupus nephritis so far appears to be influenced by presence of extrarenal manifestations of lupus, proteinuria level, clinicians’ prior experience with belimumab, costs of the drugs, and patient preference, experts said.

Voclosporin’s approval was based on data from the phase 3 AURORA 1 trial and phase 2 AURA-LV trial. AURORA 1 evaluated 357 patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) and lupus nephritis who were randomized to receive voclosporin or placebo with mycophenolate mofetil and tapered low-dose oral steroids. In the voclosporin group, the results showed a significantly higher complete renal response at 52 weeks, compared with the placebo group, while having a similar adverse event profile. The AURA-LV trial, evaluating efficacy and safety of 179 patients with lupus nephritis, showed adding low-dose voclosporin to induction therapy improved renal response, compared with placebo. AURORA 2, a continuation of the AURORA trial, showed patients with lupus nephritis receiving voclosporin have a stable estimated glomerular filtration rate and reductions in proteinuria up to 3 years of follow-up.

Results from the phase 3 BLISS-LN trial of 448 patients with confirmed lupus nephritis were the basis for belimumab’s approval and showed a significantly higher proportion of patients who received belimumab had a primary efficacy renal response, complete renal response, and significantly lower risk of a renal-related adverse event or death, compared with the placebo group.
 

Lack of real-world data

The lack of real-world data on either of these treatments can be attributed to lupus nephritis being a rare disease, and the approvals happening fairly recently, experts said.

“This is really due to the recency of the approvals for both of these medications for lupus nephritis,” Amit Saxena, MD, a rheumatologist and assistant professor of medicine in the division of rheumatology at NYU Langone Health in New York, said in an interview.

“It’s too soon for any appreciable data to be collected.”

Ashira D. Blazer, MD, MSCI, a rheumatologist at Hospital for Special Surgery and assistant professor of medicine at Weill Cornell Medical College, both in New York, said that rheumatologists “are a little bit hesitant” to use newer agents rather than existing therapies, and have existing guidance from the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) on treating the condition.

“I think when someone has something like lupus nephritis that’s so serious, rheumatologists pull for the tried-and-true drugs that we know will affect the inflammation quickly and get that patient to remission,” she said.

Donald E. Thomas Jr., MD, of Arthritis and Pain Associates of P.G. County in Greenbelt, Md., said he was surprised there was a lack of case studies on voclosporin or belimumab for lupus nephritis, but pointed to the time and cost of publishing a case report and the rheumatologist shortage as potential reasons.

Sharon Worcester/MDedge News

Prescribing experience

Despite the lack of published data on real-world use, the drugs are being prescribed, Dr. Thomas said.

“I have quite a few patients on these drugs,” he said, citing one patient with severe membranoproliferative lupus nephritis not in remission who is receiving a combination of voclosporin, belimumab, and hydroxychloroquine.

“I have had absolutely no problems getting either drug. The indications for the medicines are crystal clear,” he said.

Irene Blanco, MD, MS, professor in the department of medicine-rheumatology at Northwestern University, Chicago, said that in her experience, both voclosporin and belimumab have been easy to get for patients.

However, she noted she was seeing mostly patients with government-based insurance in the Bronx, N.Y., prior to moving to Northwestern in September 2022. Belimumab had been available from the New York State Medicaid program for indications other than lupus nephritis for some time, and the program was quick to add voclosporin once it became available. “It wasn’t hard to get at all,” she said.

Dr. Saxena noted the respective pharmaceutical companies have provided help in prescribing voclosporin and belimumab through offering patient assistance programs and navigating insurers’ prior authorization hurdles. As belimumab has been available for many years, its availability hasn’t changed, he noted. “Voclosporin has seen more formulary restrictions, but in my experience, I have been able to get the drug utilizing authorization procedures,” he said.

One issue Dr. Blazer said that she encounters is cost. According to prices obtained from drugs.com in March 2023, belimumab has an estimated annual price of $58.389.96 per patient, and voclosporin has an estimated annual price of $86,506.20 per patient.

“I tend to treat patients who can have some socioeconomic challenges, and so I think very long and hard before prescribing either of them,” she explained. “[C]ertainly in the case of voclosporin, when there are older, cheaper calcineurin inhibitors and I think I need one, I’m more likely to reach for one of the others.”

While GSK offers a patient assistance program for belimumab, which Dr. Blazer said she has used, physicians may not be aware of the program or have the resources in their offices to provide social work support for their patients.

“I have had patients who started it and ... continued to have a flare and needed to go on disability or leave their jobs, and they were just too concerned with the ongoing cost burden, and so I ended up taking them off the medication for that reason at their request,” she said.

The fact that Black patients have lupus nephritis more often than White patients do, as well as greater socioeconomic barriers, points to access to care and cost as major factors in why new drugs are not being used, Dr. Blazer said. “I think that understanding how we can improve access is going to be extremely important in getting more real-world data and getting more patients treated,” she said.

Treatment preference

A chart audit recently released by market research firm Spherix Global Insights highlighted a potential treatment preference for lupus nephritis. Use of voclosporin increased among rheumatologists and nephrologists, but patients with lupus nephritis under the care of rheumatologists were more likely to be treated with belimumab than voclosporin.

Dr. Saxena said he has experience with both and doesn’t have a preference, instead using factors other than experience when deciding the best treatment for patients. “For example, if there are nonrenal manifestations such as arthritis or rashes, I may lean towards belimumab, but if a more rapid reduction in proteinuria is important, I may lean towards voclosporin,” he said.

Dr. Thomas weighs the pros and cons of voclosporin and belimumab with the patient. “With many lupus nephritis scenarios, either drug may be a good choice and it comes down to patient preference. The main scenario where I would choose [voclosporin] over [belimumab] is in patients with [proteinuria of] 3 g protein/day or more,” he said, while belimumab would be the choice for a patient with “nonrenal manifestations of SLE in addition to their nephritis.”

For other rheumatologists, comfort level with belimumab may play a role. “We always had [belimumab] and we were always using [belimumab], and so it would make sense that like we would go for a med, again, that we’re really familiar with and we use,” Dr. Blanco said.

Dr. Blanco has prescribed belimumab, but had been using tacrolimus until recently. “I’ve been using tacrolimus since 2016. I’m probably going to lean on the [tacrolimus] rather than going to [belimumab], which works, but maybe it’s not the end-all, be-all in terms of lupus,” she said.

Although she hasn’t yet prescribed voclosporin, Dr. Blazer said she had “much more experience with belimumab.

“I’ve prescribed other calcineurin inhibitors in the past, and usually for a patient who’s very proteinuric and as an adjunct to that standard of care to try to bring down the proteinuria,” she said.

With belimumab, she would consider adding it to a patient with severe disease who has failed treatment with mycophenolate mofetil or cyclophosphamide and has a recurrent lupus nephritis flare. “It’s something I can use as an adjunct, and I think that I can get some extra benefit from it, and it also tends to be well tolerated,” Dr. Blazer said.

How patients are responding

Dr. Thomas’ patients have been responding well on voclosporin and belimumab. “I was an early adopter of [belimumab] and had patients with lupus nephritis do great on it, way before the FDA approval,” he said.

For voclosporin, Dr. Thomas highlighted the “incredibly rapid” proteinuria response. “I had a patient have marked reduction in proteinuria in just 2 weeks. Proteinuria reduction is the number one predictor of long-term better outcomes,” he said.

Many patients receiving mycophenolate and cyclophosphamide do not go into complete remission, while the clinical trials for voclosporin and belimumab had significantly higher rates of complete response and faster response rates, compared with older therapies. “That is what we need,” he said.

“These drugs are game changers in the treatment of lupus nephritis. In my mind, belimumab and voclosporin should be considered the standard of medical care treating lupus nephritis patients,” he added.

Dr. Blanco said her patients appear to like and are tolerating voclosporin and belimumab well, but because there are no pregnancy data on voclosporin, she may choose belimumab or tacrolimus for patients of reproductive age who are considering starting a family.

Patients with extrarenal symptoms tend to do particularly well with belimumab, such as those with arthritis and skin rash, Dr. Blazer said. “In my experience, as an adjunct with those standard of care medications, I have been able to maintain remission in my patients,” she said.

Dr. Saxena said both medications are “important options” for lupus nephritis in patients who don’t respond to standard therapy. “As more doctors utilize each medication and additional data is published, I’d expect an increase uptake in both medications in the future,” he said.

Dr. Blazer reported being a contributor to GSK’s SLE Educators’ Network and has been a consultant for Aurinia. Dr. Saxena reported being a consultant for GSK and Aurinia. Dr. Thomas reported being on the speakers bureau for GSK and Aurinia. Dr. Blanco reported having no relevant financial relationships with pharmaceutical companies.

The Food and Drug Administration has accepted a new drug application for berdazimer gel 10.3% for the treatment of molluscum contagiosum, the manufacturer announced on March 7.

If approved, berdazimer gel would be the first FDA-approved prescription product for molluscum contagiosum in the United States, according to the company, Novan. The active ingredient in berdazimer gel 10.3% is berdazimer sodium, a novel nitric oxide–releasing agent.

Molluscum contagiosum is a benign but contagious skin infection characterized by red papules on the face, trunk, limbs, and axillae that may persist for years if left untreated.

The treatment was evaluated in the B-SIMPLE4 study, a phase 3 clinical trial including 891 individuals with molluscum contagiosum aged 6 months and older, with 3-70 raised lesions The mean age of the patients was approximately 7 years (range, 0.9-47.5 years) and 85.5% were White (4.7% were Black, 21.2% were Hispanic, and 1.4% were Asian). Study participants were randomized to berdazimer gel 10.3% or a vehicle gel applied as a thin layer to all lesions once daily for 12 weeks.

The full results of the B-SIMPLE4 study were published in JAMA Dermatology in July 2022. After 12 weeks of treatment, 32.4% of patients in the berdazimer group met the primary outcome of complete clearance of all lesions, versus 19.7% of those on the vehicle (P < .001). The rates of adverse events were similar and low in both groups. The most common adverse events in both groups were application-site pain and erythema, and most cases were mild or moderate. A total of 4.1% of berdazimer patients and 0.7% of placebo patients experienced adverse events that prompted treatment discontinuation.

The Prescription Drug User Fee goal date for the approval of berdazimer 10.3% for molluscum contagiosum is set for Jan. 5, 2024, according to Novan.

The Food and Drug Administration has accepted a new drug application for berdazimer gel 10.3% for the treatment of molluscum contagiosum, the manufacturer announced on March 7.

If approved, berdazimer gel would be the first FDA-approved prescription product for molluscum contagiosum in the United States, according to the company, Novan. The active ingredient in berdazimer gel 10.3% is berdazimer sodium, a novel nitric oxide–releasing agent.

Molluscum contagiosum is a benign but contagious skin infection characterized by red papules on the face, trunk, limbs, and axillae that may persist for years if left untreated.

The treatment was evaluated in the B-SIMPLE4 study, a phase 3 clinical trial including 891 individuals with molluscum contagiosum aged 6 months and older, with 3-70 raised lesions The mean age of the patients was approximately 7 years (range, 0.9-47.5 years) and 85.5% were White (4.7% were Black, 21.2% were Hispanic, and 1.4% were Asian). Study participants were randomized to berdazimer gel 10.3% or a vehicle gel applied as a thin layer to all lesions once daily for 12 weeks.

The full results of the B-SIMPLE4 study were published in JAMA Dermatology in July 2022. After 12 weeks of treatment, 32.4% of patients in the berdazimer group met the primary outcome of complete clearance of all lesions, versus 19.7% of those on the vehicle (P < .001). The rates of adverse events were similar and low in both groups. The most common adverse events in both groups were application-site pain and erythema, and most cases were mild or moderate. A total of 4.1% of berdazimer patients and 0.7% of placebo patients experienced adverse events that prompted treatment discontinuation.

The Prescription Drug User Fee goal date for the approval of berdazimer 10.3% for molluscum contagiosum is set for Jan. 5, 2024, according to Novan.

The Food and Drug Administration has accepted a new drug application for berdazimer gel 10.3% for the treatment of molluscum contagiosum, the manufacturer announced on March 7.

If approved, berdazimer gel would be the first FDA-approved prescription product for molluscum contagiosum in the United States, according to the company, Novan. The active ingredient in berdazimer gel 10.3% is berdazimer sodium, a novel nitric oxide–releasing agent.

Molluscum contagiosum is a benign but contagious skin infection characterized by red papules on the face, trunk, limbs, and axillae that may persist for years if left untreated.

The treatment was evaluated in the B-SIMPLE4 study, a phase 3 clinical trial including 891 individuals with molluscum contagiosum aged 6 months and older, with 3-70 raised lesions The mean age of the patients was approximately 7 years (range, 0.9-47.5 years) and 85.5% were White (4.7% were Black, 21.2% were Hispanic, and 1.4% were Asian). Study participants were randomized to berdazimer gel 10.3% or a vehicle gel applied as a thin layer to all lesions once daily for 12 weeks.

The full results of the B-SIMPLE4 study were published in JAMA Dermatology in July 2022. After 12 weeks of treatment, 32.4% of patients in the berdazimer group met the primary outcome of complete clearance of all lesions, versus 19.7% of those on the vehicle (P < .001). The rates of adverse events were similar and low in both groups. The most common adverse events in both groups were application-site pain and erythema, and most cases were mild or moderate. A total of 4.1% of berdazimer patients and 0.7% of placebo patients experienced adverse events that prompted treatment discontinuation.

The Prescription Drug User Fee goal date for the approval of berdazimer 10.3% for molluscum contagiosum is set for Jan. 5, 2024, according to Novan.

The Food and Drug Administration has expanded the indication for adjuvant abemaciclib (Verzenio) in combination with endocrine therapy for patients with hormone receptor–positive, HER2-negative, node-positive early breast cancer who are at high risk for recurrence.

Abemaciclib was previously approved for this group of high-risk patients with the requirement that they have a Ki-67 score of at least 20%. The new expansion removes the Ki-67 testing requirement, meaning more patients are now eligible to receive this drug. High-risk patients eligible for the CDK4/6 inhibitor can now be identified solely on the basis of nodal status, tumor size, and tumor grade.

The FDA’s decision to expand the approval was based on 4-year data from the phase 3 monarchE trial of adjuvant abemaciclib, which showed benefit in invasive disease-free survival beyond the 2-year treatment course.

At 4 years, 85.5% of patients remained recurrence free with abemaciclib plus endocrine therapy, compared with 78.6% who received endocrine therapy alone, an absolute difference in invasive disease-free survival of 6.9%.

“The initial Verzenio FDA approval in early breast cancer was practice changing and now, through this indication expansion, we have the potential to reduce the risk of breast cancer recurrence for many more patients, relying solely on commonly utilized clinicopathologic features to identify them,” Erika P. Hamilton, MD, an investigator on the monarchE clinical trial, said in a press release.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has expanded the indication for adjuvant abemaciclib (Verzenio) in combination with endocrine therapy for patients with hormone receptor–positive, HER2-negative, node-positive early breast cancer who are at high risk for recurrence.

Abemaciclib was previously approved for this group of high-risk patients with the requirement that they have a Ki-67 score of at least 20%. The new expansion removes the Ki-67 testing requirement, meaning more patients are now eligible to receive this drug. High-risk patients eligible for the CDK4/6 inhibitor can now be identified solely on the basis of nodal status, tumor size, and tumor grade.

The FDA’s decision to expand the approval was based on 4-year data from the phase 3 monarchE trial of adjuvant abemaciclib, which showed benefit in invasive disease-free survival beyond the 2-year treatment course.

At 4 years, 85.5% of patients remained recurrence free with abemaciclib plus endocrine therapy, compared with 78.6% who received endocrine therapy alone, an absolute difference in invasive disease-free survival of 6.9%.

“The initial Verzenio FDA approval in early breast cancer was practice changing and now, through this indication expansion, we have the potential to reduce the risk of breast cancer recurrence for many more patients, relying solely on commonly utilized clinicopathologic features to identify them,” Erika P. Hamilton, MD, an investigator on the monarchE clinical trial, said in a press release.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has expanded the indication for adjuvant abemaciclib (Verzenio) in combination with endocrine therapy for patients with hormone receptor–positive, HER2-negative, node-positive early breast cancer who are at high risk for recurrence.

Abemaciclib was previously approved for this group of high-risk patients with the requirement that they have a Ki-67 score of at least 20%. The new expansion removes the Ki-67 testing requirement, meaning more patients are now eligible to receive this drug. High-risk patients eligible for the CDK4/6 inhibitor can now be identified solely on the basis of nodal status, tumor size, and tumor grade.

The FDA’s decision to expand the approval was based on 4-year data from the phase 3 monarchE trial of adjuvant abemaciclib, which showed benefit in invasive disease-free survival beyond the 2-year treatment course.

At 4 years, 85.5% of patients remained recurrence free with abemaciclib plus endocrine therapy, compared with 78.6% who received endocrine therapy alone, an absolute difference in invasive disease-free survival of 6.9%.

“The initial Verzenio FDA approval in early breast cancer was practice changing and now, through this indication expansion, we have the potential to reduce the risk of breast cancer recurrence for many more patients, relying solely on commonly utilized clinicopathologic features to identify them,” Erika P. Hamilton, MD, an investigator on the monarchE clinical trial, said in a press release.

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

Patients with celiac disease who have COVID-19 are twice as likely to be hospitalized as are individuals without the autoimmune condition, a single-center U.S. study shows.

Vaccination against COVID-19 reduced the risk for hospitalization by almost half for both groups, however, the study finds.

“To our knowledge this is the first study that demonstrated a vaccination effect on mitigation of the risk of hospitalization in celiac disease patients with COVID-19 infection,” write Alberto Rubio-Tapia, MD, director, Celiac Disease Program, Digestive Disease and Surgery Institute, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, and colleagues.

Despite the increased risk for hospitalization among patients with celiac disease, there were no significant differences between those with and without the condition with respect to intensive care unit requirement, mortality, or thrombosis, the researchers found.

The findings suggest that celiac disease patients with COVID-19 are “not inherently at greater risk for more severe outcomes,” they wrote.

The study was published online in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.
 

Comparing outcomes

Although it has been shown that patients with celiac disease have increased susceptibility to viral illnesses, research to date has found similar COVID-19 incidence and outcomes, including hospitalization, between patients with celiac disease and the general population, the researchers wrote.

However, the impact of COVID-19 vaccination is less clear, so the researchers set out to compare the frequency of COVID-19–related outcomes between patients with and without celiac disease before and after vaccination.

Through an analysis of patient medical records, researchers found 171,763 patients diagnosed and treated for COVID-19 at their institution between March 1, 2020, and Jan 1, 2022. Of them, 110 adults had biopsy-proven celiac disease.

The median time from biopsy diagnosis of celiac disease to COVID-19 was 217 months, 66.3% of patients were documented to be following a gluten-free diet, and tissue transglutaminase IgA was positive in 46.2% at the time of COVID-19.

The celiac group was matched by age, ethnicity, sex, and date of COVID-19 diagnosis with a control group of 220 adults without a clinical diagnosis of celiac disease. The two cohorts had similar rates of comorbid obesity, type 2 diabetes, preexisting lung disease, and tobacco use.

Patients with celiac disease were significantly more likely to be hospitalized for COVID-19 than were the control participants, at 24% vs. 11% (hazard ratio, 2.1; P = .009), the researchers wrote.

However, hospitalized patients with celiac disease were less likely to require supplementary oxygen than were the control participants, at 63% vs. 84%.

Vaccination rates for COVID-19 were similar between the two groups, at 64.5% among patients with celiac disease and 70% in the control group. Vaccination was associated with a lower risk for hospitalization on multivariate analysis (HR, 0.53; P = .026).

There was no significant difference in hospitalization rates between vaccinated patients with celiac disease and vaccinated patients in the control group (odds ratio, 1.12; P = .79), the team reported.

The secondary outcomes of ICU requirement, mortality, and thrombosis were minimal in both groups, the researchers wrote.

Vaccination’s importance

The different findings regarding hospitalization risk among patients with celiac disease between this study and previous research are likely due to earlier studies not accounting for vaccination status, the researchers wrote.

“This study shows significantly different rates of hospitalization among patients with [celiac disease] depending on their vaccination status, with strong evidence for mitigation of hospitalization risk through vaccination,” they added.

“Vaccination against COVID-19 should be strongly recommended in patients with celiac disease,” the researchers concluded.

No funding was declared. Dr. Rubio-Tapia reported a relationship with Takeda. No other financial relationships were declared.

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

AGA offers guidance on celiac disease to help patients maintain a gluten-free diet in the AGA GI Patient Center: www.gastro.org/celiac .

Patients with celiac disease who have COVID-19 are twice as likely to be hospitalized as are individuals without the autoimmune condition, a single-center U.S. study shows.

Vaccination against COVID-19 reduced the risk for hospitalization by almost half for both groups, however, the study finds.

“To our knowledge this is the first study that demonstrated a vaccination effect on mitigation of the risk of hospitalization in celiac disease patients with COVID-19 infection,” write Alberto Rubio-Tapia, MD, director, Celiac Disease Program, Digestive Disease and Surgery Institute, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, and colleagues.

Despite the increased risk for hospitalization among patients with celiac disease, there were no significant differences between those with and without the condition with respect to intensive care unit requirement, mortality, or thrombosis, the researchers found.

The findings suggest that celiac disease patients with COVID-19 are “not inherently at greater risk for more severe outcomes,” they wrote.

The study was published online in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.
 

Comparing outcomes

Although it has been shown that patients with celiac disease have increased susceptibility to viral illnesses, research to date has found similar COVID-19 incidence and outcomes, including hospitalization, between patients with celiac disease and the general population, the researchers wrote.

However, the impact of COVID-19 vaccination is less clear, so the researchers set out to compare the frequency of COVID-19–related outcomes between patients with and without celiac disease before and after vaccination.

Through an analysis of patient medical records, researchers found 171,763 patients diagnosed and treated for COVID-19 at their institution between March 1, 2020, and Jan 1, 2022. Of them, 110 adults had biopsy-proven celiac disease.

The median time from biopsy diagnosis of celiac disease to COVID-19 was 217 months, 66.3% of patients were documented to be following a gluten-free diet, and tissue transglutaminase IgA was positive in 46.2% at the time of COVID-19.

The celiac group was matched by age, ethnicity, sex, and date of COVID-19 diagnosis with a control group of 220 adults without a clinical diagnosis of celiac disease. The two cohorts had similar rates of comorbid obesity, type 2 diabetes, preexisting lung disease, and tobacco use.

Patients with celiac disease were significantly more likely to be hospitalized for COVID-19 than were the control participants, at 24% vs. 11% (hazard ratio, 2.1; P = .009), the researchers wrote.

However, hospitalized patients with celiac disease were less likely to require supplementary oxygen than were the control participants, at 63% vs. 84%.

Vaccination rates for COVID-19 were similar between the two groups, at 64.5% among patients with celiac disease and 70% in the control group. Vaccination was associated with a lower risk for hospitalization on multivariate analysis (HR, 0.53; P = .026).

There was no significant difference in hospitalization rates between vaccinated patients with celiac disease and vaccinated patients in the control group (odds ratio, 1.12; P = .79), the team reported.

The secondary outcomes of ICU requirement, mortality, and thrombosis were minimal in both groups, the researchers wrote.

Vaccination’s importance

The different findings regarding hospitalization risk among patients with celiac disease between this study and previous research are likely due to earlier studies not accounting for vaccination status, the researchers wrote.

“This study shows significantly different rates of hospitalization among patients with [celiac disease] depending on their vaccination status, with strong evidence for mitigation of hospitalization risk through vaccination,” they added.

“Vaccination against COVID-19 should be strongly recommended in patients with celiac disease,” the researchers concluded.

No funding was declared. Dr. Rubio-Tapia reported a relationship with Takeda. No other financial relationships were declared.

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

AGA offers guidance on celiac disease to help patients maintain a gluten-free diet in the AGA GI Patient Center: www.gastro.org/celiac .

Patients with celiac disease who have COVID-19 are twice as likely to be hospitalized as are individuals without the autoimmune condition, a single-center U.S. study shows.

Vaccination against COVID-19 reduced the risk for hospitalization by almost half for both groups, however, the study finds.

“To our knowledge this is the first study that demonstrated a vaccination effect on mitigation of the risk of hospitalization in celiac disease patients with COVID-19 infection,” write Alberto Rubio-Tapia, MD, director, Celiac Disease Program, Digestive Disease and Surgery Institute, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, and colleagues.

Despite the increased risk for hospitalization among patients with celiac disease, there were no significant differences between those with and without the condition with respect to intensive care unit requirement, mortality, or thrombosis, the researchers found.

The findings suggest that celiac disease patients with COVID-19 are “not inherently at greater risk for more severe outcomes,” they wrote.

The study was published online in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.
 

Comparing outcomes

Although it has been shown that patients with celiac disease have increased susceptibility to viral illnesses, research to date has found similar COVID-19 incidence and outcomes, including hospitalization, between patients with celiac disease and the general population, the researchers wrote.

However, the impact of COVID-19 vaccination is less clear, so the researchers set out to compare the frequency of COVID-19–related outcomes between patients with and without celiac disease before and after vaccination.

Through an analysis of patient medical records, researchers found 171,763 patients diagnosed and treated for COVID-19 at their institution between March 1, 2020, and Jan 1, 2022. Of them, 110 adults had biopsy-proven celiac disease.

The median time from biopsy diagnosis of celiac disease to COVID-19 was 217 months, 66.3% of patients were documented to be following a gluten-free diet, and tissue transglutaminase IgA was positive in 46.2% at the time of COVID-19.

The celiac group was matched by age, ethnicity, sex, and date of COVID-19 diagnosis with a control group of 220 adults without a clinical diagnosis of celiac disease. The two cohorts had similar rates of comorbid obesity, type 2 diabetes, preexisting lung disease, and tobacco use.

Patients with celiac disease were significantly more likely to be hospitalized for COVID-19 than were the control participants, at 24% vs. 11% (hazard ratio, 2.1; P = .009), the researchers wrote.

However, hospitalized patients with celiac disease were less likely to require supplementary oxygen than were the control participants, at 63% vs. 84%.

Vaccination rates for COVID-19 were similar between the two groups, at 64.5% among patients with celiac disease and 70% in the control group. Vaccination was associated with a lower risk for hospitalization on multivariate analysis (HR, 0.53; P = .026).

There was no significant difference in hospitalization rates between vaccinated patients with celiac disease and vaccinated patients in the control group (odds ratio, 1.12; P = .79), the team reported.

The secondary outcomes of ICU requirement, mortality, and thrombosis were minimal in both groups, the researchers wrote.

Vaccination’s importance

The different findings regarding hospitalization risk among patients with celiac disease between this study and previous research are likely due to earlier studies not accounting for vaccination status, the researchers wrote.

“This study shows significantly different rates of hospitalization among patients with [celiac disease] depending on their vaccination status, with strong evidence for mitigation of hospitalization risk through vaccination,” they added.

“Vaccination against COVID-19 should be strongly recommended in patients with celiac disease,” the researchers concluded.

No funding was declared. Dr. Rubio-Tapia reported a relationship with Takeda. No other financial relationships were declared.

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

AGA offers guidance on celiac disease to help patients maintain a gluten-free diet in the AGA GI Patient Center: www.gastro.org/celiac .