Pharmacology

Treatment of people with obesity but without diabetes with the glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) agonist semaglutide (Wegovy) – hailed at its approval in 2021 as a “game changer” for the treatment of obesity – led to beneficial changes in body mass index (BMI), glycemic control, and other clinical measures.

This collectively cut the calculated risk for possible future development of type 2 diabetes in study participants by more than half, based on post-hoc analysis of data from two pivotal trials that compared semaglutide with placebo.

The findings “suggest that semaglutide could help prevent type 2 diabetes in people with overweight or obesity,” said W. Timothy Garvey, MD, in a presentation at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.

Asked to comment, Rodolfo J. Galindo, MD, said: “We devote a significant amount of effort to treating people with diabetes but very little effort for diabetes prevention. We hope that further scientific findings showing the benefits of weight loss, as illustrated by [Dr.] Garvey [and colleagues], for diabetes prevention will change the pandemic of adiposity-based chronic disease.”
 

GLP-1 agonists as complication-reducing agents

Finding a link between treatment with semaglutide and a reduced future risk of developing type 2 diabetes is important because it shows that this regimen is not just a BMI-centric approach to treating people with obesity but is also a way to potentially reduce complications of obesity such as diabetes onset, explained Dr. Garvey, a professor and director of the Diabetes Research Center at the University of Alabama at Birmingham.

Recent obesity-management recommendations have focused on interventions aimed at avoiding complications, as in 2016 guidelines from the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists and the American College of Endocrinology, he noted.

Having evidence that treatment with a GLP-1 agonist such as semaglutide can reduce the incidence of diabetes in people with obesity might also help convince payers to more uniformly reimburse for this type of obesity intervention, which up to now has commonly faced coverage limitations, especially in the United States, he said in an interview.

Dr. Garvey added that evidence for a reduction in the incidence of cardiovascular disease complications such as myocardial infarction and stroke may need to join diabetes prevention as proven effects from obesity intervention before coverage decisions change.

He cited the SELECT trial, which is testing the hypothesis that semaglutide treatment of people with overweight or obesity can reduce the incidence of cardiovascular events in about 17,500 participants and with expected completion toward the end of 2023.

“A complication-centric approach to management of people with obesity needs prediction tools that allow a focus on prevention strategies for people with obesity who are at increased risk of developing diabetes,” commented Dr. Galindo, an endocrinologist at Emory University, Atlanta, in an interview.
 

Combined analysis of STEP 1 and STEP 4 data

The analysis conducted by Dr. Garvey and colleagues used data from the STEP 1 trial, which compared semaglutide 2.4 mg subcutaneous once weekly with placebo for weight loss in more than 1,500 people predominantly with obesity (about 6% were overweight) and showed that after 68 weeks semaglutide cut the calculated risk of developing type 2 diabetes over the subsequent 10 years from 18% at baseline to 7%, compared with a drop from 18% at baseline to 16% among those who received placebo.

A second, similar analysis of data from people predominantly with obesity in the STEP 4 trial – which treated around 800 people with semaglutide 2.4 mg for 20 weeks and then randomized them to placebo or continued semaglutide treatment – showed that semaglutide treatment cut their calculated 10-year risk for incident type 2 diabetes from 20% at baseline to about 11% after 20 weeks. The risk rebounded in the study participants who then switched from semaglutide to placebo. Among those randomized to remain on semaglutide for a total of 68 weeks, the 10-year risk fell further to 8%.

Dr. Garvey and associates used a validated prognostic formula, the cardiometabolic disease staging (CMDS) tool, they had previously developed and reported to calculate 10-year risk for development of type 2 diabetes based on three unmodifiable factors (age, sex, and race) and five modifiable factors (BMI, blood pressure, glucose level, HDL cholesterol, and triglycerides). They applied the analysis to data from 1,561 of the STEP 1 participants and 766 participants in the STEP 4 study.

“There is no better tool I know of to predict diabetes incidence,” commented Michael A. Nauck, MD, professor and chief of clinical research, diabetes division, St. Josef Hospital, Bochum, Germany.

In his opinion, the CMDS tool is appropriate for estimating the risk of developing incident type 2 diabetes in populations but not in specific individuals.

The new analyses also showed that, in STEP 1, the impact of semaglutide on reducing future risk of developing type 2 diabetes was roughly the same regardless of whether participants entered the study with prediabetes or were normoglycemic at entry.

Blood glucose changes confer the biggest effect

The biggest contributor among the five modifiable components of the CMDS tool for altering the predicted risk for incident diabetes was the reduction in blood glucose produced by semaglutide treatment, which influenced just under half of the change in predicted risk, Dr. Garvey said. The four other modifiable components had roughly similar individual effects on predicted risk, with change in BMI influencing about 15% of the observed effect.

“Our analysis shows that semaglutide treatment is preventing diabetes via several mechanisms. It’s not just a reduction in glucose,” Dr. Garvey said.

Dr. Nauck cautioned, however, that it is hard to judge the efficacy of an intervention like semaglutide for preventing incident diabetes when one of its effects is to dampen down hyperglycemia, the signal indicator of diabetes onset.

Indeed, semaglutide was first approved as a treatment for type 2 diabetes (known as Ozempic, Novo Nordisk) at slightly lower doses than it is approved for obesity. It is also available as an oral agent to treat diabetes (Rybelsus).  

Dr. Nauck also noted that the results from at least one previously reported study had already shown the same relationship between treatment with the GLP-1 agonist liraglutide as an anti-obesity agent (3.0 mg dose daily, known as Saxenda) and a reduced subsequent incidence of type 2 diabetes but using actual clinical outcomes during 3 years of follow-up rather than a calculated projection of diabetes likelihood.

The SCALE Obesity and Prediabetes trial randomized 2,254 people with prediabetes and overweight or obesity to weekly treatment with 3.0 mg of liraglutide or placebo. After 160 weeks on treatment, the cumulative incidence of type 2 diabetes was 2% in those who received liraglutide and 6% among those on placebo, with a significant hazard ratio reduction of 79% in the incidence of diabetes on liraglutide treatment.

The STEP 1 and STEP 4 trials were sponsored by Novo Nordisk, the company that markets semaglutide (Wegovy). Dr. Garvey has reported serving as an advisor without compensation to Novo Nordisk as well as Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Jazz, and Pfizer. He is also a site principal investigator for multicentered clinical trials sponsored by the University of Alabama at Birmingham and funded by Novo Nordisk, Eli Lilly, Epitomee, and Pfizer. Dr .Galindo has reported being a consultant or advisor for Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, Sanofi, and Weight Watchers and receiving research funding from Dexcom, Eli Lilly, and Novo Nordisk. Dr. Nauck has reported being an advisor or consultant to Novo Nordisk as well as to Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Menarini/Berlin Chemie, MSD, Regor, and ShouTi/Gasherbrum, receiving research funding from MSD, being a member of a data monitoring and safety board for Inventiva, and being a speaker on behalf of Novo Nordisk as well as for Eli Lilly, Menarini/Berlin Chemie, MSD, and Sun Pharmaceuticals.

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

Treatment of people with obesity but without diabetes with the glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) agonist semaglutide (Wegovy) – hailed at its approval in 2021 as a “game changer” for the treatment of obesity – led to beneficial changes in body mass index (BMI), glycemic control, and other clinical measures.

This collectively cut the calculated risk for possible future development of type 2 diabetes in study participants by more than half, based on post-hoc analysis of data from two pivotal trials that compared semaglutide with placebo.

The findings “suggest that semaglutide could help prevent type 2 diabetes in people with overweight or obesity,” said W. Timothy Garvey, MD, in a presentation at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.

Asked to comment, Rodolfo J. Galindo, MD, said: “We devote a significant amount of effort to treating people with diabetes but very little effort for diabetes prevention. We hope that further scientific findings showing the benefits of weight loss, as illustrated by [Dr.] Garvey [and colleagues], for diabetes prevention will change the pandemic of adiposity-based chronic disease.”
 

GLP-1 agonists as complication-reducing agents

Finding a link between treatment with semaglutide and a reduced future risk of developing type 2 diabetes is important because it shows that this regimen is not just a BMI-centric approach to treating people with obesity but is also a way to potentially reduce complications of obesity such as diabetes onset, explained Dr. Garvey, a professor and director of the Diabetes Research Center at the University of Alabama at Birmingham.

Recent obesity-management recommendations have focused on interventions aimed at avoiding complications, as in 2016 guidelines from the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists and the American College of Endocrinology, he noted.

Having evidence that treatment with a GLP-1 agonist such as semaglutide can reduce the incidence of diabetes in people with obesity might also help convince payers to more uniformly reimburse for this type of obesity intervention, which up to now has commonly faced coverage limitations, especially in the United States, he said in an interview.

Dr. Garvey added that evidence for a reduction in the incidence of cardiovascular disease complications such as myocardial infarction and stroke may need to join diabetes prevention as proven effects from obesity intervention before coverage decisions change.

He cited the SELECT trial, which is testing the hypothesis that semaglutide treatment of people with overweight or obesity can reduce the incidence of cardiovascular events in about 17,500 participants and with expected completion toward the end of 2023.

“A complication-centric approach to management of people with obesity needs prediction tools that allow a focus on prevention strategies for people with obesity who are at increased risk of developing diabetes,” commented Dr. Galindo, an endocrinologist at Emory University, Atlanta, in an interview.
 

Combined analysis of STEP 1 and STEP 4 data

The analysis conducted by Dr. Garvey and colleagues used data from the STEP 1 trial, which compared semaglutide 2.4 mg subcutaneous once weekly with placebo for weight loss in more than 1,500 people predominantly with obesity (about 6% were overweight) and showed that after 68 weeks semaglutide cut the calculated risk of developing type 2 diabetes over the subsequent 10 years from 18% at baseline to 7%, compared with a drop from 18% at baseline to 16% among those who received placebo.

A second, similar analysis of data from people predominantly with obesity in the STEP 4 trial – which treated around 800 people with semaglutide 2.4 mg for 20 weeks and then randomized them to placebo or continued semaglutide treatment – showed that semaglutide treatment cut their calculated 10-year risk for incident type 2 diabetes from 20% at baseline to about 11% after 20 weeks. The risk rebounded in the study participants who then switched from semaglutide to placebo. Among those randomized to remain on semaglutide for a total of 68 weeks, the 10-year risk fell further to 8%.

Dr. Garvey and associates used a validated prognostic formula, the cardiometabolic disease staging (CMDS) tool, they had previously developed and reported to calculate 10-year risk for development of type 2 diabetes based on three unmodifiable factors (age, sex, and race) and five modifiable factors (BMI, blood pressure, glucose level, HDL cholesterol, and triglycerides). They applied the analysis to data from 1,561 of the STEP 1 participants and 766 participants in the STEP 4 study.

“There is no better tool I know of to predict diabetes incidence,” commented Michael A. Nauck, MD, professor and chief of clinical research, diabetes division, St. Josef Hospital, Bochum, Germany.

In his opinion, the CMDS tool is appropriate for estimating the risk of developing incident type 2 diabetes in populations but not in specific individuals.

The new analyses also showed that, in STEP 1, the impact of semaglutide on reducing future risk of developing type 2 diabetes was roughly the same regardless of whether participants entered the study with prediabetes or were normoglycemic at entry.

Blood glucose changes confer the biggest effect

The biggest contributor among the five modifiable components of the CMDS tool for altering the predicted risk for incident diabetes was the reduction in blood glucose produced by semaglutide treatment, which influenced just under half of the change in predicted risk, Dr. Garvey said. The four other modifiable components had roughly similar individual effects on predicted risk, with change in BMI influencing about 15% of the observed effect.

“Our analysis shows that semaglutide treatment is preventing diabetes via several mechanisms. It’s not just a reduction in glucose,” Dr. Garvey said.

Dr. Nauck cautioned, however, that it is hard to judge the efficacy of an intervention like semaglutide for preventing incident diabetes when one of its effects is to dampen down hyperglycemia, the signal indicator of diabetes onset.

Indeed, semaglutide was first approved as a treatment for type 2 diabetes (known as Ozempic, Novo Nordisk) at slightly lower doses than it is approved for obesity. It is also available as an oral agent to treat diabetes (Rybelsus).  

Dr. Nauck also noted that the results from at least one previously reported study had already shown the same relationship between treatment with the GLP-1 agonist liraglutide as an anti-obesity agent (3.0 mg dose daily, known as Saxenda) and a reduced subsequent incidence of type 2 diabetes but using actual clinical outcomes during 3 years of follow-up rather than a calculated projection of diabetes likelihood.

The SCALE Obesity and Prediabetes trial randomized 2,254 people with prediabetes and overweight or obesity to weekly treatment with 3.0 mg of liraglutide or placebo. After 160 weeks on treatment, the cumulative incidence of type 2 diabetes was 2% in those who received liraglutide and 6% among those on placebo, with a significant hazard ratio reduction of 79% in the incidence of diabetes on liraglutide treatment.

The STEP 1 and STEP 4 trials were sponsored by Novo Nordisk, the company that markets semaglutide (Wegovy). Dr. Garvey has reported serving as an advisor without compensation to Novo Nordisk as well as Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Jazz, and Pfizer. He is also a site principal investigator for multicentered clinical trials sponsored by the University of Alabama at Birmingham and funded by Novo Nordisk, Eli Lilly, Epitomee, and Pfizer. Dr .Galindo has reported being a consultant or advisor for Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, Sanofi, and Weight Watchers and receiving research funding from Dexcom, Eli Lilly, and Novo Nordisk. Dr. Nauck has reported being an advisor or consultant to Novo Nordisk as well as to Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Menarini/Berlin Chemie, MSD, Regor, and ShouTi/Gasherbrum, receiving research funding from MSD, being a member of a data monitoring and safety board for Inventiva, and being a speaker on behalf of Novo Nordisk as well as for Eli Lilly, Menarini/Berlin Chemie, MSD, and Sun Pharmaceuticals.

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

Treatment of people with obesity but without diabetes with the glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) agonist semaglutide (Wegovy) – hailed at its approval in 2021 as a “game changer” for the treatment of obesity – led to beneficial changes in body mass index (BMI), glycemic control, and other clinical measures.

This collectively cut the calculated risk for possible future development of type 2 diabetes in study participants by more than half, based on post-hoc analysis of data from two pivotal trials that compared semaglutide with placebo.

The findings “suggest that semaglutide could help prevent type 2 diabetes in people with overweight or obesity,” said W. Timothy Garvey, MD, in a presentation at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.

Asked to comment, Rodolfo J. Galindo, MD, said: “We devote a significant amount of effort to treating people with diabetes but very little effort for diabetes prevention. We hope that further scientific findings showing the benefits of weight loss, as illustrated by [Dr.] Garvey [and colleagues], for diabetes prevention will change the pandemic of adiposity-based chronic disease.”
 

GLP-1 agonists as complication-reducing agents

Finding a link between treatment with semaglutide and a reduced future risk of developing type 2 diabetes is important because it shows that this regimen is not just a BMI-centric approach to treating people with obesity but is also a way to potentially reduce complications of obesity such as diabetes onset, explained Dr. Garvey, a professor and director of the Diabetes Research Center at the University of Alabama at Birmingham.

Recent obesity-management recommendations have focused on interventions aimed at avoiding complications, as in 2016 guidelines from the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists and the American College of Endocrinology, he noted.

Having evidence that treatment with a GLP-1 agonist such as semaglutide can reduce the incidence of diabetes in people with obesity might also help convince payers to more uniformly reimburse for this type of obesity intervention, which up to now has commonly faced coverage limitations, especially in the United States, he said in an interview.

Dr. Garvey added that evidence for a reduction in the incidence of cardiovascular disease complications such as myocardial infarction and stroke may need to join diabetes prevention as proven effects from obesity intervention before coverage decisions change.

He cited the SELECT trial, which is testing the hypothesis that semaglutide treatment of people with overweight or obesity can reduce the incidence of cardiovascular events in about 17,500 participants and with expected completion toward the end of 2023.

“A complication-centric approach to management of people with obesity needs prediction tools that allow a focus on prevention strategies for people with obesity who are at increased risk of developing diabetes,” commented Dr. Galindo, an endocrinologist at Emory University, Atlanta, in an interview.
 

Combined analysis of STEP 1 and STEP 4 data

The analysis conducted by Dr. Garvey and colleagues used data from the STEP 1 trial, which compared semaglutide 2.4 mg subcutaneous once weekly with placebo for weight loss in more than 1,500 people predominantly with obesity (about 6% were overweight) and showed that after 68 weeks semaglutide cut the calculated risk of developing type 2 diabetes over the subsequent 10 years from 18% at baseline to 7%, compared with a drop from 18% at baseline to 16% among those who received placebo.

A second, similar analysis of data from people predominantly with obesity in the STEP 4 trial – which treated around 800 people with semaglutide 2.4 mg for 20 weeks and then randomized them to placebo or continued semaglutide treatment – showed that semaglutide treatment cut their calculated 10-year risk for incident type 2 diabetes from 20% at baseline to about 11% after 20 weeks. The risk rebounded in the study participants who then switched from semaglutide to placebo. Among those randomized to remain on semaglutide for a total of 68 weeks, the 10-year risk fell further to 8%.

Dr. Garvey and associates used a validated prognostic formula, the cardiometabolic disease staging (CMDS) tool, they had previously developed and reported to calculate 10-year risk for development of type 2 diabetes based on three unmodifiable factors (age, sex, and race) and five modifiable factors (BMI, blood pressure, glucose level, HDL cholesterol, and triglycerides). They applied the analysis to data from 1,561 of the STEP 1 participants and 766 participants in the STEP 4 study.

“There is no better tool I know of to predict diabetes incidence,” commented Michael A. Nauck, MD, professor and chief of clinical research, diabetes division, St. Josef Hospital, Bochum, Germany.

In his opinion, the CMDS tool is appropriate for estimating the risk of developing incident type 2 diabetes in populations but not in specific individuals.

The new analyses also showed that, in STEP 1, the impact of semaglutide on reducing future risk of developing type 2 diabetes was roughly the same regardless of whether participants entered the study with prediabetes or were normoglycemic at entry.

Blood glucose changes confer the biggest effect

The biggest contributor among the five modifiable components of the CMDS tool for altering the predicted risk for incident diabetes was the reduction in blood glucose produced by semaglutide treatment, which influenced just under half of the change in predicted risk, Dr. Garvey said. The four other modifiable components had roughly similar individual effects on predicted risk, with change in BMI influencing about 15% of the observed effect.

“Our analysis shows that semaglutide treatment is preventing diabetes via several mechanisms. It’s not just a reduction in glucose,” Dr. Garvey said.

Dr. Nauck cautioned, however, that it is hard to judge the efficacy of an intervention like semaglutide for preventing incident diabetes when one of its effects is to dampen down hyperglycemia, the signal indicator of diabetes onset.

Indeed, semaglutide was first approved as a treatment for type 2 diabetes (known as Ozempic, Novo Nordisk) at slightly lower doses than it is approved for obesity. It is also available as an oral agent to treat diabetes (Rybelsus).  

Dr. Nauck also noted that the results from at least one previously reported study had already shown the same relationship between treatment with the GLP-1 agonist liraglutide as an anti-obesity agent (3.0 mg dose daily, known as Saxenda) and a reduced subsequent incidence of type 2 diabetes but using actual clinical outcomes during 3 years of follow-up rather than a calculated projection of diabetes likelihood.

The SCALE Obesity and Prediabetes trial randomized 2,254 people with prediabetes and overweight or obesity to weekly treatment with 3.0 mg of liraglutide or placebo. After 160 weeks on treatment, the cumulative incidence of type 2 diabetes was 2% in those who received liraglutide and 6% among those on placebo, with a significant hazard ratio reduction of 79% in the incidence of diabetes on liraglutide treatment.

The STEP 1 and STEP 4 trials were sponsored by Novo Nordisk, the company that markets semaglutide (Wegovy). Dr. Garvey has reported serving as an advisor without compensation to Novo Nordisk as well as Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Jazz, and Pfizer. He is also a site principal investigator for multicentered clinical trials sponsored by the University of Alabama at Birmingham and funded by Novo Nordisk, Eli Lilly, Epitomee, and Pfizer. Dr .Galindo has reported being a consultant or advisor for Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, Sanofi, and Weight Watchers and receiving research funding from Dexcom, Eli Lilly, and Novo Nordisk. Dr. Nauck has reported being an advisor or consultant to Novo Nordisk as well as to Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Menarini/Berlin Chemie, MSD, Regor, and ShouTi/Gasherbrum, receiving research funding from MSD, being a member of a data monitoring and safety board for Inventiva, and being a speaker on behalf of Novo Nordisk as well as for Eli Lilly, Menarini/Berlin Chemie, MSD, and Sun Pharmaceuticals.

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

Adderall, the attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder medication, is in short supply in some parts of the nation, pharmacy chains and Adderall users say.

Half a dozen people told Bloomberg that pharmacies told them in August and September that the drug was out of stock. The patients were told the drug might not be available for weeks, though it’s supposed to be taken daily. BuzzFeed News said 20 people across the nation said that their pharmacies didn’t have Adderall in stock.

“It’s so frustrating that getting my meds requires me to be organized, focused, and motivated – all the things I’m on these meds to help with,” Irene Kelly, who has been using Adderall for 14 years, told BuzzFeed News.

Two pharmacy chains told Bloomberg that Adderall has not always been available to sell. Walgreens spokesperson Rebekah Pajak said there were “supply chain challenges” affecting instant-release and extended-release versions of the drug. CVS pharmacies can fill Adderall prescriptions “in most cases,” CVS spokesperson Matthew Blanchette said.

Several drugmakers have had brand-name and generic versions of Adderall on back order for months, Bloomberg reported. The problem started with a labor shortage at Teva Pharmaceutical, the top seller of Adderall in the United States, that created a limited supply of brand-name and generic instant-release Adderall, according to the outlet.

That said, the Food and Drug Administration is not reporting an Adderall shortage on its drug shortages database. The federal agency says it lists a drug as being in short supply when “overall market demand is not being met by the manufacturers of the product,” Bloomberg said.

“Manufacturers continue to release product,” FDA spokesperson Cherie Duvall-Jones said, according to Bloomberg.

Demand for Adderall is growing, possibly because of rising ADHD diagnoses that occurred during telehealth medical appointments amid the COVID-19 pandemic, Bloomberg reported, noting that some of those telehealth companies have come under scrutiny by the Drug Enforcement Administration and other government agencies.

NBC News, citing IQVIA, an analytics provider for the life sciences industry, reported that 41.4 million Adderall prescriptions were issued last year, up 10.4% from 2020.

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

Adderall, the attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder medication, is in short supply in some parts of the nation, pharmacy chains and Adderall users say.

Half a dozen people told Bloomberg that pharmacies told them in August and September that the drug was out of stock. The patients were told the drug might not be available for weeks, though it’s supposed to be taken daily. BuzzFeed News said 20 people across the nation said that their pharmacies didn’t have Adderall in stock.

“It’s so frustrating that getting my meds requires me to be organized, focused, and motivated – all the things I’m on these meds to help with,” Irene Kelly, who has been using Adderall for 14 years, told BuzzFeed News.

Two pharmacy chains told Bloomberg that Adderall has not always been available to sell. Walgreens spokesperson Rebekah Pajak said there were “supply chain challenges” affecting instant-release and extended-release versions of the drug. CVS pharmacies can fill Adderall prescriptions “in most cases,” CVS spokesperson Matthew Blanchette said.

Several drugmakers have had brand-name and generic versions of Adderall on back order for months, Bloomberg reported. The problem started with a labor shortage at Teva Pharmaceutical, the top seller of Adderall in the United States, that created a limited supply of brand-name and generic instant-release Adderall, according to the outlet.

That said, the Food and Drug Administration is not reporting an Adderall shortage on its drug shortages database. The federal agency says it lists a drug as being in short supply when “overall market demand is not being met by the manufacturers of the product,” Bloomberg said.

“Manufacturers continue to release product,” FDA spokesperson Cherie Duvall-Jones said, according to Bloomberg.

Demand for Adderall is growing, possibly because of rising ADHD diagnoses that occurred during telehealth medical appointments amid the COVID-19 pandemic, Bloomberg reported, noting that some of those telehealth companies have come under scrutiny by the Drug Enforcement Administration and other government agencies.

NBC News, citing IQVIA, an analytics provider for the life sciences industry, reported that 41.4 million Adderall prescriptions were issued last year, up 10.4% from 2020.

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

Adderall, the attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder medication, is in short supply in some parts of the nation, pharmacy chains and Adderall users say.

Half a dozen people told Bloomberg that pharmacies told them in August and September that the drug was out of stock. The patients were told the drug might not be available for weeks, though it’s supposed to be taken daily. BuzzFeed News said 20 people across the nation said that their pharmacies didn’t have Adderall in stock.

“It’s so frustrating that getting my meds requires me to be organized, focused, and motivated – all the things I’m on these meds to help with,” Irene Kelly, who has been using Adderall for 14 years, told BuzzFeed News.

Two pharmacy chains told Bloomberg that Adderall has not always been available to sell. Walgreens spokesperson Rebekah Pajak said there were “supply chain challenges” affecting instant-release and extended-release versions of the drug. CVS pharmacies can fill Adderall prescriptions “in most cases,” CVS spokesperson Matthew Blanchette said.

Several drugmakers have had brand-name and generic versions of Adderall on back order for months, Bloomberg reported. The problem started with a labor shortage at Teva Pharmaceutical, the top seller of Adderall in the United States, that created a limited supply of brand-name and generic instant-release Adderall, according to the outlet.

That said, the Food and Drug Administration is not reporting an Adderall shortage on its drug shortages database. The federal agency says it lists a drug as being in short supply when “overall market demand is not being met by the manufacturers of the product,” Bloomberg said.

“Manufacturers continue to release product,” FDA spokesperson Cherie Duvall-Jones said, according to Bloomberg.

Demand for Adderall is growing, possibly because of rising ADHD diagnoses that occurred during telehealth medical appointments amid the COVID-19 pandemic, Bloomberg reported, noting that some of those telehealth companies have come under scrutiny by the Drug Enforcement Administration and other government agencies.

NBC News, citing IQVIA, an analytics provider for the life sciences industry, reported that 41.4 million Adderall prescriptions were issued last year, up 10.4% from 2020.

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

PARIS – Patients with untreated non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who could not withstand the rigors of platinum-based chemotherapy regimens had significantly better overall survival when treated with the immune checkpoint inhibitor atezolizumab (Tecentriq), compared with their counterparts treated with either vinorelbine or gemcitabine in a phase 3 randomized trial.

Among 353 patients with treatment-naive stage 3B to 4 NSCLC who were not candidates for platinum-based chemotherapy because of poor performance status (PS), advanced age, or significant comorbidities, the median overall survival (OS) was 10.3 months for patients treated with atezolizumab vs. 9.2 months for patients assigned to receive the investigator’s choice of single-agent chemotherapy.

This difference translated into a hazard ratio for death with atezolizumab of 0.78 (P = .028), Siow Ming Lee, MD, PhD, of University College London, reported at the ESMO Congress.

The 2-year OS rate with atezolizumab was 24.3%, compared with 12.4% for single-agent chemotherapy.

“When I saw the data, I was amazed. One of four patients survived for 2 years!” he said in an interview.

Neil Osterweil/MDedge News

Excluded from clinical trials

“Cancer chemotherapy has changed the treatment landscape for the metastatic NSCLC population, but these treatments are mainly recommended for fit patients,” Dr. Lee said during his presentation of the data in a presidential symposium.

First-line pivotal trials for lung cancer patients comparing either single-agent immunotherapy or an immunotherapy/chemotherapy combination have all been conducted in fit patients, with ECOG PS of 0 or 1, he noted.

“In reality, we still have a large population of unfit NSCLC patients, of at least 40%, many of which we cannot treat with standard platinum chemotherapy. There are many elderly patients with poor performance status, and the elderly with many comorbidities, and they are frequently on many drug medications, which we see frequently in our clinic,” he said.
 

Study details

To see whether immunotherapy could improve outcomes for unfit patients, investigators designed the IPSOS trial, a phase 3 multicenter open-label study of efficacy, safety, and patient-reported outcomes with atezolizumab compared with single-agent chemotherapy.

Patients from 23 centers in North America, South America, Europe, and Asia who were ineligible for platinum-based chemotherapy because of ECOG performance status of 2 or 3, or who were aged 70 or older with performance status 0 or 1 but with multiple comorbidities or other contraindications to platinum were stratified by histology, programmed death-ligand-1 (PD-L1) expression, and brain metastases, and were then randomly assigned to receive either atezolizumab 1,200 mg intravenously every 3 weeks (302 patients), or to investigator’s choice of either vinorelbine delivered orally or intravenously, according to local practice, or intravenous gemcitabine given intravenously per local practice (151 patients).

As noted before, overall survival, the primary endpoint, was significantly better with atezolizumab, translating into a 22% reduction in risk of death compared with chemotherapy.

The 1-year OS rates were 43.7% with atezolizumab vs. 36.6% with chemotherapy, and the 2-year rates were 24.3% vs. 12.4%, respectively.

­­A subgroup analysis showed trends toward better benefit for immunotherapy regardless of age, sex, race, performance status, history of tobacco use, tumor histology, stage, presence of liver metastases, number of metastatic sites, or PD-L1 expression levels. The benefit of atezolizumab was also significantly better among patients without brain metastases.

The median duration of response was 14 months with ateziluzmab vs. 7.8 months with chemotherapy. Respective objective response rates were 16.9% vs. 15.5%. Median progression-free survival, a secondary endpoint, was 4.2 months with atezolizumab and 4 months with chemotherapy, a difference that was not statistically significant. Median treatment duration was 3.5 months with atezolizumab, 2.3 months with gemcitabine, and 1.8 months with vinorelbine. Treatment-related adverse events of any grade occurred in 57% of patients on immunotherapy vs. 80.3% of those on chemotherapy. Grade 3 or 4 adverse events related to therapy occurred in 16.3% vs. 33.3%, respectively. About 13% of patients in each arm had an adverse event leading to drug discontinuation. There were three treatment-related deaths among patients on atezolizumab, and four among patients on chemotherapy. Compared with chemotherapy, atezolizumab was associated with stabilizing of health-related quality-of-life domains of functioning, and significant improvement in delaying the time to deterioration of chest pain.
 

Age is not prognostic

“I think it’s important though to remember that in this study there are very distinct populations of patients. Poor performance status and comorbidities are prognostic, but age is not,” Dr. Leighl said in her discussion.

“In terms of current standards, performance status 3 patients are currently recommended to have best supportive care unless a targeted therapy is available for them, and while PS 2 patients have been excluded from checkpoint inhibitor trials, we treat most of these patients the same way. In this study in particular, patients had to be ineligible for platinum doublet therapy, but of course this definition was subjective,” she said.

She also commented that “if we’re now going to treat everyone with atezolizumab, I think the budget impact of this is going to be huge.”

It will be important to identify more clearly those patients aged 80 and older who might benefit from atezolizumab in this setting by better incorporating biomarkers such as PD-L1 levels to determine who can benefit from therapy and who might be spared the necessity of coming into the hospital or clinic for regular intravenous infusions, she added.

The study was supported by F. Hoffman-La Roche. Dr. Lee disclosed research funding from the company to his institution. Dr. Leighl disclosed institutional grant funding and personal fees from Roche and others.

PARIS – Patients with untreated non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who could not withstand the rigors of platinum-based chemotherapy regimens had significantly better overall survival when treated with the immune checkpoint inhibitor atezolizumab (Tecentriq), compared with their counterparts treated with either vinorelbine or gemcitabine in a phase 3 randomized trial.

Among 353 patients with treatment-naive stage 3B to 4 NSCLC who were not candidates for platinum-based chemotherapy because of poor performance status (PS), advanced age, or significant comorbidities, the median overall survival (OS) was 10.3 months for patients treated with atezolizumab vs. 9.2 months for patients assigned to receive the investigator’s choice of single-agent chemotherapy.

This difference translated into a hazard ratio for death with atezolizumab of 0.78 (P = .028), Siow Ming Lee, MD, PhD, of University College London, reported at the ESMO Congress.

The 2-year OS rate with atezolizumab was 24.3%, compared with 12.4% for single-agent chemotherapy.

“When I saw the data, I was amazed. One of four patients survived for 2 years!” he said in an interview.

Neil Osterweil/MDedge News

Excluded from clinical trials

“Cancer chemotherapy has changed the treatment landscape for the metastatic NSCLC population, but these treatments are mainly recommended for fit patients,” Dr. Lee said during his presentation of the data in a presidential symposium.

First-line pivotal trials for lung cancer patients comparing either single-agent immunotherapy or an immunotherapy/chemotherapy combination have all been conducted in fit patients, with ECOG PS of 0 or 1, he noted.

“In reality, we still have a large population of unfit NSCLC patients, of at least 40%, many of which we cannot treat with standard platinum chemotherapy. There are many elderly patients with poor performance status, and the elderly with many comorbidities, and they are frequently on many drug medications, which we see frequently in our clinic,” he said.
 

Study details

To see whether immunotherapy could improve outcomes for unfit patients, investigators designed the IPSOS trial, a phase 3 multicenter open-label study of efficacy, safety, and patient-reported outcomes with atezolizumab compared with single-agent chemotherapy.

Patients from 23 centers in North America, South America, Europe, and Asia who were ineligible for platinum-based chemotherapy because of ECOG performance status of 2 or 3, or who were aged 70 or older with performance status 0 or 1 but with multiple comorbidities or other contraindications to platinum were stratified by histology, programmed death-ligand-1 (PD-L1) expression, and brain metastases, and were then randomly assigned to receive either atezolizumab 1,200 mg intravenously every 3 weeks (302 patients), or to investigator’s choice of either vinorelbine delivered orally or intravenously, according to local practice, or intravenous gemcitabine given intravenously per local practice (151 patients).

As noted before, overall survival, the primary endpoint, was significantly better with atezolizumab, translating into a 22% reduction in risk of death compared with chemotherapy.

The 1-year OS rates were 43.7% with atezolizumab vs. 36.6% with chemotherapy, and the 2-year rates were 24.3% vs. 12.4%, respectively.

­­A subgroup analysis showed trends toward better benefit for immunotherapy regardless of age, sex, race, performance status, history of tobacco use, tumor histology, stage, presence of liver metastases, number of metastatic sites, or PD-L1 expression levels. The benefit of atezolizumab was also significantly better among patients without brain metastases.

The median duration of response was 14 months with ateziluzmab vs. 7.8 months with chemotherapy. Respective objective response rates were 16.9% vs. 15.5%. Median progression-free survival, a secondary endpoint, was 4.2 months with atezolizumab and 4 months with chemotherapy, a difference that was not statistically significant. Median treatment duration was 3.5 months with atezolizumab, 2.3 months with gemcitabine, and 1.8 months with vinorelbine. Treatment-related adverse events of any grade occurred in 57% of patients on immunotherapy vs. 80.3% of those on chemotherapy. Grade 3 or 4 adverse events related to therapy occurred in 16.3% vs. 33.3%, respectively. About 13% of patients in each arm had an adverse event leading to drug discontinuation. There were three treatment-related deaths among patients on atezolizumab, and four among patients on chemotherapy. Compared with chemotherapy, atezolizumab was associated with stabilizing of health-related quality-of-life domains of functioning, and significant improvement in delaying the time to deterioration of chest pain.
 

Age is not prognostic

“I think it’s important though to remember that in this study there are very distinct populations of patients. Poor performance status and comorbidities are prognostic, but age is not,” Dr. Leighl said in her discussion.

“In terms of current standards, performance status 3 patients are currently recommended to have best supportive care unless a targeted therapy is available for them, and while PS 2 patients have been excluded from checkpoint inhibitor trials, we treat most of these patients the same way. In this study in particular, patients had to be ineligible for platinum doublet therapy, but of course this definition was subjective,” she said.

She also commented that “if we’re now going to treat everyone with atezolizumab, I think the budget impact of this is going to be huge.”

It will be important to identify more clearly those patients aged 80 and older who might benefit from atezolizumab in this setting by better incorporating biomarkers such as PD-L1 levels to determine who can benefit from therapy and who might be spared the necessity of coming into the hospital or clinic for regular intravenous infusions, she added.

The study was supported by F. Hoffman-La Roche. Dr. Lee disclosed research funding from the company to his institution. Dr. Leighl disclosed institutional grant funding and personal fees from Roche and others.

PARIS – Patients with untreated non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who could not withstand the rigors of platinum-based chemotherapy regimens had significantly better overall survival when treated with the immune checkpoint inhibitor atezolizumab (Tecentriq), compared with their counterparts treated with either vinorelbine or gemcitabine in a phase 3 randomized trial.

Among 353 patients with treatment-naive stage 3B to 4 NSCLC who were not candidates for platinum-based chemotherapy because of poor performance status (PS), advanced age, or significant comorbidities, the median overall survival (OS) was 10.3 months for patients treated with atezolizumab vs. 9.2 months for patients assigned to receive the investigator’s choice of single-agent chemotherapy.

This difference translated into a hazard ratio for death with atezolizumab of 0.78 (P = .028), Siow Ming Lee, MD, PhD, of University College London, reported at the ESMO Congress.

The 2-year OS rate with atezolizumab was 24.3%, compared with 12.4% for single-agent chemotherapy.

“When I saw the data, I was amazed. One of four patients survived for 2 years!” he said in an interview.

Neil Osterweil/MDedge News

Excluded from clinical trials

“Cancer chemotherapy has changed the treatment landscape for the metastatic NSCLC population, but these treatments are mainly recommended for fit patients,” Dr. Lee said during his presentation of the data in a presidential symposium.

First-line pivotal trials for lung cancer patients comparing either single-agent immunotherapy or an immunotherapy/chemotherapy combination have all been conducted in fit patients, with ECOG PS of 0 or 1, he noted.

“In reality, we still have a large population of unfit NSCLC patients, of at least 40%, many of which we cannot treat with standard platinum chemotherapy. There are many elderly patients with poor performance status, and the elderly with many comorbidities, and they are frequently on many drug medications, which we see frequently in our clinic,” he said.
 

Study details

To see whether immunotherapy could improve outcomes for unfit patients, investigators designed the IPSOS trial, a phase 3 multicenter open-label study of efficacy, safety, and patient-reported outcomes with atezolizumab compared with single-agent chemotherapy.

Patients from 23 centers in North America, South America, Europe, and Asia who were ineligible for platinum-based chemotherapy because of ECOG performance status of 2 or 3, or who were aged 70 or older with performance status 0 or 1 but with multiple comorbidities or other contraindications to platinum were stratified by histology, programmed death-ligand-1 (PD-L1) expression, and brain metastases, and were then randomly assigned to receive either atezolizumab 1,200 mg intravenously every 3 weeks (302 patients), or to investigator’s choice of either vinorelbine delivered orally or intravenously, according to local practice, or intravenous gemcitabine given intravenously per local practice (151 patients).

As noted before, overall survival, the primary endpoint, was significantly better with atezolizumab, translating into a 22% reduction in risk of death compared with chemotherapy.

The 1-year OS rates were 43.7% with atezolizumab vs. 36.6% with chemotherapy, and the 2-year rates were 24.3% vs. 12.4%, respectively.

­­A subgroup analysis showed trends toward better benefit for immunotherapy regardless of age, sex, race, performance status, history of tobacco use, tumor histology, stage, presence of liver metastases, number of metastatic sites, or PD-L1 expression levels. The benefit of atezolizumab was also significantly better among patients without brain metastases.

The median duration of response was 14 months with ateziluzmab vs. 7.8 months with chemotherapy. Respective objective response rates were 16.9% vs. 15.5%. Median progression-free survival, a secondary endpoint, was 4.2 months with atezolizumab and 4 months with chemotherapy, a difference that was not statistically significant. Median treatment duration was 3.5 months with atezolizumab, 2.3 months with gemcitabine, and 1.8 months with vinorelbine. Treatment-related adverse events of any grade occurred in 57% of patients on immunotherapy vs. 80.3% of those on chemotherapy. Grade 3 or 4 adverse events related to therapy occurred in 16.3% vs. 33.3%, respectively. About 13% of patients in each arm had an adverse event leading to drug discontinuation. There were three treatment-related deaths among patients on atezolizumab, and four among patients on chemotherapy. Compared with chemotherapy, atezolizumab was associated with stabilizing of health-related quality-of-life domains of functioning, and significant improvement in delaying the time to deterioration of chest pain.
 

Age is not prognostic

“I think it’s important though to remember that in this study there are very distinct populations of patients. Poor performance status and comorbidities are prognostic, but age is not,” Dr. Leighl said in her discussion.

“In terms of current standards, performance status 3 patients are currently recommended to have best supportive care unless a targeted therapy is available for them, and while PS 2 patients have been excluded from checkpoint inhibitor trials, we treat most of these patients the same way. In this study in particular, patients had to be ineligible for platinum doublet therapy, but of course this definition was subjective,” she said.

She also commented that “if we’re now going to treat everyone with atezolizumab, I think the budget impact of this is going to be huge.”

It will be important to identify more clearly those patients aged 80 and older who might benefit from atezolizumab in this setting by better incorporating biomarkers such as PD-L1 levels to determine who can benefit from therapy and who might be spared the necessity of coming into the hospital or clinic for regular intravenous infusions, she added.

The study was supported by F. Hoffman-La Roche. Dr. Lee disclosed research funding from the company to his institution. Dr. Leighl disclosed institutional grant funding and personal fees from Roche and others.

An analysis of postmarketing suicide data shows that the risk of suicide associated with brodalumab use is similar to that of other biologics prescribed for psoriasis.

The Food and Drug Administration approved brodalumab (Siliq) in 2017 for treatment of moderate to severe plaque psoriasis with a boxed warning for suicidal ideation and behavior and an associated Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategies (REMS) program indicating an increased risk of suicidality.

Half a decade later, “the available worldwide data do not support the notion that brodalumab has a unique risk of increased suicides,” senior investigator John Koo, MD, and coinvestigators at the University of California, San Francisco, wrote in a preproof article in JAAD International, noting that postmarketing data are “often considered a better reflection of real-world outcomes than clinical trials.”

The researchers extracted data through the end of 2021 on the number of completed suicides for brodalumab and ten other biologics approved for psoriasis from the FDA’s Adverse Events Reporting System (FAERS), an international publicly available database. The researchers included suicide data on the biologics for all indications.

The authors contacted pharmaceutical companies to determine the total number of patients prescribed each drug, securing mostly “best estimates” data on 5 of the 11 biologics available for psoriasis. The researchers then calculated the number of completed suicides per total number of prescribed patients.

For brodalumab, across 20,871 total prescriptions, there was only one verifiable suicide. It occurred in a Japanese man with terminal cancer and no nearby relatives 36 days after his first dose. The suicide rate for brodalumab was similar to that of ixekizumab, secukinumab, infliximab, and adalimumab.

“Brodalumab is a very efficacious agent and may have the fastest onset of action, yet its usage is minimal compared to the other agents because of this ‘black box’ warning ... despite the fact that it’s the least expensive of any biologic,” Dr. Koo, professor of dermatology and director of the Psoriasis and Skin Treatment Center, University of California, San Francisco, said in an interview.

Dr. Koo, who is board-certified in both dermatology and psychiatry, said he believes the boxed warning was never warranted. All three of the verified completed suicides that occurred during clinical trials of brodalumab for psoriasis were in people who had underlying psychiatric disorders or significant stressors, such as going to jail in one case, and depression and significant isolation in another, he said.

(An analysis of psychiatric adverse events during the psoriasis clinical trials, involving more than 4,000 patients, was published online Oct. 4, 2017, in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.

George Han, MD, PhD, associate professor and director of research and teledermatology at the Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell, New Hyde Park, N.Y., who was not involved in the research, said the new data is reassuring.

“We sometimes put it into context [in thinking and counseling about risk] that in the trials for brodalumab, the number of suicide attempts [versus completed suicides] was not an outlier,” he said. “But it’s hard to know what to make of that, so this piece of knowledge that the postmarketing data show there’s no safety signal should give people a lot of reassurance.”

Dr. Han said he has used the medication, a fully human anti-interleukin 17 receptor A monoclonal antibody, in many patients who “have not done so well on other biologics and it’s been a lifesaver ... a couple who have switched over have maintained the longest level of clearance they’ve had with anything. It’s quite striking.”

The efficacy stems at least partly from its mechanism of blocking all cytokines in the IL-17 family – including those involved in the “feedback loops that perpetuate psoriasis” – rather than just one as other biologics do, Dr. Han said.

Usage of the drug has been hindered by the black box warning and REMS program, not only because of the extra steps required and hesitation potentially evoked, but because samples are not available, and because the “formulary access is not what it could have been otherwise,” he noted.

The Siliq REMS patient enrollment form requires patients to pledge awareness of the fact that suicidal thoughts and behaviors have occurred in treated patients and that they should seek medical attention if they experience suicidal thoughts or new or worsening depression, anxiety, or other mood changes. Prescribers must be certified with the program and must pledge on each enrollment form that they have counseled their patients.

The box warning states that there is no established causal association between treatment with brodalumab and increased risk for suicidal ideation and behaviors (SIB).

Individuals with psoriasis are an “already vulnerable population” who have been shown in reviews and meta-analyses to have a higher prevalence of depression and a higher risk of SIB than those without the disease, Dr. Koo and colleagues wrote in a narrative review published in Cutis .

Regardless of therapy, they wrote in the review, dermatologists should assess for any history of depression and SIB, and evaluate for signs and symptoms of current depression and SIB, referring patients as necessary to primary care or mental health care.

In the psoriasis trials, brodalumab treatment appeared to improve symptoms of depression and anxiety – a finding consistent with the effects reported for other biologic therapies, they wrote.

The first author on the newly published preproof is Samuel Yeroushalmi, BS, a fourth-year medical student at George Washington University, Washington.

Siliq is marketed by Valeant Pharmaceuticals.

Dr. Koo disclosed that he is an adviser/consultant/speaker for numerous pharmaceutical companies, but not those that were involved in the development of brodalumab. Dr. Han said he has relationships with numerous companies, including those that have developed brodalumab and other biologic agents used for psoriasis. The authors declared funding sources as none.

An analysis of postmarketing suicide data shows that the risk of suicide associated with brodalumab use is similar to that of other biologics prescribed for psoriasis.

The Food and Drug Administration approved brodalumab (Siliq) in 2017 for treatment of moderate to severe plaque psoriasis with a boxed warning for suicidal ideation and behavior and an associated Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategies (REMS) program indicating an increased risk of suicidality.

Half a decade later, “the available worldwide data do not support the notion that brodalumab has a unique risk of increased suicides,” senior investigator John Koo, MD, and coinvestigators at the University of California, San Francisco, wrote in a preproof article in JAAD International, noting that postmarketing data are “often considered a better reflection of real-world outcomes than clinical trials.”

The researchers extracted data through the end of 2021 on the number of completed suicides for brodalumab and ten other biologics approved for psoriasis from the FDA’s Adverse Events Reporting System (FAERS), an international publicly available database. The researchers included suicide data on the biologics for all indications.

The authors contacted pharmaceutical companies to determine the total number of patients prescribed each drug, securing mostly “best estimates” data on 5 of the 11 biologics available for psoriasis. The researchers then calculated the number of completed suicides per total number of prescribed patients.

For brodalumab, across 20,871 total prescriptions, there was only one verifiable suicide. It occurred in a Japanese man with terminal cancer and no nearby relatives 36 days after his first dose. The suicide rate for brodalumab was similar to that of ixekizumab, secukinumab, infliximab, and adalimumab.

“Brodalumab is a very efficacious agent and may have the fastest onset of action, yet its usage is minimal compared to the other agents because of this ‘black box’ warning ... despite the fact that it’s the least expensive of any biologic,” Dr. Koo, professor of dermatology and director of the Psoriasis and Skin Treatment Center, University of California, San Francisco, said in an interview.

Dr. Koo, who is board-certified in both dermatology and psychiatry, said he believes the boxed warning was never warranted. All three of the verified completed suicides that occurred during clinical trials of brodalumab for psoriasis were in people who had underlying psychiatric disorders or significant stressors, such as going to jail in one case, and depression and significant isolation in another, he said.

(An analysis of psychiatric adverse events during the psoriasis clinical trials, involving more than 4,000 patients, was published online Oct. 4, 2017, in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.

George Han, MD, PhD, associate professor and director of research and teledermatology at the Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell, New Hyde Park, N.Y., who was not involved in the research, said the new data is reassuring.

“We sometimes put it into context [in thinking and counseling about risk] that in the trials for brodalumab, the number of suicide attempts [versus completed suicides] was not an outlier,” he said. “But it’s hard to know what to make of that, so this piece of knowledge that the postmarketing data show there’s no safety signal should give people a lot of reassurance.”

Dr. Han said he has used the medication, a fully human anti-interleukin 17 receptor A monoclonal antibody, in many patients who “have not done so well on other biologics and it’s been a lifesaver ... a couple who have switched over have maintained the longest level of clearance they’ve had with anything. It’s quite striking.”

The efficacy stems at least partly from its mechanism of blocking all cytokines in the IL-17 family – including those involved in the “feedback loops that perpetuate psoriasis” – rather than just one as other biologics do, Dr. Han said.

Usage of the drug has been hindered by the black box warning and REMS program, not only because of the extra steps required and hesitation potentially evoked, but because samples are not available, and because the “formulary access is not what it could have been otherwise,” he noted.

The Siliq REMS patient enrollment form requires patients to pledge awareness of the fact that suicidal thoughts and behaviors have occurred in treated patients and that they should seek medical attention if they experience suicidal thoughts or new or worsening depression, anxiety, or other mood changes. Prescribers must be certified with the program and must pledge on each enrollment form that they have counseled their patients.

The box warning states that there is no established causal association between treatment with brodalumab and increased risk for suicidal ideation and behaviors (SIB).

Individuals with psoriasis are an “already vulnerable population” who have been shown in reviews and meta-analyses to have a higher prevalence of depression and a higher risk of SIB than those without the disease, Dr. Koo and colleagues wrote in a narrative review published in Cutis .

Regardless of therapy, they wrote in the review, dermatologists should assess for any history of depression and SIB, and evaluate for signs and symptoms of current depression and SIB, referring patients as necessary to primary care or mental health care.

In the psoriasis trials, brodalumab treatment appeared to improve symptoms of depression and anxiety – a finding consistent with the effects reported for other biologic therapies, they wrote.

The first author on the newly published preproof is Samuel Yeroushalmi, BS, a fourth-year medical student at George Washington University, Washington.

Siliq is marketed by Valeant Pharmaceuticals.

Dr. Koo disclosed that he is an adviser/consultant/speaker for numerous pharmaceutical companies, but not those that were involved in the development of brodalumab. Dr. Han said he has relationships with numerous companies, including those that have developed brodalumab and other biologic agents used for psoriasis. The authors declared funding sources as none.

An analysis of postmarketing suicide data shows that the risk of suicide associated with brodalumab use is similar to that of other biologics prescribed for psoriasis.

The Food and Drug Administration approved brodalumab (Siliq) in 2017 for treatment of moderate to severe plaque psoriasis with a boxed warning for suicidal ideation and behavior and an associated Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategies (REMS) program indicating an increased risk of suicidality.

Half a decade later, “the available worldwide data do not support the notion that brodalumab has a unique risk of increased suicides,” senior investigator John Koo, MD, and coinvestigators at the University of California, San Francisco, wrote in a preproof article in JAAD International, noting that postmarketing data are “often considered a better reflection of real-world outcomes than clinical trials.”

The researchers extracted data through the end of 2021 on the number of completed suicides for brodalumab and ten other biologics approved for psoriasis from the FDA’s Adverse Events Reporting System (FAERS), an international publicly available database. The researchers included suicide data on the biologics for all indications.

The authors contacted pharmaceutical companies to determine the total number of patients prescribed each drug, securing mostly “best estimates” data on 5 of the 11 biologics available for psoriasis. The researchers then calculated the number of completed suicides per total number of prescribed patients.

For brodalumab, across 20,871 total prescriptions, there was only one verifiable suicide. It occurred in a Japanese man with terminal cancer and no nearby relatives 36 days after his first dose. The suicide rate for brodalumab was similar to that of ixekizumab, secukinumab, infliximab, and adalimumab.

“Brodalumab is a very efficacious agent and may have the fastest onset of action, yet its usage is minimal compared to the other agents because of this ‘black box’ warning ... despite the fact that it’s the least expensive of any biologic,” Dr. Koo, professor of dermatology and director of the Psoriasis and Skin Treatment Center, University of California, San Francisco, said in an interview.

Dr. Koo, who is board-certified in both dermatology and psychiatry, said he believes the boxed warning was never warranted. All three of the verified completed suicides that occurred during clinical trials of brodalumab for psoriasis were in people who had underlying psychiatric disorders or significant stressors, such as going to jail in one case, and depression and significant isolation in another, he said.

(An analysis of psychiatric adverse events during the psoriasis clinical trials, involving more than 4,000 patients, was published online Oct. 4, 2017, in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.

George Han, MD, PhD, associate professor and director of research and teledermatology at the Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell, New Hyde Park, N.Y., who was not involved in the research, said the new data is reassuring.

“We sometimes put it into context [in thinking and counseling about risk] that in the trials for brodalumab, the number of suicide attempts [versus completed suicides] was not an outlier,” he said. “But it’s hard to know what to make of that, so this piece of knowledge that the postmarketing data show there’s no safety signal should give people a lot of reassurance.”

Dr. Han said he has used the medication, a fully human anti-interleukin 17 receptor A monoclonal antibody, in many patients who “have not done so well on other biologics and it’s been a lifesaver ... a couple who have switched over have maintained the longest level of clearance they’ve had with anything. It’s quite striking.”

The efficacy stems at least partly from its mechanism of blocking all cytokines in the IL-17 family – including those involved in the “feedback loops that perpetuate psoriasis” – rather than just one as other biologics do, Dr. Han said.

Usage of the drug has been hindered by the black box warning and REMS program, not only because of the extra steps required and hesitation potentially evoked, but because samples are not available, and because the “formulary access is not what it could have been otherwise,” he noted.

The Siliq REMS patient enrollment form requires patients to pledge awareness of the fact that suicidal thoughts and behaviors have occurred in treated patients and that they should seek medical attention if they experience suicidal thoughts or new or worsening depression, anxiety, or other mood changes. Prescribers must be certified with the program and must pledge on each enrollment form that they have counseled their patients.

The box warning states that there is no established causal association between treatment with brodalumab and increased risk for suicidal ideation and behaviors (SIB).

Individuals with psoriasis are an “already vulnerable population” who have been shown in reviews and meta-analyses to have a higher prevalence of depression and a higher risk of SIB than those without the disease, Dr. Koo and colleagues wrote in a narrative review published in Cutis .

Regardless of therapy, they wrote in the review, dermatologists should assess for any history of depression and SIB, and evaluate for signs and symptoms of current depression and SIB, referring patients as necessary to primary care or mental health care.

In the psoriasis trials, brodalumab treatment appeared to improve symptoms of depression and anxiety – a finding consistent with the effects reported for other biologic therapies, they wrote.

The first author on the newly published preproof is Samuel Yeroushalmi, BS, a fourth-year medical student at George Washington University, Washington.

Siliq is marketed by Valeant Pharmaceuticals.

Dr. Koo disclosed that he is an adviser/consultant/speaker for numerous pharmaceutical companies, but not those that were involved in the development of brodalumab. Dr. Han said he has relationships with numerous companies, including those that have developed brodalumab and other biologic agents used for psoriasis. The authors declared funding sources as none.

PARIS – If results of phase 3, randomized clinical trials are the gold standard for cancer drug approvals, then single-arm trials are at best a bronze or even brass standard, with results that should only be used, under certain conditions, for accelerated approvals that should then be followed by confirmatory studies.

In fact, many drugs approved over the last decade based solely on data from single-arm trials have been subsequently withdrawn when put through the rigors of a head-to-head randomized controlled trial, according to Bishal Gyawali, MD, PhD, from the department of oncology at Queen’s University, Kingston, Ont.

“Single-arm trials are not meant to provide confirmatory evidence sufficient for approval; However, that ship has sailed, and we have several drugs that are approved on the basis of single-arm trials, but we need to make sure that those approvals are accelerated or conditional approvals, not regular approval,” he said in a presentation included in a special session on drug approvals at the European Society for Medical Oncology Congress.

“We should not allow premature regular approval based on single-arm trials, because once a drug gets conditional approval, access is not an issue. Patients will have access to the drug anyway, but we should ensure that robust evidence follows, and long-term follow-up data are needed to develop confidence in the efficacy outcomes that are seen in single-arm trials,” he said.

In many cases, single-arm trials are large enough or of long enough duration that investigators could have reasonably performed a randomized controlled trial (RCT) in the first place, Dr. Gyawali added.
 

Why do single-arm trials?

The term “single-arm registration trial” is something of an oxymoron, he said, noting that the purpose of such trials should be whether to take the drug to a phase 3, randomized trial. But as authors of a 2019 study in JAMA Network Open showed, of a sample of phase 3 RCTs, 42% did not have a prior phase 2 trial, and 28% had a negative phase 2 trial. Single-arm trials may be acceptable for conditional drug approvals if all of the following conditions are met:

• A RCT is not possible because the disease is rare or randomization would be unethical.
• The safety of the drug is established and its potential benefits outweigh its risks.
• The drug is associated with a high and durable overall or objective response rate.
• The mechanism of action is supported by a strong scientific rationale, and if the drug may meet an unmet medical need.

Survival endpoints won’t do

Efficacy endpoints typically used in RCTs, such as progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) can be misleading because they may be a result of the natural history of the disease and not the drug being tested, whereas ORRs are almost certainly reflective of the action of the drug itself, because spontaneous tumor regression is a rare phenomenon, Dr. Gyawali said.

He cautioned, however, that the ORR of placebo is not zero percent. For example in a 2018 study of sorafenib (Nexavar) versus placebo for advanced or refractory desmoid tumors, the ORR with the active drug was 33%, and the ORR for placebo was 20%.

It’s also open to question, he said, what constitutes an acceptably high ORR and duration of response, pointing to Food and Drug Administration accelerated approval of an indication for nivolumab (Opdivo) for treatment of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) that had progressed on sorafenib. In the single-arm trial used as the basis for approval, the ORRs as assessed by an independent central review committee blinded to the results was 14.3%.

“So, nivolumab in hepatocellular cancer was approved on the basis of a response rate lower than that of placebo, albeit in a different tumor. But the point I’m trying to show here is we don’t have a good definition of what is a good response rate,” he said.

In July 2021, Bristol-Myers Squibb voluntarily withdrew the HCC indication for nivolumab, following negative results of the CheckMate 459 trial and a 5-4 vote against continuing the accelerated approval.
 

On second thought ...

Citing data compiled by Nathan I. Cherny, MD, from Shaare Zedek Medical Center, Jerusalem, Dr. Gyawali noted that 58 of 161 FDA approvals from 2017 to 2021 of drugs for adult solid tumors were based on single-arm trials. Of the 58 drugs, 39 received accelerated approvals, and 19 received regular approvals; of the 39 that received accelerated approvals, 4 were subsequently withdrawn, 8 were converted to regular approvals, and the remainder continued as accelerated approvals.

Interestingly, the median response rate among all the drugs was 40%, and did not differ between the type of approval received, suggesting that response rates are not predictive of whether a drug will receive a conditional or full-fledged go-ahead.
 

What’s rare and safe?

The definition of a rare disease in the United States is one that affects fewer than 40,000 per year, and in Europe it’s an incidence rate of less than 6 per 100,000 population, Dr. Gyawali noted. But he argued that even non–small cell lung cancer, the most common form of cancer in the world, could be considered rare if it is broken down into subtypes that are treated according to specific mutations that may occur in a relatively small number of patients.

He also noted that a specific drug’s safety, one of the most important criteria for granting approval to a drug based on a single-arm trial, can be difficult to judge without adequate controls for comparison.
 

Cherry-picking patients

Winette van der Graaf, MD, president of the European Organization for the Research and Treatment of Cancer, who attended the session where Dr. Gyawali’s presentation was played, said in an interview that clinicians should cast a critical eye on how trials are designed and conducted, including patient selection and choice of endpoints.

“One of the most obvious things to be concerned about is that we’re still having patients with good performance status enrolled, mostly PS 0 or 1, so how representative are these clinical trials for the patients we see in front of us on a daily basis?” she said.

“The other question is radiological endpoints, which we focus on with OS and PFS are most important for patients, especially if you consider that if patients may have asymptomatic disease, and we are only treating them with potentially toxic medication, what are we doing for them? Median overall survival when you look at all of these trials is only 4 months, so we really need to take into account how we affect patients in clinical trials,” she added.

Dr. van der Graaf emphasized that clinical trial investigators need to more routinely incorporate quality of life measures and other patient-reported outcomes in clinical trial results to help regulators and clinicians in practice get a better sense of the true clinical benefit of a new drug.

Dr. Gyawali did not disclose a funding source for his presentation. He reported consulting fees from Vivio Health and research grants from the American Society of Clinical Oncology. Dr. van der Graaf reported no conflicts of interest.

PARIS – If results of phase 3, randomized clinical trials are the gold standard for cancer drug approvals, then single-arm trials are at best a bronze or even brass standard, with results that should only be used, under certain conditions, for accelerated approvals that should then be followed by confirmatory studies.

In fact, many drugs approved over the last decade based solely on data from single-arm trials have been subsequently withdrawn when put through the rigors of a head-to-head randomized controlled trial, according to Bishal Gyawali, MD, PhD, from the department of oncology at Queen’s University, Kingston, Ont.

“Single-arm trials are not meant to provide confirmatory evidence sufficient for approval; However, that ship has sailed, and we have several drugs that are approved on the basis of single-arm trials, but we need to make sure that those approvals are accelerated or conditional approvals, not regular approval,” he said in a presentation included in a special session on drug approvals at the European Society for Medical Oncology Congress.

“We should not allow premature regular approval based on single-arm trials, because once a drug gets conditional approval, access is not an issue. Patients will have access to the drug anyway, but we should ensure that robust evidence follows, and long-term follow-up data are needed to develop confidence in the efficacy outcomes that are seen in single-arm trials,” he said.

In many cases, single-arm trials are large enough or of long enough duration that investigators could have reasonably performed a randomized controlled trial (RCT) in the first place, Dr. Gyawali added.
 

Why do single-arm trials?

The term “single-arm registration trial” is something of an oxymoron, he said, noting that the purpose of such trials should be whether to take the drug to a phase 3, randomized trial. But as authors of a 2019 study in JAMA Network Open showed, of a sample of phase 3 RCTs, 42% did not have a prior phase 2 trial, and 28% had a negative phase 2 trial. Single-arm trials may be acceptable for conditional drug approvals if all of the following conditions are met:

• A RCT is not possible because the disease is rare or randomization would be unethical.
• The safety of the drug is established and its potential benefits outweigh its risks.
• The drug is associated with a high and durable overall or objective response rate.
• The mechanism of action is supported by a strong scientific rationale, and if the drug may meet an unmet medical need.

Survival endpoints won’t do

Efficacy endpoints typically used in RCTs, such as progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) can be misleading because they may be a result of the natural history of the disease and not the drug being tested, whereas ORRs are almost certainly reflective of the action of the drug itself, because spontaneous tumor regression is a rare phenomenon, Dr. Gyawali said.

He cautioned, however, that the ORR of placebo is not zero percent. For example in a 2018 study of sorafenib (Nexavar) versus placebo for advanced or refractory desmoid tumors, the ORR with the active drug was 33%, and the ORR for placebo was 20%.

It’s also open to question, he said, what constitutes an acceptably high ORR and duration of response, pointing to Food and Drug Administration accelerated approval of an indication for nivolumab (Opdivo) for treatment of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) that had progressed on sorafenib. In the single-arm trial used as the basis for approval, the ORRs as assessed by an independent central review committee blinded to the results was 14.3%.

“So, nivolumab in hepatocellular cancer was approved on the basis of a response rate lower than that of placebo, albeit in a different tumor. But the point I’m trying to show here is we don’t have a good definition of what is a good response rate,” he said.

In July 2021, Bristol-Myers Squibb voluntarily withdrew the HCC indication for nivolumab, following negative results of the CheckMate 459 trial and a 5-4 vote against continuing the accelerated approval.
 

On second thought ...

Citing data compiled by Nathan I. Cherny, MD, from Shaare Zedek Medical Center, Jerusalem, Dr. Gyawali noted that 58 of 161 FDA approvals from 2017 to 2021 of drugs for adult solid tumors were based on single-arm trials. Of the 58 drugs, 39 received accelerated approvals, and 19 received regular approvals; of the 39 that received accelerated approvals, 4 were subsequently withdrawn, 8 were converted to regular approvals, and the remainder continued as accelerated approvals.

Interestingly, the median response rate among all the drugs was 40%, and did not differ between the type of approval received, suggesting that response rates are not predictive of whether a drug will receive a conditional or full-fledged go-ahead.
 

What’s rare and safe?

The definition of a rare disease in the United States is one that affects fewer than 40,000 per year, and in Europe it’s an incidence rate of less than 6 per 100,000 population, Dr. Gyawali noted. But he argued that even non–small cell lung cancer, the most common form of cancer in the world, could be considered rare if it is broken down into subtypes that are treated according to specific mutations that may occur in a relatively small number of patients.

He also noted that a specific drug’s safety, one of the most important criteria for granting approval to a drug based on a single-arm trial, can be difficult to judge without adequate controls for comparison.
 

Cherry-picking patients

Winette van der Graaf, MD, president of the European Organization for the Research and Treatment of Cancer, who attended the session where Dr. Gyawali’s presentation was played, said in an interview that clinicians should cast a critical eye on how trials are designed and conducted, including patient selection and choice of endpoints.

“One of the most obvious things to be concerned about is that we’re still having patients with good performance status enrolled, mostly PS 0 or 1, so how representative are these clinical trials for the patients we see in front of us on a daily basis?” she said.

“The other question is radiological endpoints, which we focus on with OS and PFS are most important for patients, especially if you consider that if patients may have asymptomatic disease, and we are only treating them with potentially toxic medication, what are we doing for them? Median overall survival when you look at all of these trials is only 4 months, so we really need to take into account how we affect patients in clinical trials,” she added.

Dr. van der Graaf emphasized that clinical trial investigators need to more routinely incorporate quality of life measures and other patient-reported outcomes in clinical trial results to help regulators and clinicians in practice get a better sense of the true clinical benefit of a new drug.

Dr. Gyawali did not disclose a funding source for his presentation. He reported consulting fees from Vivio Health and research grants from the American Society of Clinical Oncology. Dr. van der Graaf reported no conflicts of interest.

PARIS – If results of phase 3, randomized clinical trials are the gold standard for cancer drug approvals, then single-arm trials are at best a bronze or even brass standard, with results that should only be used, under certain conditions, for accelerated approvals that should then be followed by confirmatory studies.

In fact, many drugs approved over the last decade based solely on data from single-arm trials have been subsequently withdrawn when put through the rigors of a head-to-head randomized controlled trial, according to Bishal Gyawali, MD, PhD, from the department of oncology at Queen’s University, Kingston, Ont.

“Single-arm trials are not meant to provide confirmatory evidence sufficient for approval; However, that ship has sailed, and we have several drugs that are approved on the basis of single-arm trials, but we need to make sure that those approvals are accelerated or conditional approvals, not regular approval,” he said in a presentation included in a special session on drug approvals at the European Society for Medical Oncology Congress.

“We should not allow premature regular approval based on single-arm trials, because once a drug gets conditional approval, access is not an issue. Patients will have access to the drug anyway, but we should ensure that robust evidence follows, and long-term follow-up data are needed to develop confidence in the efficacy outcomes that are seen in single-arm trials,” he said.

In many cases, single-arm trials are large enough or of long enough duration that investigators could have reasonably performed a randomized controlled trial (RCT) in the first place, Dr. Gyawali added.
 

Why do single-arm trials?

The term “single-arm registration trial” is something of an oxymoron, he said, noting that the purpose of such trials should be whether to take the drug to a phase 3, randomized trial. But as authors of a 2019 study in JAMA Network Open showed, of a sample of phase 3 RCTs, 42% did not have a prior phase 2 trial, and 28% had a negative phase 2 trial. Single-arm trials may be acceptable for conditional drug approvals if all of the following conditions are met:

• A RCT is not possible because the disease is rare or randomization would be unethical.
• The safety of the drug is established and its potential benefits outweigh its risks.
• The drug is associated with a high and durable overall or objective response rate.
• The mechanism of action is supported by a strong scientific rationale, and if the drug may meet an unmet medical need.

Survival endpoints won’t do

Efficacy endpoints typically used in RCTs, such as progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) can be misleading because they may be a result of the natural history of the disease and not the drug being tested, whereas ORRs are almost certainly reflective of the action of the drug itself, because spontaneous tumor regression is a rare phenomenon, Dr. Gyawali said.

He cautioned, however, that the ORR of placebo is not zero percent. For example in a 2018 study of sorafenib (Nexavar) versus placebo for advanced or refractory desmoid tumors, the ORR with the active drug was 33%, and the ORR for placebo was 20%.

It’s also open to question, he said, what constitutes an acceptably high ORR and duration of response, pointing to Food and Drug Administration accelerated approval of an indication for nivolumab (Opdivo) for treatment of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) that had progressed on sorafenib. In the single-arm trial used as the basis for approval, the ORRs as assessed by an independent central review committee blinded to the results was 14.3%.

“So, nivolumab in hepatocellular cancer was approved on the basis of a response rate lower than that of placebo, albeit in a different tumor. But the point I’m trying to show here is we don’t have a good definition of what is a good response rate,” he said.

In July 2021, Bristol-Myers Squibb voluntarily withdrew the HCC indication for nivolumab, following negative results of the CheckMate 459 trial and a 5-4 vote against continuing the accelerated approval.
 

On second thought ...

Citing data compiled by Nathan I. Cherny, MD, from Shaare Zedek Medical Center, Jerusalem, Dr. Gyawali noted that 58 of 161 FDA approvals from 2017 to 2021 of drugs for adult solid tumors were based on single-arm trials. Of the 58 drugs, 39 received accelerated approvals, and 19 received regular approvals; of the 39 that received accelerated approvals, 4 were subsequently withdrawn, 8 were converted to regular approvals, and the remainder continued as accelerated approvals.

Interestingly, the median response rate among all the drugs was 40%, and did not differ between the type of approval received, suggesting that response rates are not predictive of whether a drug will receive a conditional or full-fledged go-ahead.
 

What’s rare and safe?

The definition of a rare disease in the United States is one that affects fewer than 40,000 per year, and in Europe it’s an incidence rate of less than 6 per 100,000 population, Dr. Gyawali noted. But he argued that even non–small cell lung cancer, the most common form of cancer in the world, could be considered rare if it is broken down into subtypes that are treated according to specific mutations that may occur in a relatively small number of patients.

He also noted that a specific drug’s safety, one of the most important criteria for granting approval to a drug based on a single-arm trial, can be difficult to judge without adequate controls for comparison.
 

Cherry-picking patients

Winette van der Graaf, MD, president of the European Organization for the Research and Treatment of Cancer, who attended the session where Dr. Gyawali’s presentation was played, said in an interview that clinicians should cast a critical eye on how trials are designed and conducted, including patient selection and choice of endpoints.

“One of the most obvious things to be concerned about is that we’re still having patients with good performance status enrolled, mostly PS 0 or 1, so how representative are these clinical trials for the patients we see in front of us on a daily basis?” she said.

“The other question is radiological endpoints, which we focus on with OS and PFS are most important for patients, especially if you consider that if patients may have asymptomatic disease, and we are only treating them with potentially toxic medication, what are we doing for them? Median overall survival when you look at all of these trials is only 4 months, so we really need to take into account how we affect patients in clinical trials,” she added.

Dr. van der Graaf emphasized that clinical trial investigators need to more routinely incorporate quality of life measures and other patient-reported outcomes in clinical trial results to help regulators and clinicians in practice get a better sense of the true clinical benefit of a new drug.

Dr. Gyawali did not disclose a funding source for his presentation. He reported consulting fees from Vivio Health and research grants from the American Society of Clinical Oncology. Dr. van der Graaf reported no conflicts of interest.

In melanoma patients with the BRAFV600 mutation, a combination of BRAF and MEK inhibitors are highly effective over the long term, according to 5-year follow-up data from the COLUMBUS trial. Among patients with advanced unresectable or metastatic disease who were untreated or who had progressed following immunotherapy, the regimen of encorafenib plus binimetinib produced impressive gains in progression-free and overall survival, compared with historical controls, and are in line with other BRAF/MEK inhibitor combinations. It also outperformed encorafenib and vemurafenib monotherapy regimens.

The findings present good news, but the combination still doesn’t represent the best first-line option, according to Ryan Sullivan, MD, who wrote an accompanying editorial. He pointed out that the previously published DREAMSeq trial showed that a combination of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) ipilimumab and nivolumab produced a 2-year survival of 72%, compared with 52% for a BRAF inhibitor combination of dabrafenib plus trametinib (P = .0095).

There are three combinations of BRAF and MEK inhibitors that are approved for BRAF mutant melanoma, and any of the seven individual agents and six combinations that are approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration- for melanoma can be used in BRAFV600 patients. “The standard of care for most patients with newly diagnosed BRAF mutant melanoma is ... immune checkpoint inhibition, either with anti–PD-1 inhibitor or a combination of immunotherapy with an anti–PD-1 inhibitor. The optimal use of BRAF targeted therapy is unknown but some data supports its use earlier in the disease course (adjuvant setting) or after progression following anti–PD-1 therapy in the advanced disease setting,” wrote Dr. Sullivan in an email. He is associate director of the melanoma program at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.

The new study was published online in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

In his editorial, Dr. Sullivan wrote that anti–PD-1 monoclonal antibodies alone or in combination with anti-CTLA4 receptor therapies is likely the best front-line therapy for BRAFV600 mutant advanced melanoma, with long-term survival ranging from 40% to 50%.

Still, the efficacy of BRAF-targeted therapy makes it important to explore ways to strengthen it further. One possibility is to use it in the front-line setting when a patient is at high risk of rapid progression and death, since analysis from DREAMSeq showed that BRAF-targeted therapy had a better overall survival than immunotherapy during the first 10 months after random assignment. It was only after this time point that the curves reversed and pointed to greater efficacy for immunotherapy. An option would be to treat to maximum tumor regression with BRAF-targeted therapy and then switch to immunotherapy, according to Dr. Sullivan. That point was echoed by study author Paolo Ascierto, MD, in an email exchange. “For patients with symptomatic disease or very high tumor burden, BRAF/MEK inhibitor should be used first,” said Dr. Ascierto, who is director of the melanoma cancer immunotherapy innovative therapy unit of the National Tumor Institute in Naples, Italy.
 

BRAF inhibitors as second- or later-line therapy

Aside from that exception, BRAF inhibitors should generally be reserved for second- or later-line therapy, according to Dr. Sullivan. Retrospective data indicate that response to BRAF inhibitors is preserved following immunotherapy, although the duration of benefit is reduced. Unfortunately, that strategy limits BRAF inhibitors to a setting in which they’re less likely to be maximally effective.

To improve matters, Dr. Sullivan suggested that they could be used in the adjuvant setting, where disease burden is lower. He noted that dabrafenib and trametinib are approved for resected stage 3 melanoma and showed similar efficacy to immunotherapy in that setting. Immunotherapy retains efficacy after BRAF-targeted therapy.

Another potential strategy is to come up with 3- or even 4-drug combinations employing BRAF/MEK inhibitors in the second-line setting. A few trials have already begun to investigate this possibility.

The COLUMBUS trial included 192 patients who received encorafenib plus binimetinib (E+B), 191 who received vemurafenib and 194 who received encorafenib. Five-year progression-free survival (PFS) was 23% in the E+B group, and 31% in those with normal lactate dehydrogenase levels. Five-year PFS was 10% with vemurafenib alone (12% with normal lactate dehydrogenase). Progression free survival (PFS) was 19% in the encorafenib group. Five-year overall survival (OS) followed a similar trend: 35% (45% with normal lactate dehydrogenase) in the E+B group, and 21% (28%) in the vemurafenib group. E+B had a median duration of response of 18.6 months, and a disease control rate of 92.2%, compared with 12.3 months and 81.2% with vemurafenib. Median duration of response was 15.5 months in the encorafenib monotherapy group.

The COLUMBUS trial was sponsored by Array BioPharma, which was acquired by Pfizer in July 2019.

Dr. Sullivan has consulted or advised Novartis, Merck, Replimune, Asana Biosciences, Alkermes, Eisai, Pfizer, Iovance Biotherapeutics, OncoSec, AstraZeneca, and Bristol Myers Squibb. Dr. Ascierto has stock or an ownership position in PrimeVax. He has consulted or advised for Bristol Myers Squibb, Roche/Genentech, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Array BioPharma, Merck Serono, Pierre Fabre, Incyte, MedImmune, AstraZeneca, Sun Pharma, Sanofi, Idera, Ultimovacs, Sandoz, Immunocore, 4SC, Alkermes, Italfarmaco, Nektar, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eisai, Regeneron, Daiichi Sankyo, Pfizer, OncoSec, Nouscom, Takis Biotech, Lunaphore Technologies, Seattle Genetics, ITeos Therapeutics, Medicenna, and Bio-Al Health.

In melanoma patients with the BRAFV600 mutation, a combination of BRAF and MEK inhibitors are highly effective over the long term, according to 5-year follow-up data from the COLUMBUS trial. Among patients with advanced unresectable or metastatic disease who were untreated or who had progressed following immunotherapy, the regimen of encorafenib plus binimetinib produced impressive gains in progression-free and overall survival, compared with historical controls, and are in line with other BRAF/MEK inhibitor combinations. It also outperformed encorafenib and vemurafenib monotherapy regimens.

The findings present good news, but the combination still doesn’t represent the best first-line option, according to Ryan Sullivan, MD, who wrote an accompanying editorial. He pointed out that the previously published DREAMSeq trial showed that a combination of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) ipilimumab and nivolumab produced a 2-year survival of 72%, compared with 52% for a BRAF inhibitor combination of dabrafenib plus trametinib (P = .0095).

There are three combinations of BRAF and MEK inhibitors that are approved for BRAF mutant melanoma, and any of the seven individual agents and six combinations that are approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration- for melanoma can be used in BRAFV600 patients. “The standard of care for most patients with newly diagnosed BRAF mutant melanoma is ... immune checkpoint inhibition, either with anti–PD-1 inhibitor or a combination of immunotherapy with an anti–PD-1 inhibitor. The optimal use of BRAF targeted therapy is unknown but some data supports its use earlier in the disease course (adjuvant setting) or after progression following anti–PD-1 therapy in the advanced disease setting,” wrote Dr. Sullivan in an email. He is associate director of the melanoma program at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.

The new study was published online in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

In his editorial, Dr. Sullivan wrote that anti–PD-1 monoclonal antibodies alone or in combination with anti-CTLA4 receptor therapies is likely the best front-line therapy for BRAFV600 mutant advanced melanoma, with long-term survival ranging from 40% to 50%.

Still, the efficacy of BRAF-targeted therapy makes it important to explore ways to strengthen it further. One possibility is to use it in the front-line setting when a patient is at high risk of rapid progression and death, since analysis from DREAMSeq showed that BRAF-targeted therapy had a better overall survival than immunotherapy during the first 10 months after random assignment. It was only after this time point that the curves reversed and pointed to greater efficacy for immunotherapy. An option would be to treat to maximum tumor regression with BRAF-targeted therapy and then switch to immunotherapy, according to Dr. Sullivan. That point was echoed by study author Paolo Ascierto, MD, in an email exchange. “For patients with symptomatic disease or very high tumor burden, BRAF/MEK inhibitor should be used first,” said Dr. Ascierto, who is director of the melanoma cancer immunotherapy innovative therapy unit of the National Tumor Institute in Naples, Italy.
 

BRAF inhibitors as second- or later-line therapy

Aside from that exception, BRAF inhibitors should generally be reserved for second- or later-line therapy, according to Dr. Sullivan. Retrospective data indicate that response to BRAF inhibitors is preserved following immunotherapy, although the duration of benefit is reduced. Unfortunately, that strategy limits BRAF inhibitors to a setting in which they’re less likely to be maximally effective.

To improve matters, Dr. Sullivan suggested that they could be used in the adjuvant setting, where disease burden is lower. He noted that dabrafenib and trametinib are approved for resected stage 3 melanoma and showed similar efficacy to immunotherapy in that setting. Immunotherapy retains efficacy after BRAF-targeted therapy.

Another potential strategy is to come up with 3- or even 4-drug combinations employing BRAF/MEK inhibitors in the second-line setting. A few trials have already begun to investigate this possibility.

The COLUMBUS trial included 192 patients who received encorafenib plus binimetinib (E+B), 191 who received vemurafenib and 194 who received encorafenib. Five-year progression-free survival (PFS) was 23% in the E+B group, and 31% in those with normal lactate dehydrogenase levels. Five-year PFS was 10% with vemurafenib alone (12% with normal lactate dehydrogenase). Progression free survival (PFS) was 19% in the encorafenib group. Five-year overall survival (OS) followed a similar trend: 35% (45% with normal lactate dehydrogenase) in the E+B group, and 21% (28%) in the vemurafenib group. E+B had a median duration of response of 18.6 months, and a disease control rate of 92.2%, compared with 12.3 months and 81.2% with vemurafenib. Median duration of response was 15.5 months in the encorafenib monotherapy group.

The COLUMBUS trial was sponsored by Array BioPharma, which was acquired by Pfizer in July 2019.

Dr. Sullivan has consulted or advised Novartis, Merck, Replimune, Asana Biosciences, Alkermes, Eisai, Pfizer, Iovance Biotherapeutics, OncoSec, AstraZeneca, and Bristol Myers Squibb. Dr. Ascierto has stock or an ownership position in PrimeVax. He has consulted or advised for Bristol Myers Squibb, Roche/Genentech, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Array BioPharma, Merck Serono, Pierre Fabre, Incyte, MedImmune, AstraZeneca, Sun Pharma, Sanofi, Idera, Ultimovacs, Sandoz, Immunocore, 4SC, Alkermes, Italfarmaco, Nektar, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eisai, Regeneron, Daiichi Sankyo, Pfizer, OncoSec, Nouscom, Takis Biotech, Lunaphore Technologies, Seattle Genetics, ITeos Therapeutics, Medicenna, and Bio-Al Health.

In melanoma patients with the BRAFV600 mutation, a combination of BRAF and MEK inhibitors are highly effective over the long term, according to 5-year follow-up data from the COLUMBUS trial. Among patients with advanced unresectable or metastatic disease who were untreated or who had progressed following immunotherapy, the regimen of encorafenib plus binimetinib produced impressive gains in progression-free and overall survival, compared with historical controls, and are in line with other BRAF/MEK inhibitor combinations. It also outperformed encorafenib and vemurafenib monotherapy regimens.

The findings present good news, but the combination still doesn’t represent the best first-line option, according to Ryan Sullivan, MD, who wrote an accompanying editorial. He pointed out that the previously published DREAMSeq trial showed that a combination of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) ipilimumab and nivolumab produced a 2-year survival of 72%, compared with 52% for a BRAF inhibitor combination of dabrafenib plus trametinib (P = .0095).

There are three combinations of BRAF and MEK inhibitors that are approved for BRAF mutant melanoma, and any of the seven individual agents and six combinations that are approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration- for melanoma can be used in BRAFV600 patients. “The standard of care for most patients with newly diagnosed BRAF mutant melanoma is ... immune checkpoint inhibition, either with anti–PD-1 inhibitor or a combination of immunotherapy with an anti–PD-1 inhibitor. The optimal use of BRAF targeted therapy is unknown but some data supports its use earlier in the disease course (adjuvant setting) or after progression following anti–PD-1 therapy in the advanced disease setting,” wrote Dr. Sullivan in an email. He is associate director of the melanoma program at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.

The new study was published online in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

In his editorial, Dr. Sullivan wrote that anti–PD-1 monoclonal antibodies alone or in combination with anti-CTLA4 receptor therapies is likely the best front-line therapy for BRAFV600 mutant advanced melanoma, with long-term survival ranging from 40% to 50%.

Still, the efficacy of BRAF-targeted therapy makes it important to explore ways to strengthen it further. One possibility is to use it in the front-line setting when a patient is at high risk of rapid progression and death, since analysis from DREAMSeq showed that BRAF-targeted therapy had a better overall survival than immunotherapy during the first 10 months after random assignment. It was only after this time point that the curves reversed and pointed to greater efficacy for immunotherapy. An option would be to treat to maximum tumor regression with BRAF-targeted therapy and then switch to immunotherapy, according to Dr. Sullivan. That point was echoed by study author Paolo Ascierto, MD, in an email exchange. “For patients with symptomatic disease or very high tumor burden, BRAF/MEK inhibitor should be used first,” said Dr. Ascierto, who is director of the melanoma cancer immunotherapy innovative therapy unit of the National Tumor Institute in Naples, Italy.
 

BRAF inhibitors as second- or later-line therapy

Aside from that exception, BRAF inhibitors should generally be reserved for second- or later-line therapy, according to Dr. Sullivan. Retrospective data indicate that response to BRAF inhibitors is preserved following immunotherapy, although the duration of benefit is reduced. Unfortunately, that strategy limits BRAF inhibitors to a setting in which they’re less likely to be maximally effective.

To improve matters, Dr. Sullivan suggested that they could be used in the adjuvant setting, where disease burden is lower. He noted that dabrafenib and trametinib are approved for resected stage 3 melanoma and showed similar efficacy to immunotherapy in that setting. Immunotherapy retains efficacy after BRAF-targeted therapy.

Another potential strategy is to come up with 3- or even 4-drug combinations employing BRAF/MEK inhibitors in the second-line setting. A few trials have already begun to investigate this possibility.

The COLUMBUS trial included 192 patients who received encorafenib plus binimetinib (E+B), 191 who received vemurafenib and 194 who received encorafenib. Five-year progression-free survival (PFS) was 23% in the E+B group, and 31% in those with normal lactate dehydrogenase levels. Five-year PFS was 10% with vemurafenib alone (12% with normal lactate dehydrogenase). Progression free survival (PFS) was 19% in the encorafenib group. Five-year overall survival (OS) followed a similar trend: 35% (45% with normal lactate dehydrogenase) in the E+B group, and 21% (28%) in the vemurafenib group. E+B had a median duration of response of 18.6 months, and a disease control rate of 92.2%, compared with 12.3 months and 81.2% with vemurafenib. Median duration of response was 15.5 months in the encorafenib monotherapy group.

The COLUMBUS trial was sponsored by Array BioPharma, which was acquired by Pfizer in July 2019.

Dr. Sullivan has consulted or advised Novartis, Merck, Replimune, Asana Biosciences, Alkermes, Eisai, Pfizer, Iovance Biotherapeutics, OncoSec, AstraZeneca, and Bristol Myers Squibb. Dr. Ascierto has stock or an ownership position in PrimeVax. He has consulted or advised for Bristol Myers Squibb, Roche/Genentech, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Array BioPharma, Merck Serono, Pierre Fabre, Incyte, MedImmune, AstraZeneca, Sun Pharma, Sanofi, Idera, Ultimovacs, Sandoz, Immunocore, 4SC, Alkermes, Italfarmaco, Nektar, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eisai, Regeneron, Daiichi Sankyo, Pfizer, OncoSec, Nouscom, Takis Biotech, Lunaphore Technologies, Seattle Genetics, ITeos Therapeutics, Medicenna, and Bio-Al Health.

MILAN – The day after deucravacitinib became the first TYK2 inhibitor approved for the treatment of moderate to severe psoriasis, long-term data were presented at the annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology, suggesting that a high degree of benefit persists for at least 2 years, making this oral drug a potential competitor for biologics.

As a once-daily drug, deucravacitinib has “the potential to be a treatment of choice and a new standard of care for patients who require systemic therapy for their moderate to severe plaque psoriasis,” said Mark G. Lebwohl, MD, professor of dermatology and dean of clinical therapeutics, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York.

Just 2 months after the 52-week data from the phase 3 POETYK PSO-1 trial were published online in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, a long-term extension study found essentially no loss of benefit at 112 weeks, according to Dr. Lebwohl.

One of the two co-primary endpoints was a 75% clearance on the Psoriasis and Severity Index (PASI75) score. At 52 weeks, 80.2% of patients on deucravacitinib had met this criterion of benefit. At 112 weeks, the proportion was 84.4%.

The other primary endpoint was a static Physician’s Global Assessment (sPGA) score of clear or almost clear skin. The proportion of patients meeting this criterion at weeks 52 and 112 weeks were 65.6% and 67.6%, respectively.

When assessed by Treatment Failure Rule (TFR) or modified nonresponder imputation (mNRI), results were similar. For both, the primary endpoints at every time interval were just one or two percentage points lower but not clinically meaningfully different, according to Dr. Lebwohl.

The same type of sustained response out to 112 weeks was observed in multiple analyses. When the researchers isolated the subgroup of patients who had achieved a PASI 75 response at 16 weeks (100%), there was a modest decline in the PASI 75 rate at week 52 (90.2%) but then no additional decline at week 112 (91.3%).

There were essentially no changes in the PASI 90 rates at week 16 (63%), week 52 (65.3%), and week 112 (63.1%), Dr. Lebwohl reported. PASI 100 rates, once achieved, were sustained long term.

The target, TYK2, is one of four Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors. Until now, almost all JAK inhibitors have had greater relative specificity for JAK 1, JAK 2, and JAK 3, but several inhibitors of TYK2 inhibitors other than deucravacitinib are in development for inflammatory diseases. Deucravacitinib (Sotyktu), approved by the Food and Drug Administration on Sept. 9, is the only TYK2 inhibitor with regulatory approval for plaque psoriasis.

In the POETYK PSO-1 trial, 666 patients were initially randomized in a 2:1:1 ratio to 6 mg deucravacitinib (now the approved dose), placebo, or the oral phosphodiesterase 4 inhibitor apremilast. At week 16, patients on placebo were switched over to deucravacitinib. At week 24, patients who did not achieve a PASI 50 on apremilast (which had been titrated to 10 mg daily to 30 mg twice a day over the first 5 days of dosing) were switched to deucravacitinib.

In the previously reported data, deucravacitinib was superior for all efficacy endpoints at week 16, including an analysis of quality of life when compared with placebo (P < .0001) or apremilast (P = .0088). At week 52, after having been switched to deucravacitinib at week 16, patients on placebo achieved comparable responses on the efficacy measures in this study, including PASI75.

Relative to JAK inhibitors commonly used in rheumatoid arthritis and other inflammatory diseases, the greater specificity of deucravacitinib for TYK2 appears to have meaningful safety advantages, according to Dr. Lebwohl. Targeted mostly on the TYK2 regulatory domain, deucravacitinib largely avoids inhibition of the JAK 1, 2, and 3 subtypes. Dr. Lebwohl said this explains why deucravacitinib labeling does not share the boxed warnings about off-target effects, such as those on the cardiovascular system, that can be found in the labeling of other JAK inhibitors.

In the published 52-week data, the discontinuation rate for adverse events was lower in the group randomized to deucravacitinib arm than in the placebo arm. In the extended follow-up, there were no new signals for adverse events, including those involving the CV system or immune function.

The key message so far from the long-term follow-up, which is ongoing, is that “continuous treatment with deucravacitinib is associated with durable efficacy,” Dr. Lebwohl said. It is this combination of sustained efficacy and safety that led Dr. Lebwohl to suggest it as a reasonable oral competitor to injectable biologics.

“Patients now have a choice,” he said.

Jashin J. Wu, MD, a board member of the National Psoriasis Foundation and an associate professor in the department of dermatology, University of Miami, has been following the development of deucravacitinib. He said that the recent FDA approval validates the clinical evidence of benefit and safety, while the long-term data presented at the EADV congress support its role in expanding treatment options.

“Deucravacitinib is a very effective oral agent for moderate to severe plaque psoriasis with strong maintenance of effect through week 112,” he said. Differentiating it from other JAK inhibitors, the FDA approval “confirms the safety of this agent as there is no boxed warning,” he added.

Dr. Lebwohl reports financial relationships with more than 30 pharmaceutical companies, including Bristol-Myers Squibb, the manufacturer of deucravacitinib. Dr. Wu has financial relationships with 14 pharmaceutical companies, including Bristol-Myers Squibb, but he was not an investigator for the phase 3 trials of deucravacitinib.

MILAN – The day after deucravacitinib became the first TYK2 inhibitor approved for the treatment of moderate to severe psoriasis, long-term data were presented at the annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology, suggesting that a high degree of benefit persists for at least 2 years, making this oral drug a potential competitor for biologics.

As a once-daily drug, deucravacitinib has “the potential to be a treatment of choice and a new standard of care for patients who require systemic therapy for their moderate to severe plaque psoriasis,” said Mark G. Lebwohl, MD, professor of dermatology and dean of clinical therapeutics, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York.

Just 2 months after the 52-week data from the phase 3 POETYK PSO-1 trial were published online in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, a long-term extension study found essentially no loss of benefit at 112 weeks, according to Dr. Lebwohl.

One of the two co-primary endpoints was a 75% clearance on the Psoriasis and Severity Index (PASI75) score. At 52 weeks, 80.2% of patients on deucravacitinib had met this criterion of benefit. At 112 weeks, the proportion was 84.4%.

The other primary endpoint was a static Physician’s Global Assessment (sPGA) score of clear or almost clear skin. The proportion of patients meeting this criterion at weeks 52 and 112 weeks were 65.6% and 67.6%, respectively.

When assessed by Treatment Failure Rule (TFR) or modified nonresponder imputation (mNRI), results were similar. For both, the primary endpoints at every time interval were just one or two percentage points lower but not clinically meaningfully different, according to Dr. Lebwohl.

The same type of sustained response out to 112 weeks was observed in multiple analyses. When the researchers isolated the subgroup of patients who had achieved a PASI 75 response at 16 weeks (100%), there was a modest decline in the PASI 75 rate at week 52 (90.2%) but then no additional decline at week 112 (91.3%).

There were essentially no changes in the PASI 90 rates at week 16 (63%), week 52 (65.3%), and week 112 (63.1%), Dr. Lebwohl reported. PASI 100 rates, once achieved, were sustained long term.

The target, TYK2, is one of four Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors. Until now, almost all JAK inhibitors have had greater relative specificity for JAK 1, JAK 2, and JAK 3, but several inhibitors of TYK2 inhibitors other than deucravacitinib are in development for inflammatory diseases. Deucravacitinib (Sotyktu), approved by the Food and Drug Administration on Sept. 9, is the only TYK2 inhibitor with regulatory approval for plaque psoriasis.

In the POETYK PSO-1 trial, 666 patients were initially randomized in a 2:1:1 ratio to 6 mg deucravacitinib (now the approved dose), placebo, or the oral phosphodiesterase 4 inhibitor apremilast. At week 16, patients on placebo were switched over to deucravacitinib. At week 24, patients who did not achieve a PASI 50 on apremilast (which had been titrated to 10 mg daily to 30 mg twice a day over the first 5 days of dosing) were switched to deucravacitinib.

In the previously reported data, deucravacitinib was superior for all efficacy endpoints at week 16, including an analysis of quality of life when compared with placebo (P < .0001) or apremilast (P = .0088). At week 52, after having been switched to deucravacitinib at week 16, patients on placebo achieved comparable responses on the efficacy measures in this study, including PASI75.

Relative to JAK inhibitors commonly used in rheumatoid arthritis and other inflammatory diseases, the greater specificity of deucravacitinib for TYK2 appears to have meaningful safety advantages, according to Dr. Lebwohl. Targeted mostly on the TYK2 regulatory domain, deucravacitinib largely avoids inhibition of the JAK 1, 2, and 3 subtypes. Dr. Lebwohl said this explains why deucravacitinib labeling does not share the boxed warnings about off-target effects, such as those on the cardiovascular system, that can be found in the labeling of other JAK inhibitors.

In the published 52-week data, the discontinuation rate for adverse events was lower in the group randomized to deucravacitinib arm than in the placebo arm. In the extended follow-up, there were no new signals for adverse events, including those involving the CV system or immune function.

The key message so far from the long-term follow-up, which is ongoing, is that “continuous treatment with deucravacitinib is associated with durable efficacy,” Dr. Lebwohl said. It is this combination of sustained efficacy and safety that led Dr. Lebwohl to suggest it as a reasonable oral competitor to injectable biologics.

“Patients now have a choice,” he said.

Jashin J. Wu, MD, a board member of the National Psoriasis Foundation and an associate professor in the department of dermatology, University of Miami, has been following the development of deucravacitinib. He said that the recent FDA approval validates the clinical evidence of benefit and safety, while the long-term data presented at the EADV congress support its role in expanding treatment options.

“Deucravacitinib is a very effective oral agent for moderate to severe plaque psoriasis with strong maintenance of effect through week 112,” he said. Differentiating it from other JAK inhibitors, the FDA approval “confirms the safety of this agent as there is no boxed warning,” he added.

Dr. Lebwohl reports financial relationships with more than 30 pharmaceutical companies, including Bristol-Myers Squibb, the manufacturer of deucravacitinib. Dr. Wu has financial relationships with 14 pharmaceutical companies, including Bristol-Myers Squibb, but he was not an investigator for the phase 3 trials of deucravacitinib.

MILAN – The day after deucravacitinib became the first TYK2 inhibitor approved for the treatment of moderate to severe psoriasis, long-term data were presented at the annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology, suggesting that a high degree of benefit persists for at least 2 years, making this oral drug a potential competitor for biologics.

As a once-daily drug, deucravacitinib has “the potential to be a treatment of choice and a new standard of care for patients who require systemic therapy for their moderate to severe plaque psoriasis,” said Mark G. Lebwohl, MD, professor of dermatology and dean of clinical therapeutics, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York.

Just 2 months after the 52-week data from the phase 3 POETYK PSO-1 trial were published online in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, a long-term extension study found essentially no loss of benefit at 112 weeks, according to Dr. Lebwohl.

One of the two co-primary endpoints was a 75% clearance on the Psoriasis and Severity Index (PASI75) score. At 52 weeks, 80.2% of patients on deucravacitinib had met this criterion of benefit. At 112 weeks, the proportion was 84.4%.

The other primary endpoint was a static Physician’s Global Assessment (sPGA) score of clear or almost clear skin. The proportion of patients meeting this criterion at weeks 52 and 112 weeks were 65.6% and 67.6%, respectively.

When assessed by Treatment Failure Rule (TFR) or modified nonresponder imputation (mNRI), results were similar. For both, the primary endpoints at every time interval were just one or two percentage points lower but not clinically meaningfully different, according to Dr. Lebwohl.

The same type of sustained response out to 112 weeks was observed in multiple analyses. When the researchers isolated the subgroup of patients who had achieved a PASI 75 response at 16 weeks (100%), there was a modest decline in the PASI 75 rate at week 52 (90.2%) but then no additional decline at week 112 (91.3%).

There were essentially no changes in the PASI 90 rates at week 16 (63%), week 52 (65.3%), and week 112 (63.1%), Dr. Lebwohl reported. PASI 100 rates, once achieved, were sustained long term.

The target, TYK2, is one of four Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors. Until now, almost all JAK inhibitors have had greater relative specificity for JAK 1, JAK 2, and JAK 3, but several inhibitors of TYK2 inhibitors other than deucravacitinib are in development for inflammatory diseases. Deucravacitinib (Sotyktu), approved by the Food and Drug Administration on Sept. 9, is the only TYK2 inhibitor with regulatory approval for plaque psoriasis.

In the POETYK PSO-1 trial, 666 patients were initially randomized in a 2:1:1 ratio to 6 mg deucravacitinib (now the approved dose), placebo, or the oral phosphodiesterase 4 inhibitor apremilast. At week 16, patients on placebo were switched over to deucravacitinib. At week 24, patients who did not achieve a PASI 50 on apremilast (which had been titrated to 10 mg daily to 30 mg twice a day over the first 5 days of dosing) were switched to deucravacitinib.

In the previously reported data, deucravacitinib was superior for all efficacy endpoints at week 16, including an analysis of quality of life when compared with placebo (P < .0001) or apremilast (P = .0088). At week 52, after having been switched to deucravacitinib at week 16, patients on placebo achieved comparable responses on the efficacy measures in this study, including PASI75.

Relative to JAK inhibitors commonly used in rheumatoid arthritis and other inflammatory diseases, the greater specificity of deucravacitinib for TYK2 appears to have meaningful safety advantages, according to Dr. Lebwohl. Targeted mostly on the TYK2 regulatory domain, deucravacitinib largely avoids inhibition of the JAK 1, 2, and 3 subtypes. Dr. Lebwohl said this explains why deucravacitinib labeling does not share the boxed warnings about off-target effects, such as those on the cardiovascular system, that can be found in the labeling of other JAK inhibitors.

In the published 52-week data, the discontinuation rate for adverse events was lower in the group randomized to deucravacitinib arm than in the placebo arm. In the extended follow-up, there were no new signals for adverse events, including those involving the CV system or immune function.

The key message so far from the long-term follow-up, which is ongoing, is that “continuous treatment with deucravacitinib is associated with durable efficacy,” Dr. Lebwohl said. It is this combination of sustained efficacy and safety that led Dr. Lebwohl to suggest it as a reasonable oral competitor to injectable biologics.

“Patients now have a choice,” he said.

Jashin J. Wu, MD, a board member of the National Psoriasis Foundation and an associate professor in the department of dermatology, University of Miami, has been following the development of deucravacitinib. He said that the recent FDA approval validates the clinical evidence of benefit and safety, while the long-term data presented at the EADV congress support its role in expanding treatment options.

“Deucravacitinib is a very effective oral agent for moderate to severe plaque psoriasis with strong maintenance of effect through week 112,” he said. Differentiating it from other JAK inhibitors, the FDA approval “confirms the safety of this agent as there is no boxed warning,” he added.

Dr. Lebwohl reports financial relationships with more than 30 pharmaceutical companies, including Bristol-Myers Squibb, the manufacturer of deucravacitinib. Dr. Wu has financial relationships with 14 pharmaceutical companies, including Bristol-Myers Squibb, but he was not an investigator for the phase 3 trials of deucravacitinib.

PARIS – Adding pembrolizumab (Keytruda) to chemoradiotherapy did not significantly improve event-free survival, compared with CRT plus placebo as first-line therapy for patients with locally advanced head and neck squamous cell cancers (HNSCC), reported investigators of the KEYNOTE-412 trial.

Among 804 patients with newly diagnosed, pathologically proven, unresected locally advanced head and neck squamous cell carcinomas who were followed for a median of 47.7 months, the event-free survival (EFS) rate with the pembrolizumab/CRT combination followed by maintenance pembrolizumab was 63.2%, compared with 56.2% for CRT plus placebo. This translated into a nonsignificant hazard ratio of 0.83, said Jean-Pascal Machiels, MD, PhD, at the annual meeting of the European Society for Medical Oncology.

Despite the trial failing to meet its primary endpoint, Dr. Machiels expressed optimism about the results.

“Pembrolizumab with chemoradiation was associated with a favorable trend toward improved event-free survival versus placebo plus chemoradiation in patients with locally advanced head and neck cancer,” he said.

He noted that the 2-year EFS rate was 63% with pembrolizumab, compared with 56% with placebo.

The data also support the hypothesis that programmed death–ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression as measured by a combined positive score (CPS) could be a predictive biomarker for identifying those patients most likely to respond to the immune checkpoint inhibitor, he added.

KEYNOTE-412 details

The rationale for combining the checkpoint inhibitors pembrolizumab with chemoradiotherapy comes from the KEYNOTE-048 trial results of which showed a survival improvement for the use of pembrolizumab plus a platinum-containing regimen as a first-line therapy for recurrent or metastatic HNSCC, as well as pembrolizumab monotherapy for patients with PD-L1 CPS of 1 or greater.

In the current study, Dr. Machiels and colleagues studied whether adding pembrolizumab to CRT could benefit patients with treatment-naive unresected, locally advanced HNSCC.

Eligible patients included those with stage T3 or T4, N0-N3 or any N2a-3 (T1-T4) cancers of the larynx, hypopharynx, or oral cavity, and either p16-negative oropharynx cancers or T4 or N3 p16-positive oropharynx cancer. Patients were required to be eligible for high-dose cisplatin-based CRT.

A total of 804 patients were randomized, 402 in each arm, to receive either pembrolizumab 200 mg intravenously every 3 weeks for 3 cycles plus CRT followed by maintenance pembrolizumab for 14 cycles, or to placebo plus CRT followed by placebo maintenance.

As noted before, there was no significant difference between the study arms for the primary endpoint of EFS. The 24-month EFS rate was 63.2% for the pembrolizumab group, compared with 56.2% for controls. The respective 6-month EFS rates were 57.4% versus 52.1%.­

In a post hoc analysis, both EFS and overall survival were numerically with pembrolizumab among patients with PD-L1 CPS of 20 or greater. The respective 2- and 3-year EFS rates were 71.2% versus 62.6%, and 66.7% versus 57.2%.

The 24-months overall survival rates were 83.3% with pembrolizumab and 79.9% with placebo, and 36-month rates were 79.1% and 73%, respectively.

Neither EFS rates nor OS rates among patients in this subgroup differed significantly; however, there were no new safety signals with the combination, Dr. Machiels said. The incidence of grade 3 or greater adverse events was 92.2% in the pembrolizumab arm versus 88.4% in the placebo arm. Four patients in the pembrolizumab arm and six in the control arm died from treatment-related causes.
 

Benefit still to be proven

In a media briefing held prior to his presentation, Dr. Machiels was asked how he could justify his conclusions about a benefit for adding pembrolizumab given that there was no difference between the treatment groups for the primary endpoint.

He said that when the investigators designed the trial 7 years ago, the CPS score for PD-L1 expression had not yet been developed, and that if it had been they might have designed the trial to explore the effect of the pembrolizumab chemoradiation combination according to CPS subgroups.

He also pointed to the numerically superior 2-year EFS and overall rates.

In the presidential symposium, James Larkin, MD, PhD, an invited discussant from the Royal Marsden Hospital, London, said that chemotherapy and anti–PD-1 therapies are known to offer benefit in advanced cancers despite the trial’s failure.

“There is a signal, particularly as we’ve seen in the high PD-L1 group,” he said, noting that the signal was consistent with that seen in the JAVELIN 100 study, which was also a negative trial. He cautioned against relying too heavily on the comparison, however, as JAVELIN 100 was conducted with avelumab, a PD-L1 inhibitor, whereas pembrolizumab is a PD-1 inhibitor.

“Could there be an issue here with treatment schedule? An example and a comparison might be the PACIFIC study in non–small cell lung cancer, which is a positive trial, where actually the checkpoint inhibit with durvalumab was given immediately after the chemoradiotherapy, leading to benefit, rather than being concurrent,” he said.

Dr. Larkin also questioned whether, as codiscussant Sherene Loi, MD, PhD, from the Peter MacCallum Cancer Center, Melbourne, suggested radiotherapy to lymph nodes might alter the immune response to checkpoint inhibitors.

“Clearly radiotherapy is the central component of treatment in this setting, so it would be quite difficult to scale too much on that, but the question is: ‘Could it be modified?’ For example, just to irradiate the primary tumor and involved lymph nodes and potentially spare noninvolved lymph nodes,” he said.

The KEYNOTE-412 study was funded by Merck Sharp & Dohme. Dr. Machiels reported uncompensated consulting to the company. Dr. Larkin reported consulting for and receiving honoraria from Merck and others. Dr. Loi reported uncompensated advisory board activity for Merck and others.

PARIS – Adding pembrolizumab (Keytruda) to chemoradiotherapy did not significantly improve event-free survival, compared with CRT plus placebo as first-line therapy for patients with locally advanced head and neck squamous cell cancers (HNSCC), reported investigators of the KEYNOTE-412 trial.

Among 804 patients with newly diagnosed, pathologically proven, unresected locally advanced head and neck squamous cell carcinomas who were followed for a median of 47.7 months, the event-free survival (EFS) rate with the pembrolizumab/CRT combination followed by maintenance pembrolizumab was 63.2%, compared with 56.2% for CRT plus placebo. This translated into a nonsignificant hazard ratio of 0.83, said Jean-Pascal Machiels, MD, PhD, at the annual meeting of the European Society for Medical Oncology.

Despite the trial failing to meet its primary endpoint, Dr. Machiels expressed optimism about the results.

“Pembrolizumab with chemoradiation was associated with a favorable trend toward improved event-free survival versus placebo plus chemoradiation in patients with locally advanced head and neck cancer,” he said.

He noted that the 2-year EFS rate was 63% with pembrolizumab, compared with 56% with placebo.

The data also support the hypothesis that programmed death–ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression as measured by a combined positive score (CPS) could be a predictive biomarker for identifying those patients most likely to respond to the immune checkpoint inhibitor, he added.

KEYNOTE-412 details

The rationale for combining the checkpoint inhibitors pembrolizumab with chemoradiotherapy comes from the KEYNOTE-048 trial results of which showed a survival improvement for the use of pembrolizumab plus a platinum-containing regimen as a first-line therapy for recurrent or metastatic HNSCC, as well as pembrolizumab monotherapy for patients with PD-L1 CPS of 1 or greater.

In the current study, Dr. Machiels and colleagues studied whether adding pembrolizumab to CRT could benefit patients with treatment-naive unresected, locally advanced HNSCC.

Eligible patients included those with stage T3 or T4, N0-N3 or any N2a-3 (T1-T4) cancers of the larynx, hypopharynx, or oral cavity, and either p16-negative oropharynx cancers or T4 or N3 p16-positive oropharynx cancer. Patients were required to be eligible for high-dose cisplatin-based CRT.

A total of 804 patients were randomized, 402 in each arm, to receive either pembrolizumab 200 mg intravenously every 3 weeks for 3 cycles plus CRT followed by maintenance pembrolizumab for 14 cycles, or to placebo plus CRT followed by placebo maintenance.

As noted before, there was no significant difference between the study arms for the primary endpoint of EFS. The 24-month EFS rate was 63.2% for the pembrolizumab group, compared with 56.2% for controls. The respective 6-month EFS rates were 57.4% versus 52.1%.­

In a post hoc analysis, both EFS and overall survival were numerically with pembrolizumab among patients with PD-L1 CPS of 20 or greater. The respective 2- and 3-year EFS rates were 71.2% versus 62.6%, and 66.7% versus 57.2%.

The 24-months overall survival rates were 83.3% with pembrolizumab and 79.9% with placebo, and 36-month rates were 79.1% and 73%, respectively.

Neither EFS rates nor OS rates among patients in this subgroup differed significantly; however, there were no new safety signals with the combination, Dr. Machiels said. The incidence of grade 3 or greater adverse events was 92.2% in the pembrolizumab arm versus 88.4% in the placebo arm. Four patients in the pembrolizumab arm and six in the control arm died from treatment-related causes.
 

Benefit still to be proven

In a media briefing held prior to his presentation, Dr. Machiels was asked how he could justify his conclusions about a benefit for adding pembrolizumab given that there was no difference between the treatment groups for the primary endpoint.

He said that when the investigators designed the trial 7 years ago, the CPS score for PD-L1 expression had not yet been developed, and that if it had been they might have designed the trial to explore the effect of the pembrolizumab chemoradiation combination according to CPS subgroups.

He also pointed to the numerically superior 2-year EFS and overall rates.

In the presidential symposium, James Larkin, MD, PhD, an invited discussant from the Royal Marsden Hospital, London, said that chemotherapy and anti–PD-1 therapies are known to offer benefit in advanced cancers despite the trial’s failure.

“There is a signal, particularly as we’ve seen in the high PD-L1 group,” he said, noting that the signal was consistent with that seen in the JAVELIN 100 study, which was also a negative trial. He cautioned against relying too heavily on the comparison, however, as JAVELIN 100 was conducted with avelumab, a PD-L1 inhibitor, whereas pembrolizumab is a PD-1 inhibitor.

“Could there be an issue here with treatment schedule? An example and a comparison might be the PACIFIC study in non–small cell lung cancer, which is a positive trial, where actually the checkpoint inhibit with durvalumab was given immediately after the chemoradiotherapy, leading to benefit, rather than being concurrent,” he said.

Dr. Larkin also questioned whether, as codiscussant Sherene Loi, MD, PhD, from the Peter MacCallum Cancer Center, Melbourne, suggested radiotherapy to lymph nodes might alter the immune response to checkpoint inhibitors.

“Clearly radiotherapy is the central component of treatment in this setting, so it would be quite difficult to scale too much on that, but the question is: ‘Could it be modified?’ For example, just to irradiate the primary tumor and involved lymph nodes and potentially spare noninvolved lymph nodes,” he said.

The KEYNOTE-412 study was funded by Merck Sharp & Dohme. Dr. Machiels reported uncompensated consulting to the company. Dr. Larkin reported consulting for and receiving honoraria from Merck and others. Dr. Loi reported uncompensated advisory board activity for Merck and others.

PARIS – Adding pembrolizumab (Keytruda) to chemoradiotherapy did not significantly improve event-free survival, compared with CRT plus placebo as first-line therapy for patients with locally advanced head and neck squamous cell cancers (HNSCC), reported investigators of the KEYNOTE-412 trial.

Among 804 patients with newly diagnosed, pathologically proven, unresected locally advanced head and neck squamous cell carcinomas who were followed for a median of 47.7 months, the event-free survival (EFS) rate with the pembrolizumab/CRT combination followed by maintenance pembrolizumab was 63.2%, compared with 56.2% for CRT plus placebo. This translated into a nonsignificant hazard ratio of 0.83, said Jean-Pascal Machiels, MD, PhD, at the annual meeting of the European Society for Medical Oncology.

Despite the trial failing to meet its primary endpoint, Dr. Machiels expressed optimism about the results.

“Pembrolizumab with chemoradiation was associated with a favorable trend toward improved event-free survival versus placebo plus chemoradiation in patients with locally advanced head and neck cancer,” he said.

He noted that the 2-year EFS rate was 63% with pembrolizumab, compared with 56% with placebo.

The data also support the hypothesis that programmed death–ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression as measured by a combined positive score (CPS) could be a predictive biomarker for identifying those patients most likely to respond to the immune checkpoint inhibitor, he added.

KEYNOTE-412 details

The rationale for combining the checkpoint inhibitors pembrolizumab with chemoradiotherapy comes from the KEYNOTE-048 trial results of which showed a survival improvement for the use of pembrolizumab plus a platinum-containing regimen as a first-line therapy for recurrent or metastatic HNSCC, as well as pembrolizumab monotherapy for patients with PD-L1 CPS of 1 or greater.

In the current study, Dr. Machiels and colleagues studied whether adding pembrolizumab to CRT could benefit patients with treatment-naive unresected, locally advanced HNSCC.

Eligible patients included those with stage T3 or T4, N0-N3 or any N2a-3 (T1-T4) cancers of the larynx, hypopharynx, or oral cavity, and either p16-negative oropharynx cancers or T4 or N3 p16-positive oropharynx cancer. Patients were required to be eligible for high-dose cisplatin-based CRT.

A total of 804 patients were randomized, 402 in each arm, to receive either pembrolizumab 200 mg intravenously every 3 weeks for 3 cycles plus CRT followed by maintenance pembrolizumab for 14 cycles, or to placebo plus CRT followed by placebo maintenance.

As noted before, there was no significant difference between the study arms for the primary endpoint of EFS. The 24-month EFS rate was 63.2% for the pembrolizumab group, compared with 56.2% for controls. The respective 6-month EFS rates were 57.4% versus 52.1%.­

In a post hoc analysis, both EFS and overall survival were numerically with pembrolizumab among patients with PD-L1 CPS of 20 or greater. The respective 2- and 3-year EFS rates were 71.2% versus 62.6%, and 66.7% versus 57.2%.

The 24-months overall survival rates were 83.3% with pembrolizumab and 79.9% with placebo, and 36-month rates were 79.1% and 73%, respectively.

Neither EFS rates nor OS rates among patients in this subgroup differed significantly; however, there were no new safety signals with the combination, Dr. Machiels said. The incidence of grade 3 or greater adverse events was 92.2% in the pembrolizumab arm versus 88.4% in the placebo arm. Four patients in the pembrolizumab arm and six in the control arm died from treatment-related causes.
 

Benefit still to be proven

In a media briefing held prior to his presentation, Dr. Machiels was asked how he could justify his conclusions about a benefit for adding pembrolizumab given that there was no difference between the treatment groups for the primary endpoint.

He said that when the investigators designed the trial 7 years ago, the CPS score for PD-L1 expression had not yet been developed, and that if it had been they might have designed the trial to explore the effect of the pembrolizumab chemoradiation combination according to CPS subgroups.

He also pointed to the numerically superior 2-year EFS and overall rates.

In the presidential symposium, James Larkin, MD, PhD, an invited discussant from the Royal Marsden Hospital, London, said that chemotherapy and anti–PD-1 therapies are known to offer benefit in advanced cancers despite the trial’s failure.

“There is a signal, particularly as we’ve seen in the high PD-L1 group,” he said, noting that the signal was consistent with that seen in the JAVELIN 100 study, which was also a negative trial. He cautioned against relying too heavily on the comparison, however, as JAVELIN 100 was conducted with avelumab, a PD-L1 inhibitor, whereas pembrolizumab is a PD-1 inhibitor.

“Could there be an issue here with treatment schedule? An example and a comparison might be the PACIFIC study in non–small cell lung cancer, which is a positive trial, where actually the checkpoint inhibit with durvalumab was given immediately after the chemoradiotherapy, leading to benefit, rather than being concurrent,” he said.

Dr. Larkin also questioned whether, as codiscussant Sherene Loi, MD, PhD, from the Peter MacCallum Cancer Center, Melbourne, suggested radiotherapy to lymph nodes might alter the immune response to checkpoint inhibitors.

“Clearly radiotherapy is the central component of treatment in this setting, so it would be quite difficult to scale too much on that, but the question is: ‘Could it be modified?’ For example, just to irradiate the primary tumor and involved lymph nodes and potentially spare noninvolved lymph nodes,” he said.

The KEYNOTE-412 study was funded by Merck Sharp & Dohme. Dr. Machiels reported uncompensated consulting to the company. Dr. Larkin reported consulting for and receiving honoraria from Merck and others. Dr. Loi reported uncompensated advisory board activity for Merck and others.

Heparin started in the ambulance or emergency department (ED) makes it more likely a patient with acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) will present to the cath lab without a coronary artery occlusion, suggests a large registry study.

An open infarct-related artery (IRA) at angiography on cath-lab arrival presents STEMI patients an opportunity for earlier reperfusion and a chance, in theory at least, for smaller infarcts and maybe improved clinical outcomes.

In the new analysis, which covers more than 40,000 patients with STEMI in Sweden, the 38% who received heparin before cath-lab arrival were 11% less likely to show IRA occlusion at angiography prior to direct percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). They also showed a 13% lower 30-day mortality compared with patients who were started on heparin in the cath lab. Importantly, their risk of major bleeding in the hospital did not increase.

The “early reperfusion” associated with IRA patency at angiography “could have long-term benefit due to smaller infarct size,” potentially explaining the observed 30-day survival gain in the pretreatment group, Oskar Love Emilsson, Lund (Sweden) University, said in an interview.

Mr. Emilsson, a third-year medical student, reported the analysis at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology, and is lead author on its same-day publication in the journal EuroIntervention.

He mentioned a few cautions in interpreting the study, which is based primarily on data from the Swedish Coronary Angiography and Angioplasty Registry (SCAAR). It included several sensitivity analyses that continued to back pretreatment heparin as a significant predictor of an unoccluded IRA but didn’t consistently support the 30-day mortality benefit seen in the primary analysis.

And, although the pretreatment group overall didn’t have more major bleeds, the risk did go up significantly for those older than 75 or those who weighed less than 60 kg (132 pounds) or underwent catheterization with an access route other than the radial artery. Extra caution should be exercised in such patients who receive heparin before cath-lab arrival for PCI, Mr. Emilsson observed.

“Our results suggest that heparin pretreatment might be a good option to improve patency of infarct related arteries in STEMI,” and potentially clinical outcomes, he said. “However, a definite answer would require a randomized controlled trial.”

Meanwhile, the current study may be the largest yet to look at clinical outcomes after pretreatment with unfractionated heparin before PCI for acute STEMI, the report states. There have been some observational studies, subanalyses of STEMI trials, and even a few limited randomized trials – including the HEAP trial published in 2000 – to weigh in on the subject. Some have supported the strategy, others have not.

“With rapid door-to-balloon times in STEMI, it can be challenging to show a significant difference between a prehospital heparin approach and heparin given in the lab,” observed Sunil V. Rao, MD, NYU Langone Health System, New York, who is not connected with the current study.

Many EDs in the United States have “a STEMI protocol that calls for an IV bolus of heparin. It would be tougher in the U.S. to give it in the ambulance but again, it’s not clear how much advantage that would really provide,” he told this news organization.

Support from randomized trials would be needed before the practice could be formally recommended. “The SCAAR registries have set the standard for how registries should be conducted,” Dr. Rao said. “This is a very well done observational study, but it is observational.”

The priority for STEMI patients, he added, “really should be to get them to the lab as fast as possible. If the ED protocol includes heparin before the cath lab, that’s great, but I don’t think we should delay getting these patients to the lab to accommodate pre–cath-lab heparin.”

The current analysis covered 41,631 patients with STEMI from 2008 through to 2016, of whom 38% were pretreated with heparin in an ambulance or the ED. The remaining 62% initiated heparin in the cath lab.

About one-third of the group had an open IRA at angiography. The adjusted risk ratio (RR) for IRA occlusion at angiography for patients pretreated vs. not pretreated with heparin was 0.89 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.87-0.90).

The corresponding RR for death within 30 days was 0.87 (95% CI, 0.77-0.99), and for major in-hospital bleeding it was 1.01 (95% CI, 0.86-1.18).

The analysis was adjusted for other medications received before cath-lab arrival, especially a long list of antiplatelets and non-heparin antithrombins. That strengthens the case for heparin pretreatment as an independent predictor of an open IRA at initial angiography, Mr. Emilsson said.

Comparisons of propensity-score–matched subgroups of the total cohort, conducted separately for the IRA-occlusion endpoint and the endpoints of 30-day mortality and major bleeding, produced similar results.

Some observational data suggest that antiplatelet pretreatment with a P2Y12 inhibitor may promote IRA patency on angiography after cath lab arrival, Dr. Rao observed. “This indicates that there probably is a role of earlier antithrombotic therapy in STEMI patients, but the randomized trials have not shown a consistent benefit,” he said, referring in particular to the ATLANTIC trial.

Mr. Emilsson and Dr. Rao disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Heparin started in the ambulance or emergency department (ED) makes it more likely a patient with acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) will present to the cath lab without a coronary artery occlusion, suggests a large registry study.

An open infarct-related artery (IRA) at angiography on cath-lab arrival presents STEMI patients an opportunity for earlier reperfusion and a chance, in theory at least, for smaller infarcts and maybe improved clinical outcomes.

In the new analysis, which covers more than 40,000 patients with STEMI in Sweden, the 38% who received heparin before cath-lab arrival were 11% less likely to show IRA occlusion at angiography prior to direct percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). They also showed a 13% lower 30-day mortality compared with patients who were started on heparin in the cath lab. Importantly, their risk of major bleeding in the hospital did not increase.

The “early reperfusion” associated with IRA patency at angiography “could have long-term benefit due to smaller infarct size,” potentially explaining the observed 30-day survival gain in the pretreatment group, Oskar Love Emilsson, Lund (Sweden) University, said in an interview.

Mr. Emilsson, a third-year medical student, reported the analysis at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology, and is lead author on its same-day publication in the journal EuroIntervention.

He mentioned a few cautions in interpreting the study, which is based primarily on data from the Swedish Coronary Angiography and Angioplasty Registry (SCAAR). It included several sensitivity analyses that continued to back pretreatment heparin as a significant predictor of an unoccluded IRA but didn’t consistently support the 30-day mortality benefit seen in the primary analysis.

And, although the pretreatment group overall didn’t have more major bleeds, the risk did go up significantly for those older than 75 or those who weighed less than 60 kg (132 pounds) or underwent catheterization with an access route other than the radial artery. Extra caution should be exercised in such patients who receive heparin before cath-lab arrival for PCI, Mr. Emilsson observed.

“Our results suggest that heparin pretreatment might be a good option to improve patency of infarct related arteries in STEMI,” and potentially clinical outcomes, he said. “However, a definite answer would require a randomized controlled trial.”

Meanwhile, the current study may be the largest yet to look at clinical outcomes after pretreatment with unfractionated heparin before PCI for acute STEMI, the report states. There have been some observational studies, subanalyses of STEMI trials, and even a few limited randomized trials – including the HEAP trial published in 2000 – to weigh in on the subject. Some have supported the strategy, others have not.

“With rapid door-to-balloon times in STEMI, it can be challenging to show a significant difference between a prehospital heparin approach and heparin given in the lab,” observed Sunil V. Rao, MD, NYU Langone Health System, New York, who is not connected with the current study.

Many EDs in the United States have “a STEMI protocol that calls for an IV bolus of heparin. It would be tougher in the U.S. to give it in the ambulance but again, it’s not clear how much advantage that would really provide,” he told this news organization.

Support from randomized trials would be needed before the practice could be formally recommended. “The SCAAR registries have set the standard for how registries should be conducted,” Dr. Rao said. “This is a very well done observational study, but it is observational.”

The priority for STEMI patients, he added, “really should be to get them to the lab as fast as possible. If the ED protocol includes heparin before the cath lab, that’s great, but I don’t think we should delay getting these patients to the lab to accommodate pre–cath-lab heparin.”

The current analysis covered 41,631 patients with STEMI from 2008 through to 2016, of whom 38% were pretreated with heparin in an ambulance or the ED. The remaining 62% initiated heparin in the cath lab.

About one-third of the group had an open IRA at angiography. The adjusted risk ratio (RR) for IRA occlusion at angiography for patients pretreated vs. not pretreated with heparin was 0.89 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.87-0.90).

The corresponding RR for death within 30 days was 0.87 (95% CI, 0.77-0.99), and for major in-hospital bleeding it was 1.01 (95% CI, 0.86-1.18).

The analysis was adjusted for other medications received before cath-lab arrival, especially a long list of antiplatelets and non-heparin antithrombins. That strengthens the case for heparin pretreatment as an independent predictor of an open IRA at initial angiography, Mr. Emilsson said.

Comparisons of propensity-score–matched subgroups of the total cohort, conducted separately for the IRA-occlusion endpoint and the endpoints of 30-day mortality and major bleeding, produced similar results.

Some observational data suggest that antiplatelet pretreatment with a P2Y12 inhibitor may promote IRA patency on angiography after cath lab arrival, Dr. Rao observed. “This indicates that there probably is a role of earlier antithrombotic therapy in STEMI patients, but the randomized trials have not shown a consistent benefit,” he said, referring in particular to the ATLANTIC trial.

Mr. Emilsson and Dr. Rao disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Heparin started in the ambulance or emergency department (ED) makes it more likely a patient with acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) will present to the cath lab without a coronary artery occlusion, suggests a large registry study.

An open infarct-related artery (IRA) at angiography on cath-lab arrival presents STEMI patients an opportunity for earlier reperfusion and a chance, in theory at least, for smaller infarcts and maybe improved clinical outcomes.

In the new analysis, which covers more than 40,000 patients with STEMI in Sweden, the 38% who received heparin before cath-lab arrival were 11% less likely to show IRA occlusion at angiography prior to direct percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). They also showed a 13% lower 30-day mortality compared with patients who were started on heparin in the cath lab. Importantly, their risk of major bleeding in the hospital did not increase.

The “early reperfusion” associated with IRA patency at angiography “could have long-term benefit due to smaller infarct size,” potentially explaining the observed 30-day survival gain in the pretreatment group, Oskar Love Emilsson, Lund (Sweden) University, said in an interview.

Mr. Emilsson, a third-year medical student, reported the analysis at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology, and is lead author on its same-day publication in the journal EuroIntervention.

He mentioned a few cautions in interpreting the study, which is based primarily on data from the Swedish Coronary Angiography and Angioplasty Registry (SCAAR). It included several sensitivity analyses that continued to back pretreatment heparin as a significant predictor of an unoccluded IRA but didn’t consistently support the 30-day mortality benefit seen in the primary analysis.

And, although the pretreatment group overall didn’t have more major bleeds, the risk did go up significantly for those older than 75 or those who weighed less than 60 kg (132 pounds) or underwent catheterization with an access route other than the radial artery. Extra caution should be exercised in such patients who receive heparin before cath-lab arrival for PCI, Mr. Emilsson observed.

“Our results suggest that heparin pretreatment might be a good option to improve patency of infarct related arteries in STEMI,” and potentially clinical outcomes, he said. “However, a definite answer would require a randomized controlled trial.”

Meanwhile, the current study may be the largest yet to look at clinical outcomes after pretreatment with unfractionated heparin before PCI for acute STEMI, the report states. There have been some observational studies, subanalyses of STEMI trials, and even a few limited randomized trials – including the HEAP trial published in 2000 – to weigh in on the subject. Some have supported the strategy, others have not.

“With rapid door-to-balloon times in STEMI, it can be challenging to show a significant difference between a prehospital heparin approach and heparin given in the lab,” observed Sunil V. Rao, MD, NYU Langone Health System, New York, who is not connected with the current study.

Many EDs in the United States have “a STEMI protocol that calls for an IV bolus of heparin. It would be tougher in the U.S. to give it in the ambulance but again, it’s not clear how much advantage that would really provide,” he told this news organization.

Support from randomized trials would be needed before the practice could be formally recommended. “The SCAAR registries have set the standard for how registries should be conducted,” Dr. Rao said. “This is a very well done observational study, but it is observational.”

The priority for STEMI patients, he added, “really should be to get them to the lab as fast as possible. If the ED protocol includes heparin before the cath lab, that’s great, but I don’t think we should delay getting these patients to the lab to accommodate pre–cath-lab heparin.”

The current analysis covered 41,631 patients with STEMI from 2008 through to 2016, of whom 38% were pretreated with heparin in an ambulance or the ED. The remaining 62% initiated heparin in the cath lab.

About one-third of the group had an open IRA at angiography. The adjusted risk ratio (RR) for IRA occlusion at angiography for patients pretreated vs. not pretreated with heparin was 0.89 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.87-0.90).

The corresponding RR for death within 30 days was 0.87 (95% CI, 0.77-0.99), and for major in-hospital bleeding it was 1.01 (95% CI, 0.86-1.18).

The analysis was adjusted for other medications received before cath-lab arrival, especially a long list of antiplatelets and non-heparin antithrombins. That strengthens the case for heparin pretreatment as an independent predictor of an open IRA at initial angiography, Mr. Emilsson said.

Comparisons of propensity-score–matched subgroups of the total cohort, conducted separately for the IRA-occlusion endpoint and the endpoints of 30-day mortality and major bleeding, produced similar results.

Some observational data suggest that antiplatelet pretreatment with a P2Y12 inhibitor may promote IRA patency on angiography after cath lab arrival, Dr. Rao observed. “This indicates that there probably is a role of earlier antithrombotic therapy in STEMI patients, but the randomized trials have not shown a consistent benefit,” he said, referring in particular to the ATLANTIC trial.

Mr. Emilsson and Dr. Rao disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Clozapine or antipsychotic polytherapy appear to be the best approach in reducing the risk for a substance use disorder (SUD) in adults with schizophrenia and for preventing relapse in patients with both diagnoses, results of a real-world study show.

“Our findings are in line with a recent meta-analysis showing superior efficacy of clozapine in schizophrenia and comorbid SUD and other studies pointing toward clozapine’s superiority over other antipsychotics in the treatment of individuals with schizophrenia and comorbid SUD,” the investigators, led by Jari Tiihonen MD, PhD, department of clinical neuroscience, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, write.

Karolinska Institute

Research gap

Research on the effectiveness of pharmacotherapies for schizophrenia and comorbid SUD is “very sparse, and more importantly, non-existent on the prevention of the development of SUDs in patients with schizophrenia,” the researchers note.

To investigate, they analyzed data on more than 45,000 patients with schizophrenia from Finnish and Swedish national registries, with follow-up lasting 22 years in Finland and 11 years in Sweden.

In patients with schizophrenia without SUD, treatment with clozapine was associated with lowest risk for an initial SUD in both Finland (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.20; 95% confidence interval, 0.16-0.24) and Sweden (aHR, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.24-0.50), compared with no use or use of other antipsychotics.

In Finland, aripiprazole was associated with the second lowest risk for an initial SUD (aHR, 0.36; 95% CI, 0.24-0.55) and antipsychotic polytherapy the third lowest risk (aHR, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.42-0.53).

In Sweden, antipsychotic polytherapy was associated with second lowest risk for an initial SUD (aHR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.44-0.66) and olanzapine the third lowest risk (aHR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.53-0.84).

In both countries, the risk for relapse as indicated by psychiatric hospital admission and SUD-related hospital admission were lowest for clozapine, antipsychotic polytherapy and long-acting injectables, the investigators report.
 

Interpret with caution

Reached for comment, Christoph U. Correll, MD, professor of psychiatry and molecular medicine, the Donald and Barbara Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell, Hempstead, New York, urged caution in interpreting the results.

“While the authors are experts in national database analyses and the study was conducted with state-of-the-art methodology, the onset of SUD analyses favoring clozapine are subject to survival bias and order effects,” Dr. Correll said.

“Since clozapine is generally used later in the illness and treatment course, after multiple other antipsychotics have been used, and since SUDs generally occur early in the illness course, most SUDs will already have arisen by the time that clozapine is considered and used,” Dr. Correll said.

“A similar potential bias exists for long-acting injectables (LAIs), as these have generally also been used late in the treatment algorithm,” he noted.

In terms of the significant reduction of SUD-related hospitalizations observed with clozapine, the “order effect” could also be relevant, Dr. Correll said, because over time, patients are less likely to be nonadherent and hospitalized and clozapine is systematically used later in life than other antipsychotics.

“Why antipsychotic polytherapy came out as the second-best treatment is much less clear. Clearly head-to-head randomized trials are needed to follow up on these interesting and intriguing naturalistic database study data,” said Dr. Correll.

This study was funded by the Finnish Ministry of Social Affairs and Health through the developmental fund for Niuvanniemi Hospital. Dr. Tiihonen and three co-authors have participated in research projects funded by grants from Janssen-Cilag and Eli Lilly to their institution. Dr. Correll reports having been a consultant and/or advisor to or receiving honoraria from many companies. He has also provided expert testimony for Janssen and Otsuka; served on a Data Safety Monitoring Board for Lundbeck, Relmada, Reviva, Rovi, Supernus, and Teva; received royalties from UpToDate; and is a stock option holder of Cardio Diagnostics, Mindpax, LB Pharma, and Quantic.

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

Clozapine or antipsychotic polytherapy appear to be the best approach in reducing the risk for a substance use disorder (SUD) in adults with schizophrenia and for preventing relapse in patients with both diagnoses, results of a real-world study show.

“Our findings are in line with a recent meta-analysis showing superior efficacy of clozapine in schizophrenia and comorbid SUD and other studies pointing toward clozapine’s superiority over other antipsychotics in the treatment of individuals with schizophrenia and comorbid SUD,” the investigators, led by Jari Tiihonen MD, PhD, department of clinical neuroscience, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, write.

Karolinska Institute

Research gap

Research on the effectiveness of pharmacotherapies for schizophrenia and comorbid SUD is “very sparse, and more importantly, non-existent on the prevention of the development of SUDs in patients with schizophrenia,” the researchers note.

To investigate, they analyzed data on more than 45,000 patients with schizophrenia from Finnish and Swedish national registries, with follow-up lasting 22 years in Finland and 11 years in Sweden.

In patients with schizophrenia without SUD, treatment with clozapine was associated with lowest risk for an initial SUD in both Finland (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.20; 95% confidence interval, 0.16-0.24) and Sweden (aHR, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.24-0.50), compared with no use or use of other antipsychotics.

In Finland, aripiprazole was associated with the second lowest risk for an initial SUD (aHR, 0.36; 95% CI, 0.24-0.55) and antipsychotic polytherapy the third lowest risk (aHR, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.42-0.53).

In Sweden, antipsychotic polytherapy was associated with second lowest risk for an initial SUD (aHR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.44-0.66) and olanzapine the third lowest risk (aHR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.53-0.84).

In both countries, the risk for relapse as indicated by psychiatric hospital admission and SUD-related hospital admission were lowest for clozapine, antipsychotic polytherapy and long-acting injectables, the investigators report.
 

Interpret with caution

Reached for comment, Christoph U. Correll, MD, professor of psychiatry and molecular medicine, the Donald and Barbara Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell, Hempstead, New York, urged caution in interpreting the results.

“While the authors are experts in national database analyses and the study was conducted with state-of-the-art methodology, the onset of SUD analyses favoring clozapine are subject to survival bias and order effects,” Dr. Correll said.

“Since clozapine is generally used later in the illness and treatment course, after multiple other antipsychotics have been used, and since SUDs generally occur early in the illness course, most SUDs will already have arisen by the time that clozapine is considered and used,” Dr. Correll said.

“A similar potential bias exists for long-acting injectables (LAIs), as these have generally also been used late in the treatment algorithm,” he noted.

In terms of the significant reduction of SUD-related hospitalizations observed with clozapine, the “order effect” could also be relevant, Dr. Correll said, because over time, patients are less likely to be nonadherent and hospitalized and clozapine is systematically used later in life than other antipsychotics.

“Why antipsychotic polytherapy came out as the second-best treatment is much less clear. Clearly head-to-head randomized trials are needed to follow up on these interesting and intriguing naturalistic database study data,” said Dr. Correll.

This study was funded by the Finnish Ministry of Social Affairs and Health through the developmental fund for Niuvanniemi Hospital. Dr. Tiihonen and three co-authors have participated in research projects funded by grants from Janssen-Cilag and Eli Lilly to their institution. Dr. Correll reports having been a consultant and/or advisor to or receiving honoraria from many companies. He has also provided expert testimony for Janssen and Otsuka; served on a Data Safety Monitoring Board for Lundbeck, Relmada, Reviva, Rovi, Supernus, and Teva; received royalties from UpToDate; and is a stock option holder of Cardio Diagnostics, Mindpax, LB Pharma, and Quantic.

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

Clozapine or antipsychotic polytherapy appear to be the best approach in reducing the risk for a substance use disorder (SUD) in adults with schizophrenia and for preventing relapse in patients with both diagnoses, results of a real-world study show.

“Our findings are in line with a recent meta-analysis showing superior efficacy of clozapine in schizophrenia and comorbid SUD and other studies pointing toward clozapine’s superiority over other antipsychotics in the treatment of individuals with schizophrenia and comorbid SUD,” the investigators, led by Jari Tiihonen MD, PhD, department of clinical neuroscience, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, write.

Karolinska Institute

Research gap

Research on the effectiveness of pharmacotherapies for schizophrenia and comorbid SUD is “very sparse, and more importantly, non-existent on the prevention of the development of SUDs in patients with schizophrenia,” the researchers note.

To investigate, they analyzed data on more than 45,000 patients with schizophrenia from Finnish and Swedish national registries, with follow-up lasting 22 years in Finland and 11 years in Sweden.

In patients with schizophrenia without SUD, treatment with clozapine was associated with lowest risk for an initial SUD in both Finland (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.20; 95% confidence interval, 0.16-0.24) and Sweden (aHR, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.24-0.50), compared with no use or use of other antipsychotics.

In Finland, aripiprazole was associated with the second lowest risk for an initial SUD (aHR, 0.36; 95% CI, 0.24-0.55) and antipsychotic polytherapy the third lowest risk (aHR, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.42-0.53).

In Sweden, antipsychotic polytherapy was associated with second lowest risk for an initial SUD (aHR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.44-0.66) and olanzapine the third lowest risk (aHR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.53-0.84).

In both countries, the risk for relapse as indicated by psychiatric hospital admission and SUD-related hospital admission were lowest for clozapine, antipsychotic polytherapy and long-acting injectables, the investigators report.
 

Interpret with caution

Reached for comment, Christoph U. Correll, MD, professor of psychiatry and molecular medicine, the Donald and Barbara Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell, Hempstead, New York, urged caution in interpreting the results.

“While the authors are experts in national database analyses and the study was conducted with state-of-the-art methodology, the onset of SUD analyses favoring clozapine are subject to survival bias and order effects,” Dr. Correll said.

“Since clozapine is generally used later in the illness and treatment course, after multiple other antipsychotics have been used, and since SUDs generally occur early in the illness course, most SUDs will already have arisen by the time that clozapine is considered and used,” Dr. Correll said.

“A similar potential bias exists for long-acting injectables (LAIs), as these have generally also been used late in the treatment algorithm,” he noted.

In terms of the significant reduction of SUD-related hospitalizations observed with clozapine, the “order effect” could also be relevant, Dr. Correll said, because over time, patients are less likely to be nonadherent and hospitalized and clozapine is systematically used later in life than other antipsychotics.

“Why antipsychotic polytherapy came out as the second-best treatment is much less clear. Clearly head-to-head randomized trials are needed to follow up on these interesting and intriguing naturalistic database study data,” said Dr. Correll.

This study was funded by the Finnish Ministry of Social Affairs and Health through the developmental fund for Niuvanniemi Hospital. Dr. Tiihonen and three co-authors have participated in research projects funded by grants from Janssen-Cilag and Eli Lilly to their institution. Dr. Correll reports having been a consultant and/or advisor to or receiving honoraria from many companies. He has also provided expert testimony for Janssen and Otsuka; served on a Data Safety Monitoring Board for Lundbeck, Relmada, Reviva, Rovi, Supernus, and Teva; received royalties from UpToDate; and is a stock option holder of Cardio Diagnostics, Mindpax, LB Pharma, and Quantic.

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